| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support. In response to his last point, it should be understood in all corners that there is no sanction against the import of food or medicines by Saddam Hussein. The international community has at no stage sought to stand in the way of those essential humanitarian supplies. On the contrary, the international community has a better record in trying to provide the oil which can pay for them than Saddam Hussein.
Of course, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be clear objectives for any use of force. He would not expect me to say what they are, and he will understand that they are kept under close review.
As for the Security Council resolution, I felt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a bit hard in accusing us of leaking it when we formally made clear what we were doing. There are Security Council resolution initiatives by Britain every week, and it would not be normal to report them in advance to the House on every occasion. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the purpose of the new resolution. He is quite right to say that resolution 687 and the successor resolutions repeatedly condemned the Iraqi violations of the terms on which the Gulf war ended. He is absolutely right to say that there is plenty of authority in those resolutions for pressure to be put on Saddam Hussein.
However, it is very important that it is clearly seen that it is not just the United States or not just Britain, or not even just the permanent five that are concerned about Saddam Hussein's flouting of those resolutions; it is important that the whole of the Security Council makes it clear that it condemns the present impasse and the obstruction of the UN monitors. It must be understood not only that Saddam Hussein poses an immediate and very serious threat to countries in his region, but that if the Security Council resolutions cannot be enforced, the whole authority of the Security Council is undermined.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is it not clear that if, as we all hope, Saddam Hussein backs down over weapons inspections, it will be only because of the threat of military force? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein, the murderous dictator, has never backed down without the threat or deployment of military force? In respect of critics in the House, is it not clear that, had we listened to them at the time, the liberation of Kuwait would never have taken place in 1991? Should we not bear that in mind when we are denounced as warmongers?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that if, as he rightly said, we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, who were the very first victims of that murderous regime, it is absolutely essential that any military action should concentrate first and foremost on the weapons of mass destruction and that, if possible, the people of Iraq should not become the victims of bombing? Although military action can provide no guarantees, it is important that the United States, ourselves and others involved in such action should bear it in mind not only that is military action possible, but that there may well be a need for propaganda campaigns to demonstrate that the international community is acting for one reason alone, as stated by my right hon. Friend: to destroy the weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that Saddam Hussein uses fear and force quite explicitly as a political weapon. It is therefore important that we make sure that he understands that we are prepared to go all the way, if necessary, in enforcing his compliance with Security Council resolutions. The paradox is that if we want a diplomatic solution, we have to demonstrate that we are prepared to use military force. Those who counsel against military force, but want a diplomatic solution, make it more difficult to obtain by undermining the credibility and possibility of military force.
Finally, I echo what my hon. Friend said about the oppression of the Iraqi people. Nobody has done more to increase their suffering than Saddam Hussein. As we
consider the importance of dismantling his chemical and biological weapons, we should remember that this year, it will be 10 years to the year since Saddam Hussein used nerve gas against his own people in Halabja, and that a leader who is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people will be prepared to use them against others.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that there is a wide consensus that those who cheat on international law will not and must not prosper? Does he agree that every possible diplomatic avenue must be explored strenuously and with expedition to secure agreement, particularly with Mr. Primakov and Mr. Vedrine, so that all the international community is moving in the same direction? Will he continue--as far as is consistent with military security--to make clear the full horror and scope of the terrifying destructive capacity of the aggregation of weapons of mass destruction on which Iraq has embarked? Finally, in extremis, does he recognise that Britain must not flinch from joining the international community in taking effective but proportionate action? If he does, he will have our support, but in turn he must make clear the political objectives of such action and the end result that would be desired.
Mr. Cook:
Let me respond straight away to the hon. Gentleman's final question. The objective of any action would be to achieve compliance with the Security Council resolutions. That compliance is easily measured by unconditional and unrestricted access to the sites that UNSCOM wishes to visit. The reason why we must achieve that unconditional and unrestricted access is precisely to prevent Saddam Hussein from retaining the capacity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Currently, he has 17 tonnes of growth media for biological weapons agents. He cannot be allowed to retain that capacity. We must find the material and destroy it, as the UNSCOM team has done on other occasions.
Of course, we shall continue to have close dialogue with Russia and France on the issue. They both share our objective of making sure that UNSCOM is able to operate effectively. Nothing would do more to improve our chances of getting Saddam Hussein to back down than confronting him with the unity of the permanent five.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
What happens when a bomb hits 17 tonnes of biological agents? What happens to the spores when a bomb hits an anthrax installation?
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend raises a serious issue which will be addressed in the targeting plans. I assure him that if military force is used, any civilian damage or threat will be reduced as much as is within our power.
Mr. Dalyell:
Will they be targeted?
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend must not suggest that we are planning that planes will target the dumps that he describes. There is a lot of technology required for chemical and biological weapons that does not necessarily require the agents. My hon. Friend must accept the logic of his question, which admits that Saddam Hussein possesses such weapons. My hon. Friend was among those who condemned Saddam Hussein when he used
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon):
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while the Conservatives accept the Government's support for the Americans, the issue goes further than that? There is a great need to keep the same alliance with the Arab nations surrounding Iraq that we have had before. Does he realise that one of the major criticisms that holds back certain Arab opinion is that we appear to have two voices--one against Iraq and another against Israel? If we were seen to be pursuing the United Nations Security Council resolutions against Israel, it might be much easier for the Americans and our Government to maintain the alliance that we want. Many Arab countries understand even better than we do the dastardliness of the Hussein regime.
Mr. Cook:
The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. I recognise the basis of his concern. We are trying to achieve the maximum understanding and support in the Arab world for our policy towards Saddam Hussein. I hope to be in contact with some of those countries later this week. The right hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that there is a perceived link between the two issues in some Arab capitals. We have repeatedly and robustly criticised the Government of Israel for their obstruction of the middle east peace process. We have called on them repeatedly to refrain from gestures that obstruct that process, such as the expansion of settlements, and to carry out a realistic and acceptable further redeployment that would put the peace process back on the road. We shall continue to do everything that we can to remove those obstructions to the middle east peace process. I tell every Arab leader whom I meet that they are more at risk than anyone from Saddam Hussein's ambitions and are on the front line from the chemical and biological weapons if he is allowed to retain them.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Arab countries understand better than any others the difference between the noxious and loathsome policies of the Israeli Government and the internationally aggressive and dangerous policies of Saddam Hussein? Does he further accept that it is strange that an hon. Friend should intervene to say that we must not attack Saddam Hussein because he is so dangerous that we dare not? Will he pay no attention to those who scurried off seven years ago to truckle favour with Saddam Hussein when he was occupying Kuwait and holding British citizens hostage?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |