House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Feb 1998 (pt 20)

2.50 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): My hon. Friend has a reputation for having a long-standing and principled interest in these matters. I fear that when he comes to read the record of his speech, he will be disappointed with its content, not least because--somewhat out of character--he has quoted others to cloak personal attacks on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. That is unworthy of him. I fear that he will regret it when he reads his speech.

I welcome the opportunity to reply to the debate and bring my hon. Friend and the House up to date with diplomatic activity. I have just returned from the middle east, where I spoke to leaders in Oman, the Emirates and Egypt. Three key points emerged from those discussions.

First, there was unanimous strong support in each of those countries for the notion that Saddam Hussein must comply with the Security Council resolutions. There is no need to remind those countries of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the region. Their Arab cousins in Kuwait know that. My hon. Friend quoted Field Marshal Stanier. Saddam Hussein, the dictator, was driven out of Kuwait by military action. That action was necessary, but it was not supported at the time by my hon. Friend. If we had taken his preferred course of action then, the countries in the Gulf that I have visited this week would have been under even greater threat from the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam owns and is developing.

Secondly, there was wholesale support for exhausting every diplomatic opportunity. The United Kingdom agrees with that. I shall tell the House in a few moments about some of the actions that we are taking.

Thirdly, there was a strongly held view that if Saddam Hussein did not take the opportunities provided by diplomacy, he alone would be responsible. Those opportunities are available to him. All that we are asking is that he should abide by Security Council resolutions.

My hon. Friend quoted several authorities. I shall quote no authorities; just one basic principle. In diplomacy, a word given should be a word honoured. The word that Saddam Hussein gave when he agreed to allow the United Nations Special Commission inspectors to do their work is being broken. We know Saddam Hussein's record. We now know that his word is worth very little. A basic tenet of diplomacy is that a word should be followed and a promise that is committed should be carried through.

13 Feb 1998 : Column 742

Those three principles were clearly reinforced by my contacts in the Gulf and the middle east this week. All those countries want UNSCOM to do its work without restriction so that it can find the biological and chemical arsenal that exists within Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published the extent of that arsenal last week and referred to the success that UNSCOM has already enjoyed in locating weapons of mass destruction.

In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend recognised by implication the danger that Iraq poses to other countries in the region. At no point during his 18-minute speech did my hon. Friend try to deny that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. My hon. Friend recognises that fact. If he were to talk to those in the Arab countries near Iraq--rather than those who enjoy the comfort of Westminster--he would appreciate the real threat that those weapons represent.

UNSCOM must be allowed to do its work without restriction. There is no reason for agreeing to any position less than that which is enshrined in the Security Council resolutions. Our basic principle is that those resolutions must be agreed to, implemented and complied with.

I told my hon. Friend that I would inform him of the diplomatic efforts that are being made. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in those efforts. A meeting of European Ministers in Panama on Wednesday issued a statement, which I draw to the attention of the House. European Union representatives at the meeting called upon Iraq to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in particular to permit UNSCOM to carry out effective inspections of sites where it suspects that vital information or chemical and biological weapons are concealed.

A Gulf Co-operation Council meeting of Foreign Ministers on Wednesday also issued a very strong statement condemning Saddam Hussein both in terms of his denial of the United Nations and his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom's position is supported by countries such as Australia, Canada, Poland--and the list continues. It is clear that no one in the United Nations does not want to see Iraq comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Some claim that we should not consider the military option and that we should ask Saddam Hussein to play the game in a decent way--the old public school rules. I suppose that we could go to the palace in Baghdad and say, "Isn't it about time, Saddam, that you allowed the arms inspectors to do their job?" Does anyone imagine that Saddam Hussein would respond by opening the door to Richard Butler and the arms inspectors and allowing them to get on with their business? It is fanciful to believe that that will occur.