House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Feb 1998 (pt 19)

"Does the House have the clear, unambiguous undertaking that, before military action is taken, we will return to the Security Council of the United Nations for its clear, unambiguous endorsement of that military action?"

The Foreign Secretary replied:

"A large number of diplomats in the Foreign Office have been working towards precisely that objective for several days. We hope to table the resolution in New York this week and I hope that the resolution will gain the support of the Security Council, so I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance."--[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 149.]

In the Queen's counsel opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), that is a watertight undertaking. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether that is still the position.

On 12 February 1998, in column 561 of Hansard, I asked for an assessment of the situation between Iran and Iraq and about the story in that day's edition of The Times. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, in October, my wife and I went on holiday to Iran on--I hasten to say--a paid-for bus tour. In Tehran, in Tabriz, in Kashan, in Hamadan, in Yazd, in Shiraz and in Isfahan, one sees war memorials of the type that one would see in many villages and towns in Britain. They are war memorials of the quite appalling Iran-Iraq war, in which the Iranians lost the kind of casualties that we lost in the first world war.

The truth is that the Iranian people loathe Saddam Hussein. Yet it was the view of all the people we met, and certainly the official view of the Iranian Government, that they are absolutely against any type of proposed British-American air strike against Iraq.

What discussions have the Government had with the Government of Iran? After all, Iran and Iraq are neighbours, and supposedly one of the objects in taking action would be to prevent any attack--either with biological or chemical weapons, or with other nasty weapons--that Saddam Hussein could make against his neighbours.

It was on 24 July 1968 that I had the misfortune--I think that I was the last hon. Member to have had such a misfortune, which is duly recorded in columns 587 to 666 of the Hansard of that date--to be called to the Bar of the House, with Mr. Speaker King putting his black cap on, because of my talking too freely to the late Lawrence Marks about chemical and biological weapons at a Select Committee visit to Porton. So I have had over 30 years of intense interest in the problems of chemical and biological weapons.

I should therefore like to go through a letter that has been written both to the Defence Secretary and to the Foreign Secretary--about which I rang his office this morning--from a man whom I have known for over 35 years: Stephen Rose, of the department of biology in the Open university and director of the brain

13 Feb 1998 : Column 739

and behaviour research group. He says to my right hon. Friends that he is writing as someone

"with more than 25 years of direct personal and professional experience of the use of chemical weapons in general, and by Saddam Hussein against Iran and the Kurds in particular, to try to impress upon you the enormous potential genocidic hazard of your declared intentions to attempt to destroy the Iraqi"--

chemical, biological and nuclear--

"capability by sanctioning bombing."

Professor Rose says that he does not deny the need to attempt to enforce United Nations sanctions. Neither does he deny the evidence that the Iraqi regime is manufacturing and has putative stockpiles of those agents. He continues:

"But your military advisers will surely have pointed out to you that bombing such stockpiles will not destroy more than a fraction of the agents. Most will be dispersed into the air, much as was the case during the last Gulf War and in the attempt to destroy the Iraqi stockpiles subsequently. You will be aware of the claim that Gulf War syndrome was caused at least in part by low level exposure to such released agents. You must also know of the difficulties that the US has experienced in safely destroying its own stockpiles by incineration.

So if the bombing is effective we are faced with the inevitable uncontrolled release of large quantities of lethal agents, including presumably nerve and mustard gas, as well as anthrax and radioactive materials. These agents will drift over significant areas of Iraq, resulting in further illness and death amongst its already impoverished citizenry, and will not stop at Iraq's borders, with potential but incalculable danger to citizens of neighbouring friendly states. The result will be that by a sort of dreadful collusion with Saddam, the US and UK governments will be directly contributing to genocide.

Whatever the logic of threatening military action to back up diplomatic pressure, its use in this context can only be disastrous, increasing innocent people's misery, bringing no obvious political gains, and casting a lasting shadow over the UK's claims to be embarking on an ethical foreign policy. I urge you, even at this late stage, to accept a political compromise, even if imperfect, rather than take this doom-laden step."

I would ask for some comment on Professor Rose's analysis.

I shall address myself to the Foreign Secretary and then to the Prime Minister; but first to the Foreign Secretary. I shall read out a resolution drafted not by me--I was slightly late for the meeting, having listened to two former Secretary-Generals of the United Nations, Boutros-Ghali and Perez de Cuellar, explaining that they believe that the proposed action was unlawful--but by Deputy Provost Councillor Allister Mackie, chairman of the Linlithgow constituency Labour party, and the Deputy Provost of the area of West Lothian which the Foreign Secretary and I represent.

The resolution reads as follows:

"That Linlithgow Constituency Party of the Labour Party views with dismay the threats and statements made by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, in relation to the British Government's policies towards Iraq.

Although opposed to Hussein's Regime in Iraq, this CLP believes that Britain's and the world's interests would not be better served by a war of aggression on the part of the American and British Governments, without unambiguous world support.

Further, we are of the view that, taking into account the Government's proposals to reduce financial support to One Parent Families, introducing tuition charges to students, the proposals to reduce payments to disabled persons, and the continuing pressure on local Government to reduce levels of service, due to lack of adequate financing of local Government, the finances of the

13 Feb 1998 : Column 740

UK could be put to better use than waging war on an innocent people, whose sole criticism is that they were governed by an unacceptable leader.

Thus we call upon the 2 above-named Government Ministers to consider if they are pursuing personal agendas rather than the interests of the people of the UK, who they were duly elected and appointed to serve.

It is the view of the Members of this CLP that their conduct in relation to this matter is irrational and indeed illegal, and therefore we call upon Mr. Blair and Mr. Cook to reconsider with urgency further pursuit of their war-inducing threats and statements.

In particular, we call on the Government, in view of the stated doubts of two former UN General Secretaries and several international lawyers to make public the legal basis on which military action would be taken."

I had the opportunity when he kindly saw me for some 25 minutes to put into the hands of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the legal opinion of Mr. Marc Weller, an international lawyer at the centre of international studies in the university of Cambridge--supported by other international lawyers whose names I have given to Downing street.

For 21 years, I had the privilege of representing the people of Broxburn and Uphall. I do not think that they want their present representative, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, prancing around the middle east trying to drum up support for allowing the British to use bases from which to launch weapons of awesome destruction. I not only think, but know, that some of their representatives and former representatives are as dismayed as I am at my right hon. Friend's recent action and attitude.

For 35 years, I had the privilege of representing Stonyburn, a former mining village in West Lothian which is now in the Livingston constituency. The people of Stonyburn have spoken through their councillor, Provost Joe Thomas of West Lothian council. He told me this morning that he was aware of widespread concern among my former constituents in Stonyburn at the uncompromising nature of the threatened war against Iraqi people. He said, "Violence does not solve problems. Violence creates problems." I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that there are people in Stonyburn praying that no action is taken. Those people sent me, and now my right hon. Friend, to the House of Commons. If there is military action, we can imagine pictures many times those of Dunblane flashing round the world.

I am one of comparatively few--a dwindling number of hon. Members who have actually worn the Queen's uniform, done gunnery and experienced the smell of cordite. Perhaps we are a bit less relaxed about unleashing war than those who have never been in a military situation. I am hesitant to claim great military virtue, but I wear the tie of the Royal Scots Greys, now the Scots Dragoon Guards, and I had the opportunity of sitting in his room and reading to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the letter from the colonel of the regiment to The Times. I spoke to Field Marshal Sir John Stanier and I repeat part of the letter that I read out to my right hon. Friend:

"The conduct of a successful air war is a politicians dream; it avoids the mud and blood of a ground campaign and enables wars to be fought without getting your hands dirty. Unfortunately air wars are never successful in isolation. If you wish to expel an invading dictator from say, Kuwait or the Falklands, you have to go there and drive him out. The same applies to stopping him from doing some things that you don't like."

13 Feb 1998 : Column 741

He concludes:

"Perhaps if we attempted to improve the lot of Saddam Hussein's people by offering a reduction in sanctions in exchange for evidence of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction, a more realistic result might be achieved."

When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes up the Downing street staircase at night, with the pictures of his predecessors on the wall, he might pause for a moment to look at the picture of Anthony Eden. Saddam Hussein is no Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser was an impressive figure. I had the good fortune to be asked to see him in his house in Cairo in 1964. Unless we are very careful, Saddam Hussein will be perceived in large parts of the Arab world--and not only the Arab world--as another Nasser. Is that what we want?

Next Section

Index

Home Page