| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.49 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I should like to nail the lie that the United States, Britain and other countries are engaged in warmongering, and that we cannot wait for military action to be taken. If Britain and the United States were so keen on war--because of the length of the crisis over weapons inspections in Iraq--we would already be involved in war.
There is an overwhelming wish to determine whether diplomacy can succeed. We do not want war; we want to avoid war. Therefore, the accusations made by
some--whether they are Members or some outside here--that we are warmongering and cannot wait to bomb Iraq or to see Iraqi civilians killed are lies. Such lies should be nailed at every opportunity.
There will be no war if, because of the latest diplomatic activity, Saddam Hussein complies with the wishes of the United Nations Security Council and does what he said that he would do at the end of the 1991 war. He has only to do what he agreed to do when he lost the war in Kuwait.
What means of persuasion would exist if we said that military action would be taken in no circumstances? Do we expect that butcher--that murderous dictator--to say, "In all the circumstances, I must agree with the Security Council's 1991 decision"? If there is any hope that he will comply--who knows; but I do not have much hope that he will--and avert war, it will come about only because of the threat of force. Only the threat of force will determine whether there is a peaceful outcome--which is what we all want.
Those who demand that there should be no war should realise that responsibility for military action, if it comes, will lie with the Iraqi criminal regime. I do not accept for one moment that there will be blood on my hands or on the hands of any of my colleagues who go into the Government Lobby today; it is nonsense to suggest that. If we were so interested in war, military action and killing civilians, why would we place such great emphasis on diplomacy? If we want war, why are we desperately hoping that the Iraqi dictator will even now see sense?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) told us that there were terrible civilian casualties in 1991. I deplore those civilian casualties; I will always deplore civilian casualties. However, I must accept that, if military action is taken, there cannot possibly be a guarantee that innocent civilian lives will not be lost.
I was here, in September 1990, when the House was recalled after the invasion of Kuwait, and I was in the Chamber for all the debates that preceded military action in January 1991. The allies gave Saddam Hussein four months to get out of Kuwait; they gave him four months to avoid war. At every opportunity, he was pleaded with to avoid war.
Now we are told that--somehow--the allies, the international community and those of us who were Members of Parliament in 1990-91 are responsible for the casualties and the harm that resulted. Responsibility for what occurred lies with only one source--the Iraqi dictator. As one who said then that military action was justified if Saddam Hussein refused to leave Kuwait, I do not accept responsibility for what occurred. It is as sensible to say that, from 1939 onwards, the House was responsible for the terrible casualties and millions killed in the second world war. We know only too well where the responsibility for that war lay.
The critics were wrong about what happened in 1991. The hon. Member for Kelvin quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Although I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, I did not agree with his concluding line. I would be the last person to lecture any hon. Member. I accept entirely that if one believes that an action is wrong, one should oppose it, no matter what. I have no disagreement with the hon. Member for Kelvin on that particular score.
Nevertheless, seven years ago, the critics were hopelessly wrong. Although it does not automatically follow that they are wrong now, the line that they pursued then--that virtually all the Arab world would rise up against the west if war broke out, and that there was no guarantee that Kuwait would ultimately be liberated--was wrong. The Iraqi occupation of Kuwait did end. Had it not ended--as sanctions would never have done the trick--not only would Kuwait have remained under enemy occupation, but Saddam Hussein would have learnt that he could invade any country in the region. Why not? If the allies were unwilling to intervene militarily, there was no reason why he should not have continued with other invasions. Therefore, seven years ago, the war not only liberated Kuwait, but has ensured that no other country in the region has been invaded by Saddam Hussein.
Yes, ordinary people in Iraq have suffered--they have suffered greatly. I think that even the critics agree that, for over 20 years, they have suffered from a terrifying, brutal dictatorship. I agree that some--not all--of the critics were enemies of the Saddam Hussein regime long before Opposition Members expressed an interest in it. I accept that entirely. However, it is not very logical for one to be against that brutal dictator and to use every opportunity in the House to say so, but also to be against taking action against him when he commits criminal aggression. I did not see the logic of that seven years ago, and I do not see it now.
We have been told about civilian casualties. What about the casualties in the war between Iraq and Iran? The fact is that, on both sides, a total of 1 million people died in that war. Who started that war? We are told that the United States supported Iraq. That may well be so, but the United States did not instigate the war. Saddam Hussein started that war, with callous indifference to the suffering of the Iraqi people, and he stopped it only when he could not win it. Therefore, when we are rightly told--we should be told; we should remind ourselves--about all the civilian casualties and about all the innocent people who died who were in no way associated with that regime, let us remember also how many others died and suffered because of that terrible war that lasted for eight years.
As we know, Saddam Hussein's regime is a brutal dictatorship. He used gas 10 years ago: 5,000 people were killed. I do not know how many hon. Members protested in the House. Nevertheless, that is the nature of the criminal regime that we are facing.
We are told that other countries are in breach of United Nations resolutions and the hon. Member for Kelvin made much of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I agree that Israel has been in breach of conditions, which I deplore, but it is senseless to be unable to distinguish between Governments such as Israel's and terrible, brutal dictatorships such as Iraq's.
Let us hope that diplomacy works. If we surrender now, however, there will be every incentive for Saddam to continue to play cat and mouse with the UN and the international community. We have a duty and a responsibility to act if diplomacy does not work. I accept my responsibility, as I did seven years ago. If there is, as I hope, an overwhelming vote in the House in favour of the motion, it will be justified and will reflect the broad feelings in the country at large.
7.59 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
Two things have depressed me about this evening's debate. First, there have been a number of disparaging references to agendas--"the French agenda" and "the Russian agenda"--as if the United Kingdom and the United States do not have agendas. We are trying in the debate to find the agenda of the international community.
The second thing that has depressed me--I absolve the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) from this--is the attempt to say that people should stop thinking, salute and rally round the flag. I do not think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would pay the slightest attention to any such request but no such request should be made and he is entitled to speak his mind, as are others.
Mr. Salmond:
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that I absolved him from that criticism.
I am glad that I am speaking after the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who started to put together a better position than either of those taken by the Government and Opposition Front-Bench Members, and also better than the position taken by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and his friends. I do not believe that it is morally indefensible to take military action, but I do believe that it is morally indefensible to take such action unless there is a political strategy designed to end the suffering of the peoples of Iraq.
I want to list a few of the aspects on which I agree with the Foreign Secretary and which I welcome. I welcome his support for the Secretary-General's mission to Iraq and the fact that a new Security Council resolution is to be sought. The legitimacy of the existing resolutions is debatable, and I welcome the doubling of the allowance for oil for food.
I want to make some serious points to the Government about my great concerns about their position. The Foreign Secretary did not touch at all on the substantial charge of hypocrisy that can be levelled against the western world. Saddam Hussein is a western creation. He was armed to the teeth by western Governments and western companies. There is no doubt about that--the only doubt is over how long the supply of weapons went on.
It is also the case that other countries oppress their populations--Indonesia, for one--and that other countries, such as Israel, have weapons of mass destruction. I do not compare even the dictatorship of Indonesia with the evil of Saddam Hussein, and I certainly do not compare Israel with Saddam Hussein. None the less, Israel is a state in breach of international obligations to the Palestinian people.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |