House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jan 1993

Mr. Rifkind : If I may be allowed to continue a little longer, I shall happily give way to other hon. Members.

I have already reported to the House the details of the coalition action against Iraqi air defences on 13 and 18 January and paid tribute to the service personnel involved. The House will be aware that the operations in which the RAF participated were undertaken in self-defence, to protect coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone. The right of self- defence is enshrined in international law.

The United Nations Secretary General said on 14 January that air raids against Iraqi air defences on the previous day had a sufficient mandate from the Security Council. The legal position is quite clear. The Government are in no doubt that the actions in which the RAF has participated have been necessary and proportionate to the threat.

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : On the issue of self- defence, is the Secretary of State aware of the comments by the United States Defence Secretary on 5 January to the effect that Iraqi surface-to- air missile systems are to obsolete and clapped out that they pose a greater threat to the Iraqi troops handling them than to the western allies' aircraft, and that that fact is backed up by the 19th edition of "Jane's Weapons Systems" ? Does the Secretary of State still justify the action taken on 17 January ? Was it not an over-reaction on the part of the western allies to Saddam Hussein's sabre rattling, which was an attempt to boost his position in Iraq ?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Lady must realise that the coalition action was taken for two reasons : first, in the days following 5 January Saddam Hussein moved new air missile defences into the southern no-fly zone ; and, secondly, he permitted, indeed required, Iraqi fighter aircraft to penetrate into the air space over the southern no-fly zone. That dual threat to the coalition aircraft policing the no-fly zone made the action necessary in not only our view but that of the UN Secretary-General.

Column 522

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Does the Defence Secretary accept that there is concern among the allies ? The French Government are concerned about the extent to which missile strikes--as opposed to air strikes--to enforce the no-fly zone can be termed to come within the United Nations mandate ? Does he accept that concern and will the United Kingdom Government take any action to clarify the extent of the UN mandate under which we are acting ?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman must be careful before referring to the views of the French Government. On Tuesday this week the French ambassador to the United Nations indicated the full support of that Government for the operations that have taken place, and they were fully involved in the decisions that led to the events in question.

I should like to take this opportunity to update the House on our assessment of the success of the coalition actions against Iraqi air defences. Information that is now available confirms our initial assessment that the actions were highly successful. Severe damage has been inflicted on key targets. Despite the limited nature of the operations, they have significantly degraded the air defence network in southern Iraq. That means that coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, in support of UN Security Council resolution 688, can do so in greater safety, to the benefit of the civilian population below.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Either force--very limited and measured, bearing in mind the danger of civilian casualties--is used when appropriate, or the allies simply decide that Saddam Hussein may break all the provisions of the ceasefire agreement and may be encouraged by the absence of any response from the allies to go further. Is not that the basic dilemma? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is almost certain- -perhaps the word "almost" is not necessary--that, if force had not been used in the first instance, Kuwait would still be under enemy occupation?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman is correct--and not just in regard to what would have happened to Kuwait. If the coalition countries had not responded over the past two weeks, Saddam Hussein's aspirations would not have been satisfied. If he had found that the dispatch of fighter aircraft into the southern and northern no-fly zones and the introduction of new missile defences did not invite a firm and determined reaction from the international community, he would soon have taken further action to reduce the international community's impact. The northern and southern no-fly zones would gradually, but inevitably, have become inoperative. Saddam Hussein would then have started his aggression against Kuwait proper and at some stage the international community would have been required to take action of the sort that we have taken to preserve the independence and integrity of Kuwait.

Opposition Members who have attacked these operations must ask themselves what Saddam Hussein would have had to do to make them recognise the need for firm and decisive action to curb his aggressive instincts. In the past week, it has become clear that, following the firm action that was taken, the international position has been restored. That is something that should be welcomed by all hon. Members.

Column 523

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in all this, there is another "if"? If Switzerland, Germany, France, Russia and this country had not, since 1975, absolutely poured the most sophisticated arms and arms-making equipment into Iraq, the situation might not have turned out as it has. What will now be done about the pouring of arms to people who may well do the same as has been done by Saddam Hussein? Cannot we learn the lesson that something must be done about the exporting of nuclear weaponry in particular? We do not know how attacks on nuclear installations--if there are nuclear installations--would be monitored.

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman is quite right to emphasise that enormous care must be taken with regard to the sale of arms to any country. On the question of the approvals that are required before arms sales are permitted, the United Kingdom has tougher controls than virtually any other country.

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) rose--

Mr. Rifkind : Many hon. Members want to take part in this debate. The more interventions I accept, the less will be the chances of other hon. Members to contribute.

With regard to the three operations that have been mentioned, I have heard a figure of 50 per cent. success being loosely quoted in the media. Such figures are meaningless. A mission that achieves its objectives and brings home all its aircraft and aircrew safely is a success. I should emphasise that military operations are not some sort of video game. Anyone familiar with high-technology equipment knows that it is not simply a matter of pressing a button and destroying the target. Modern bombing missions are carried out at high speed, involving split-second decisions and, of course, real people. In fact, the recent coalition action against Iraqi air defences has been highly successful, and I believe that the Iraqis know it.

In this context, the nation can be rightly proud of the contribution made by the RAF. The RAF Tornado GR1 more than lived up to its reputation as a potent and effective attack weapon system. Using the new TIALD pods, and dropping 1,000 lb laser-guided bombs, four Tornado GR1 were successful in severely damaging the precise air defence and control facilities they attacked, first at Al Amarah and later at An Najaf. This is a remarkable performance by any standards.

I wish to dwell for a moment on the matter of collateral damage, which I know is of concern to the House. The coalition went to great lengths to avoid accidental damage to unintended targets. As I told the House on Monday, when the crew of an RAF Tornado aircraft could not clearly identify its target at An Najaf, weapons were not released, in order to avoid collateral damage. I can think of no clearer illustration of the fact that we do not just say these things for public consumption but do something about it, even if it risks failing to attack the target.

It was therefore with genuine regret that we learnt of the explosion at the al-Rashid hotel on Sunday night, during the United States cruise missile attack on a nuclear-related facility. This was a tragic accident involving the loss of civilian life. However, we should not lose sight of Saddam Hussein's persistent defiance of United Nation's Security Council resolution 687--the mandatory resolution establishing the ceasefire following

Column 524

the Gulf conflict--which led to this attack. He alone must bear the responsibility for not conforming to the will of the international community before force became necessary.

The operations against Iraqi air defences have been a success. They have significantly enhanced the safety of coalition aircraft and ensured the continuation of effective no-fly zones, which provide protection for the civilian population of northern and southern Iraq. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Iraqis have steadily been abandoning their defiance of resolutions over the past week. Their border incursions have ceased and they have removed their police posts from the demilitarised zone on the border with Kuwait. They have also conformed to the requirements of the United Nations for unrestricted flights for United Nations special commission inspectors into Iraq. These are welcome developments, but clearly not the end of the road. It is a matter of great regret that Saddam Hussein could not simply do what the United Nations requires of him without being forced to it.

Once again the international community has thwarted the designs of Saddam Hussein. In the last few years he has seen the collapse of his efforts to annex Kuwait, to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to crush minorities within his own people. Now his open defiance of the United Nations has been confronted and rebuffed again. The Government remain resolute in their determination to ensure that Iraq will comply with all relevent United Nations resolutions and that Saddam Hussein will not again threaten peace and security in the Gulf region. The Royal Air Force will continue to play a key role in putting this policy into practice.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : The Secretary of State has mentioned the question of Saddam Hussein's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Does he recall that in April 1990, when I pressed the Government to increase the number of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, I was told that they would not press for more inspections as Saddam Hussein had signed the international non- proliferation treaty and they had full confidence that he would abide by his international obligations and would not develop nuclear weapons? That was five months before Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait.

Would not it be appropriate today for the Secretary of State to engage in a little act of contrition following the Government's sins of commission and omission? We did not have proper intelligence--I use the word literally-- about what was going on, although the rest of the world seemed to know, and we were supplying Saddam Hussein with a vast number of products that enabled him not only to build his nuclear arsenals but to make chemical and biological weapons.

Mr. Rifkind : I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was successful in predicting Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The entire international community, including the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members, should take account of the experience of the past few years, which has demonstrated that Saddam Hussein's word is of very little value and that we must judge his regime by its deeds rather than by its words. That is precisely why the action that has been taken was necessary.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : With regard to the supply to Saddam Hussein of arms and the means of manufacturing them, the Secretary of State will recall that the inspection teams operating in Iraq discovered a great

Column 525

deal of material relating to suppliers. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman prevail on the United Nations to publish that material so that we may know the identity of the arms exporters in this country who were the friends and allies of Saddam Hussein and the extent of the support that they received from within the ranks of the Government?

Mr. Rifkind : It will be for the United Nations to decide whether to publish any information that it has. In that regard, we are quite happy to abide by its view.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Rifkind : Several hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, and I have had the indulgence of the House long enough.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force. The House will wish to join me in congratulating the force on reaching that landmark and for the great achievements of the past 75 years.

The House will wish to know that the occasion will be marked by a royal review at RAF Marham on 1 April, at which Her Majesty the Queen will present a new Queen's colour to the Royal Air Force. The review will include a full wing parade, a fly-past of some 150 aircraft, exhibitions and a static aircraft display reflecting the past achievements, present activities, and future aspirations of the RAF. Mr. Bernie Grant rose--

Mr. Rifkind : The massive shifts in the world order which we have witnessed over the past few years have thrown up a new strategic situation which requies much greater flexibility and mobility from our forces than ever before. The United Kingdom will continue to require the services to respond--as we have seen in Iraq--to a whole spectrum of unpredictable possible threats and contingencies. It is fitting that, in the 75th anniversary year, we should pay particular tribute to the manner in which the RAF has been able to meet the new challenges it has faced.

RAF aircraft are flying daily sorties over northern and southern Iraq ; they are committed to the NATO and United Nations military efforts in the former Yugoslavia ; and they are playing a valuable role in the humanitarian role in the distribution of aid to the suffering communities in the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia. Nor should the longer-standing commitments in Belize and the Falkland Islands be forgotten.

The RAF is in transition. The restructuring in which we are currently engaged will ensure that the service continues to be able to meet the requirements placed on it. The men and women of the Royal Air Force have shown how admirably they can cope with the most difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to them for their bravery, commitment and professionalism. With well-trained and well-motivated personnel and with modern equipment-- particularly now that the future of Eurofighter 2000 has been assured--I believe that the RAF can look forward with hope and confidence to its next 75 years.

4.51 pm

Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : We are pleased to be having this debate because it gives us an opportunity yet again to register our full support for the Royal Air Force in its efforts over Iraq and elsewhere in the world. As the Secretary of State reminded us, the RAF is deployed

Column 526

throughout the world. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss the way forward in the Gulf, as we believe that we should be discussing not only the recent activities but the ways forward. Having said that, I must stress to the Secretary of State that today's debate is no substitute for a full-scale debate on the RAF. Hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to raise constituency matters relating to the RAF and operational and logistics aspects of the service. I remind the Government that we have not had an RAF debate since 2 May 1991. I trust that, when he replies to the debate, the Foreign Secretary will confirm that, in the 75th year of the RAF, the Government do not want to be discourteous to the RAF by not providing a full-scale debate in the House of Commons. It would be an insult to the RAF and the House if we did not have such a debate. In essence, this debate is concerned with the recent raids involving the RAF over Iraq. That is where the public interest lies and the subject on which we must question the Government. Those raids were about the enforcement of no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq. When those zones were established, they met with almost universal approval. We called for them, we supported them then and we support them now. I pay tribute to the RAF personnel and our allies who have daily patrolled the dangerous skies and whose courage and skill has, for the last 18 months, protected thousands of Shi'ites and Kurds from death and injury.

This is an opportune time to recall why it was necessary to impose those no -fly zones. Saddam Hussein has an atrocious record on human rights. Like most dictators, he has shown the utmost brutality towards minorities and especially against those who disagree with him. He began to use his aircraft to carry out much of that programme of genocide. In the north against the Kurds, he waged chemical warfare in which thousands of innocent men, women and children perished. It is estimated that, in the town of Halabja, 5,000 people lost their lives. In other areas, refugees were gunned down as they tried to flee.

A United Nations official report on the situation in the south speaks of the use of phosphorus and napalm bombs. Reports of chemical warfare were rife. I must add that chemical warfare--indeed, much of the rest of the warfare--was made possible in many instances by equipment supplied by western companies. As the House knows, the British Government have clearly been shown to have treated the United Nations arms embargo against Iraq with a Nelsonian approach, turning a blind eye to breaches.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks of support for the action in Iraq. Does he agree that the comments of CND--the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament--of which he was a member for five years, are regrettable, particularly the remark that the course of action was regrettable? Will he confirm that he resigned from CND in the light of those remarks?

Dr. Clark : I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Lady [ Hon. Members :-- "Answer."] She wastes the time of the House and squeezes out other hon. Members who wish to make a contribution to the debate. I do not think my position in the debate over the issues in Iraq is to be doubted.

Column 527

Because Saddam Hussein waged wanton genocide, the United Nations was forced to pass resolution 688 demanding that he stop persecuting minorities in Iraq. Later, to ensure that that resolution was implemented, no-fly zones were imposed, a move which at the time met with universal support. I have heard it suggested that they were illegal. No less a person than the United Nations Secretary-General gave approval for their establishment in August 1992 and said that the Security Council had given the allies the necessary mandate. That was the position then and I take the view that, if it was, and is, good enough for the United Nations Secretary-General, it is good enough for me. It goes without saying that unless those no-fly zones were enforced, they were unlikely to be of any use. Thus, allied aircraft have been deployed to ensure that no Iraqi aircraft can fly in those zones and perpetrate their dreadful crimes on the Kurds and the Shi'ites.

When Saddam Hussein began to install ground-to-air missiles and their associated radars in the no-fly zones--occasionally they locked on to patrolling allied aircraft--he had only one object in mind. That was to deter the patrolling aircraft and make nonsense of the no-fly zones. That could not be tolerated. In effect, he was threatening not only the lives of the pilots but the lives of thousands of innocent people in the north and south of Iraq.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a United States Air Force Wild Weasel aircraft today fired a missile at an Iraqi battery which had directed its laser beam against a French Mirage aircraft? Such a provocative act is further evidence that we cannot place any validity on statements made by Iraq.

Dr. Clark : I was aware of that, having heard about it on the 4 o'clock BBC world news. I gather that further details of the incident are awaited. It seems that the Iraqis locked on to an allied aircraft.

Mr. Winnick : Would my hon. Friend agree that we should be deeply concerned, whatever side we take, about civilian casualties? We should not otherwise be in this House, and certainly not on the Labour Benches. The last person to give lectures about casualties is the criminal dictator in Iraq who is not only responsible for what my hon. Friend has been describing but it should also be remembered that he initiated that eight years war with his neighbouring country, a war which cost the lives of tens of thousands of people on both sides and no gain was made. That is apart from the gassing of his own people and all the other crimes and atrocities that this evil tyrant has committed.

Dr. Clark : I accept and acknowledge the sincerity of my hon. Friend who feels very strongly about this and I thought he made his point very well. He reinforced the argument I was trying to deploy, that this man has murdered thousands upon thousands of his own citizens and we must never forget that. Even now there are British citizens languishing in the gaols of Iraq. I think of Michael Wainwright, from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), and I think of Paul Ride from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). They are languishing in those gaols for no other reason than that they

Column 528

inadvertently crossed the border. They committed no crimes, yet we do not know in what conditions they are being held. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary winds up he will be able to give us some more information about that.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) : May I return to the point which the hon. Member made about the safety of our own aircrews? He will no doubt have read that in the north, a definite ambush was set up and MiG fighters were deployed to try and draw our fighters into an ambush so that those ground-to-air missiles could hit them. Does that not emphasise the fact, which if I may say so has not been emphasised from his own Benches, that we have to do something, if only for the safety of our own people, apart from all the points that he has been making.

Dr. Clark : I hoped that I had made the point that that is basically what it is all about and it was because of that that it was right to target purely military targets, not civilian targets and the bombing raids were necessary and justified, if we were going to enforce the no-fly zones. There have been questions as to whether the actions--the western reaction of the past week--were in accord with United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Bernie Grant : As the Secretary of State would not answer my question and my hon. Friend appears to be a friend of the Secretary of State, perhaps he will answer my question. I specifically asked the Secretary of State last Wednesday about targeting and he gave the impression then that all the targets would be in the no-fly zones. We now learn that the British Government supported the Americans when they launched the cruise missiles at Baghdad, which is outside the no-fly zone. Could my hon. Friend explain why there has been this change of mind by the Secretary of State and has the Secretary of State misled Parliament in what he said last Wednesday?

Dr. Clark : My hon. Friend was less worthy than he normally is in his initial comment, but I honestly cannot say what the Secretary of State thinks. His mind is beyond himself, let alone me. I cannot interpret that.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, Leith) : I accept that my hon. Friend cannot speak for the Secretary of State, but can he give his own opinion and will he take this opportunity to condemn the American cruise missile attack on Baghdad, which clearly had nothing to do with the defence of the no-fly zones?

Dr. Clark : Yes. We have made clear our position with regard to the justification for those raids. We have said that, if they are in accord with United Nations resolutions, if they are within international law and within the level of proportionality, they are justified. In the case of the American raid we say clearly, and said immediately after the raid, that enough was enough of that sort of raid and that the whole issue should be referred back to the United Nations. That was our position on Monday. It is our position now and I hope that that is clear.

If I might continue about the legality of these raids. The custodian of those United Nations resolutions is the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros Ghali. He has made the position clear about the legality of the no-fly zones. He repeated the position about the latest raid last week and said :

"The raid was carried out in accordance with a mandate from the Security Council under resolution 678, and the

Column 529

motive for the raid was Iraq's violation of resolution 687, which concerns the cease-fire. As the Secretary General of the United Nations, I can tell you that the action taken was in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council and the Charter of the United Nations."

That is pretty clear to me. It is not like the Secretary of State's mind. We understand it clearly. We are therefore completely satisfied that the raids in which we were involved were covered by the United Nations mandate and were in accord with international law. As such, they have our full support, but we also feel that it is now appropriate to pose the question as to which is the best way forward. Where do we go to? One thing is clear : no matter how important this affair is--and it is important--we must not allow Saddam Hussein to dominate the world political stage. He is not the most important person in the world, and there are considerable problems elsewhere. I think of Cambodia, Bosnia, Somalia, and of Mozambique, and I could go on. There are other problems. We must not get this out of proportion.

We all know that Saddam Hussein is a chancer as well as a bully. Of course he resented the ceasefire terms imposed on him by the United Nations and he thought he had a chance. He saw a window of opportunity in which he could rid himself of some of those obligations. He thought that Europe was preoccupied with the Bosnian situation. He knew that the Americans had 30,000 troops trying to provide relief aid in Somalia. They had their hands full. He looked at the presidential changeover period in the United States and thought that that would blur decision-making so he took a chance. He thought it was an opportunity to ease some of the burdens of the United Nations resolutions and he has been shown in no uncertain terms that he cannot do so.

His actions and the United Nations' response have sparked a debate which raises many pertinent questions, not least of which is how the United Nations enforces resolutions in the new world order, following the end of the super-power confrontation.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Will my hon. Friend confirm that the incursions that took place before these raids and were used as justification for them, took place in land that was clearly in Iraq before the commencement of the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf war? Will he also say how the Iraqi regime was to negotiate about the borders when those in the west were not interested in negotiating with them about that?

Dr. Clark : I can confirm that what my hon. Friend has said is a fact. That land used to be Iraqi. It was declared a demilitarised zone until last Friday when it became part of Kuwait. That is my understanding of the situation. He is right. I am not justifying our attacks within the no-fly zone on the incursions into Kuwait, serious as they were, but justifying trying to save the lives of thousands of Shias and Kurds who would suffer if those no-fly zones were lost.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : Is my hon. Friend aware that the radio of the Voice of the Kurds which broadcasts from the organisation, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is the socialist party within Kurdistan which has 49 per cent. of support within the democratically elected Kurdish Parliament, elected last year, has called on the Iraqi people and Iraqi army to rise up and overthrow Saddam and his brutal dictatorship? Is he also aware that despite some calls from some quarters in the Arab world against this action, there are large

Column 530

numbers of people including the Iraqi democratic opposition who believe that it is time that the United Nations and the international community started to give its aid and assistance to that democratic opposition? The humanitarian aid should no longer go through Saddam's regime : it should go directly to those who need it so that Saddam and his forces are not reinforced by it.

Dr. Clark : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it accords with the information that I have been receiving over the past 24 hours. I have been on the telephone to people connected with the Iraqi National Congress--the official opposition forum for Iraq, and other groups who have been involved with the Kurds and the Shias and Iraqi opposition in general. They told me, "The response was appropriate." That was their reaction to the bombings.

On Monday, I said in the House that after three raids, it was perhaps time to take stock of the situation. I felt it appropriate for the matter to be referred back to the Security Council, not with a view to weakening our resolve or stance against Saddam Hussein but to reassess what had been achieved and to develop a more long-term and coherent strategy of how he could be forced to comply with UN resolutions. We were delighted when that course was followed but disappointed that the Government did not take more of a lead. Of necessity, the Security Council discussion on Tuesday was somewhat restricted in its terms, and we still feel that a further discussion would be useful. A discussion in the Security Council would have the advantage not only of taking stock, but would allow us to maximise support in the coalition ranged against Saddam Hussein. We felt that any misunderstanding could lead to disagreements with our Arab friends and allies. That must be avoided if our longer-term objectives are to be achieved in the middle east.

The Gulf affair raises the whole prickly issue of how United Nations resolutions are to be enforced. As we enter a new era without the two super powers and their client states there is clearly a new enhanced role for the UN, but the UN must be more than a mere debating chamber. Its resolutions need to be enforced. Our experience of the League of Nations shows that the will of the international community needs to be enforced and not merely expressed. What may be appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another. Different situations demand different solutions. We need flexibility and, of course, the cardinal rule must be that force must always be the weapon of last resort.

In the past individual nations or groups of nations have taken on the responsibility to ensure that United Nations resolutions were enforced. Last week the United States, Britain and France, with the backing of Russia, did that. They had little option if Saddam Hussein was not to continue to flout vital resolutions. We should remember that he had installed missiles in a no-fly zone, and invaded the Kuwait border/demilitarised zone and taken missiles. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that that was not in accord with the United Nations resolution.

He also refused permission for United Nations weapons inspectors to fly in and perform their task. That task is vital to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not continue to build up his chemical and nuclear warfare capacity. That task had to be enforced. However, we accept that the sensitivities of some of our middle east

Column 531

allies were affected. That can be overcome in the longer term by the United Nations being given the means to work through other regional groups as was envisaged in chapter 8 of the United Nations charter.

In the new world order, the United Nations must be modernised to accommodate its burgeoning peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. I am always surprised by the number of places in which the United Nations is trying to keep the peace, to keep warring groups apart and, sometimes, to make peace. It is appropriate to consider rejuvenating the military staff committee. We should debate the establishment of a joint military planning group within the United Nations.

There is an urgent and immediate need for a high technology communications unit in the United Nations to help co-ordinate military operations. Military units operating under the United Nations should be able to communicate as effectively with the the United Nations as with their national Governments. Without such facilities, it will be difficult for forces to continue to operate effectively under the aegis of the United Nations. The

Secretary-General has produced a report on that and other issues, and I hope that the Government will press for some reform along those lines.

The United Nations must pursue non-military means with even more vigour, especially in relation to their use in Iraq. Should not we consider a resolution spelling out that if Iraq had a Government who would abide by the ceasefire conditions, did not persecute their minorities and accepted all the pertinent United Nations resolutions the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations would be lifted, making life much more tolerable for the ordinary people of Iraq with whom we have no quarrel?

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?

Dr. Clark : No. I should like to continue.

Over the past few weeks, many young men in the RAF and their colleagues in allied air forces risked their lives in raids against Saddam Hussein. Let us not forget that. They took no pleasure in that, but they did it in an attempt to force him to comply with UN resolutions. They were spelling out that he could not flout the wish of the rest of the world. Thankfully, they all came back and we have edged away from the immediate prospect of out-and -out hostilities into which we seemed to be drifting on Monday. The position is now much more hopeful.

Saddam Hussein--if I dare say it--has declared a ceasefire ; President Bush has been replaced by President Clinton ; and the United Nations inspectors are being allowed back into Iraq on UN terms. That is a much more hopeful scenario than the one that prevailed seven days ago.

Mr. Brazier rose --

Mr. Cormack rose --

Dr. Clark : No, I will not give way.

We must build on those positive aspects. We must work within the UN to make it more effective in carrying out its resolutions. While we are doing that we must tell Saddam Hussein that we will not tolerate his persecution of his minorities or his threats to his neighbours. It must be made

Column 532

absolutely clear that he cannot renege on the ceasefire terms and that United Nations resolutions will not be broken with impunity. 5.17 pm

Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup) : I fully associate myself with what the Secretary of State for Defence said about Her Majesty's Royal Air Force. As one who benefited greatly from the support of the Royal Air Force during the tramp across Europe in the second world war, I appreciate it as much as anybody.

I should like to raise two issues in relation to the far east. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) about seeking a way forward, because as far as I can see no one is doing that. People are still dwelling in the past. In the past few days the situation appeared to deteriorate into a personal vendetta between the American president and Saddam Hussein. One must try to find a solution.

I also agree with the hon. Member for South Shields about the Secretary- General's views on the necessity for a proper communications system. The previous Secretary-General told me that his greatest regret was that he saw no signs beforehand of the Iraqi attack on Kuwait--that it was impossile for him to do so because no satellites or intelligence services were at his disposal and the powers did not give him any information about their expectations in international affairs, in respect of conflicts between nations. Obviously that should be remedied as quickly as possible. One understands the attacks on President Saddam Hussein perfectly well. He was attacked because he started the war against Iran, but one must remember that in that respect he was supported by the whole Arab world, which regarded Iran as its greatest threat, and by a large part of the western world--which took the same view and proceeded to supply President Saddam Hussein with all the weaponry of war necessary for his purpose. In condemning President Saddam Hussein for the damage that he has brought upon his people, one must remember also what happened in Iran under the last regime and the destruction that it brought to the people of that country. Both are equally worthy of condemnation.

As to the future, with the change in the American presidency we have reached the stage where the United nations Secretary-General can himself be called in to deal with the hopeful signs mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, and identify whether there is a genuine policy behind them or whether they were made purely for propaganda purposes. The matter can no longer be dealt with by the four powers, who are already beginning to break up. The United Nations is really in the hands of the four powers mentioned today. That cannot continue if we are to find a way forward, because they are all so committed to their past. That applies to our own Government as well.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is now prepared to step back and to take an entirely fresh look at how the situation can be dealt with in the future. I note that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has a grin on his face, as he so often has at any suggestion of that kind. His views would carry a little more weight if he told Israel to implement the United Nations recommendations and suggested that force be used against Israel to get it out

Column 533

of the occupied territories and that Israel take back the 400 helpless people who, in the cold of winter, it threw into territory that it does not occupy. If the hon. Gentleman did that, I might pay some attention to his views.

Mr. Winnick : The right hon. Gentleman is right to attack Israel's action and the people whom he mentioned should never have been deported. That was not in accordance with international law and I cannot disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. However, does he recall his earlier speeches, and in particular an article of his that was published in The Independent just before Christmas 1990, in which he defended and justified Saddam Hussein's position towards Kuwait, and to which I replied at the time?

Before I take any lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about Israel or the middle east, I remind him that when he was Government Chief Whip at the time of the Suez crisis, I and many other Members of Parliament demonstrated against British aggression in Egypt, which--as we knew at the time--was done in collusion with France and Israel. Instead of resigning, as Edward Boyle and Anthony Nutting did, the right hon. Gentleman kept himself in government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is outside the scope of the debate.

Sir Edward Heath : The hon. Gentleman did not deal with my point that he is not prepared to say that force should be used against Israel to make it carry out United Nations recommendations. He never--not for a moment--deals with that point.

There is also a lesson to be learnt from Suez. Today, Governments still expect to get rid of President Saddam Hussein. I never justified his conduct, but I explained how he had made such a complete misjudgment because of the support he previously received from the Arab and the western world--and, as we are now learning, right up to the last minute from President Bush and the American ambassador. However, that did not justify his actions in any way. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned 1956. Afterwards, everyone said that the thing to do was to get rid of Abdel Nasser. We never did ; he was there for another 14 years and died of a heart attack. For the powers to say, "We must get rid of President Saddam Hussein," does no more than give him additional publicity and strengthen his country. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had acknowledged that in his speech.

Furthermore, recent action has alienated us from the rest of the Arab world.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) indicated dissent .

Sir Edward Heath : There is no use my right hon. Friend shaking his head. He is just not in with the Arab world. I did my best to get him there when he was one of my Private Secretaries. I took him around the Gulf with me, but it will take more than that to get him to understand that recent action has alienated a large part of the Arab world. That alienation lessens our influence and damages our economic and trade position with the Arab world. Meanwhile, the rest of the European countries are getting on with it and

Next Section

Home Page