| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is the fourth or fifth noble Lord to mention the fact that Saddam used gas—a chemical weapon—against his own people. That was, of course, beyond any kind of redemption, and we all condemn it. However, our Government's position on that is not all that good either. We did not complain about it at the time—1988—when we thought that Saddam was more on our side. Further back, we used chemical weapons against Kurdish tribespeople in northern Iraq in 1928. We should be careful about condemning what happened too wholeheartedly.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I was trying to concentrate on matters that are up to date, not matters from some time ago that are now, probably, irrelevant to the debate.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for introducing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Our discussion takes place at a time when international concern about Iraq's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction is rising and it coincides with renewed calls by the United Nations for Iraqi compliance with its disarmament and monitoring obligations. Many points were raised this afternoon, but I shall concentrate on the subject of the debate, the development of weapons of mass destruction and the case for resuming the activities of the UN inspectors in Iraq.
Last Sunday, in Texas, the Prime Minister set out succinctly the United Kingdom's objective. He said that Saddam Hussein,
- "has to let the inspectors back in, anyone, any time, any place the international community demands".
Iraq poses a real, unique threat to the security of the Gulf region and the rest of the world. Saddam Hussein can lay claim to a grotesque distinction among the world's dictators. As the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Lyell, said, his is the only regime to have used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and neighbours. I must answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, by saying that, once Saddam had the capability, the intent and the actuality were horribly demonstrated—as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, reminded us—at Halabja, where 5,000 died, elsewhere in Kurdistan and in Iran, to say nothing of the invasion of Kuwait, although he did not use his weapons of mass destruction there.
Iraq now possesses WMD that it concealed from United Nations weapons inspectors throughout the 1990s. Not only does that contravene United Nations disarmament and monitoring obligations, it breaches the spirit and the letter of some of the world's most important arms control agreements.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us, the United Nations Special Commission was, between 1991 and 1998, able to identify, locate and destroy significant elements of Iraq's WMD programme, despite the almost total lack of co-operation from the Iraqi authorities. However, a final report submitted by the chairman of the United Nations Special Commission in December 1998 stated that UNSCOM had continuing concerns about the declarations made by Iraq.
The report showed that United Nations inspectors had been unable to account for large quantities of documents, materials and equipment relating to Iraq's chemical, biological and ballistic missile programmes. The gaping holes in the Iraqi inventory are a great cause for concern. UNSCOM was unable to account for thousands of tonnes of precursor materials used in the production of chemical weapons, hundreds of tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of VX nerve agent and tens of thousands of chemical weapons munitions. UNSCOM was also unable to account for a significant quantity of long-range missiles, a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, referred. Those are matters of real concern to the international community; the materials that UNSCOM was unable to account for form the raw material for horrific capabilities that threaten the security of the entire region.
One of the most bizarre suggestions made in recent years was that UNSCOM was merely the tool of the West and that its conclusions merely reflected thinking in London and Washington. Not only is that a slight on the reputation of UNSCOM's inspectors, it ignores the conclusions of distinguished arms control experts world-wide. I remind my noble friend Lord Rea that
the UNSCOM executive chairman, Richard Butler, made it clear that he always instructed that all UNSCOM activities be carried out strictly in pursuit of its disarmament mandate and not to the benefit of any individual state. I heard what my noble friend said about Mr Scott Ritter, who worked for UNSCOM. I remind my noble friend that, at the time, Mr Ritter consistently reported Iraqi concealment and conceit. As his then boss, Richard Butler, has pointed out, everything that Mr Ritter has said since then contradicts what he told Mr Butler at the time about Iraqi disarmament.In 1999, a United Nations panel of 22 independent disarmament experts confirmed UNSCOM's findings. That reinforces my point. They concluded that serious gaps remained in Iraq's declarations on chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. We have no reason to question their conclusions or to question UNSCOM's integrity.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise for asking the Minister to give way, but it is vitally important that we know what Iraq actually has and what evidence there is. If we are persuaded by that, those of us who doubt will give the Government a fair wind. However, we must be persuaded that Iraq has a certain number of missiles and that it will use them.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if the noble Earl had contained himself a moment or two longer, he would have heard my next sentence, which was to be, "I now turn to the developments in Iraq's programmes since the withdrawal of the inspectors in 1998".
Based on the Iraqi regime's track record of deceit in the period between 1991 and 1998—something about which there cannot be much doubt—it would be naive to take Iraqi assertions of a clean bill of health at face value. Despite the difficulties in forming an accurate picture of developments in the absence of UN weapons inspectors, all the available evidence points to a concerted effort by Saddam Hussein to revive his weapons programmes. For the past three years, Iraq has rejected the international community's demand for a resumption of inspections. We judge that Saddam Hussein has used that three-year period to pursue his weapons of mass destruction ambitions unconstrained by any inspectors.
There are now several areas of major concern. For example, since 1998, many of the facilities damaged by the United Kingdom and the United States military strikes during Operation Desert Fox have been repaired. Iraq is persisting with its chemical and biological weapons programmes, and is developing missiles capable of delivering such weapons not only to Iraq's immediate neighbours but to targets well beyond. There is also recent evidence of an increased effort to procure nuclear technology, and research and development on the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme has restarted. Remember, without United Nations controls, Saddam Hussein would have a nuclear weapon by now.
Therefore, we strongly suspect that Iraq still has large stocks of mustard gas, VX, sarin and aflatoxin. We are all very familiar with the devastating effects of mustard gas, which was widely used in the killing fields of Flanders during the First World War. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, sarin and, even more so, aflatoxin are phenomenally potent substances. A single teaspoon of sarin, carefully deployed, has the capacity to kill tens of thousands of people. We assess that Iraq has substantial stocks of that deadly substance. Even the briefest exposure to aflatoxin is almost invariably fatal.
Iraq has the technical expertise to incorporate those deadly substances into its weapons systems: into artillery shells; into free-fall bombs; and possible even into warheads for use with its ballistic missiles. UNSCOM inspectors found evidence of the presence of chemical agents in shell fragments in Iraq during their inspections in the 1990s.
The question of a delivery system was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale. Iraq still possesses missiles with the capability of striking well beyond its own borders. We are sure that Saddam Hussein is working on the development of longer-range missiles which go beyond the 150-kilometre limit prescribed by the United Nations. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, rightly said, that gives him the potential capability to target population centres in countries of the region with chemical and biological warheads.
Finally, we do not judge that Iraq currently has a nuclear weapon. We believe that it could acquire such a device within five years if sanctions were lifted. That timeframe would shorten considerably were Iraq to acquire sufficient fissile material from an external source. That is a deeply disturbing picture.
Therefore, as many of your Lordships have acknowledged, the case for a resumption of weapons inspections could not be clearer. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 offers Iraq a clear route out of sanctions in return for co-operation with weapons inspectors. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, reminded us, Iraq has refused to accept the key terms of UNSCR 1284.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benchie, said that we have to find a way through this. The first step must be for Iraq to allow the United Nations weapons inspectors unrestricted and unconditional access to all sites which the United Nations believes are being used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that that is a demand which comes from all members of the Security Council, all members of the European Union, and all Iraq's neighbours. That is a subject on which all are agreed. It is not just the United States and the United Kingdom, but all those key partners.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we in the United Kingdom remain at the forefront of the efforts to introduce new arrangements which focus UN sanctions on Iraq's attempts to obtain weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that we hope that the Security Council
will be putting these into place by the end of May. Yes, the negotiations with our friends in Russia have gone well, with much thanks to the abilities of Sir Jeremy Greenstock who has worked so effectively and tirelessly on that issue.Once implemented, those proposals will mean no sanctions on ordinary imports, only controls on military and, of course, weapons of mass destruction-related items. That will step up pressure on the Iraqi regime by showing once and for all that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people and that Saddam Hussein alone remains responsible for their suffering.
At this point I must address some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Iraq has cut its spending on health by more than 50 per cent—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page