| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): We are grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him for keeping me informed about these matters in recent weeks.
We on the Conservative Benches have always made clear our undivided support for the position of the Government and of the United States, and we do so again today. We agree that diplomacy backed by firmness is the right way to deal with Saddam Hussein. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Kofi Annan for the skill with which he has carried out his mission. Clearly, the threat of the use of force was key to getting the agreement of Saddam Hussein to comply with the resolution of the Security Council. On behalf of the Opposition, I also pay tribute to our armed forces, who have, yet again, responded with great professionalism and, once again, been ready to risk their lives.
On the details of the agreement, may I ask the Prime Minister what is meant by the UNSCOM undertaking
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the reference in paragraph 1 of the memorandum of understanding to
On a wider point, does the Prime Minister agree that there is now a great opportunity for the United Kingdom to show fresh leadership and initiative in the middle east, both by ensuring that there is a stronger coalition against Saddam Hussein in the event of any repetition of the crisis and by taking forward the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians?
Finally, this crisis in the middle east, which required a military response--and continues to require a military presence--occurred after the decision that the United Kingdom and the United States would stay on in Bosnia and during a difficult time in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, does the Prime Minister agree that the strategic defence review, which is now approaching completion, could not reasonably conclude that there is scope for reducing the defence budget?
The Prime Minister:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and that of his colleagues throughout the recent period. I join him in thanking our armed forces for maintaining a state of alert and readiness in the middle east.
In respect of Iraq and the reference to its dignity and security, it was precisely for that reason that I emphasised yet again that there is no quarrel with the Iraqi people or with the territorial integrity of Iraq. The quarrel is with Saddam Hussein's regime and its failure to abide by the Security Council resolutions.
Saddam Hussein certainly has no veto over the inspections. The consequences are, and will be, clear. That is precisely why we seek an additional Security Council resolution. We do not want to return to long-drawn-out negotiations that Saddam Hussein could use to thwart the intentions of the international community. The use of force is there--and there is force to be used should Saddam Hussein not comply with the agreement that he has entered into.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the United Kingdom can play a very significant role. We provided the right leadership in the crisis in respect of the Iraqi weapons inspection regime. I agree also that Britain must try to move on and play what part we can--both in itself and as President of the European Union--in the middle east peace process. Many Arab nations have been concerned and frustrated about the lack of progress in that area. They look to us for leadership, and we certainly intend to provide it. Indeed, the European Union issued a statement yesterday on that point which was put together by the Foreign Secretary.
Finally, in relation to the strategic defence review, I hesitate to enter into a discussion about the position of defence expenditure. However--I shall try to put it gently--I can promise absolutely that we shall not repeat the mistakes of the previous Conservative Government and cut the defence force budget by 30 per cent. I think that that was the cut in the past few years.
I agree entirely that the main areas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred--Northern Ireland, Bosnia and our ability to play a constructive role in the Gulf--are important. Britain must continue to carry out its role in those areas. I have always thought and said that this country's defence forces are vital to our foreign policy and Britain's standing in the world. That is precisely why the strategic defence review will ensure that our armed forces have a secure and certain future.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil):
The world owes a literally incalculable debt to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for finding a way back from war at the last perilous moment. That will greatly strengthen his position and that of the United Nations in the future. For that, we shall learn to be very grateful.
Whatever reservations one might have about the way in which the international community has handled this matter in the past four years, the Government's handling
of it in the past few months has been clear-sighted, determined and consistent. That has done great credit to the country and to the standing of the Prime Minister, and I congratulate him.
I have three points to make briefly to the Prime Minister. The first is on sanctions. Of course it is right that military pressure must be maintained, and that we must measure delivery against results, not words. Surely that means that the lifting of sanctions cannot, as some in the United States believe, be attached to the person of Saddam Hussein, but is attached to his behaviour. If, in the long term, UNSCOM gives a clean bill of health to Iraq, there is no reason why sanctions should not be lifted completely.
Secondly, how will the Prime Minister use the strengthened relationship that he has with President Clinton's Administration to encourage the United States to put more pressure on the Government of Mr. Netanyahu also to observe UN resolutions, for long-term peace in the middle east is based on that?
Lastly, the Atlantic relationship, which has been the key relationship underpinning effective diplomacy, based on the ability ultimately to use force if necessary, will nevertheless have caused concerns among our European partners, as I expect the Prime Minister knows. What will he do to reassure our European partners that this Government, unlike their predecessors, see the Atlantic relationship as complementary to our central relationship with Europe, rather than a substitute for it?
The Prime Minister:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words and for the support that he and his party have given us throughout the past few weeks. I shall deal with each of his points in turn.
First, it is important that we realise that the sanctions are attached to compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions. We have made that clear throughout.
Secondly, in respect of pressure on the present Government in Israel, yes, I agree, as I said earlier, that it is important for us to play our part in ensuring that there is progress in the middle east. We must do so in a way that does not cut across the United States, but is complementary to the efforts that the United States is making. I met all the Arab ambassadors yesterday and discussed with them what help we can give to try to push forward the middle east peace process.
Thirdly, I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not criticising the Atlantic relationship. I am proud of the fact that Britain has a good and strong relationship with the United States of America. Thank heavens, the Americans are there and are willing to stand up and be counted when difficult situations arise in the world.
I believe that it is important that the American Administration and the American people are not isolationist, but are willing to face up to and take on responsibilities. I further believe that the strength of our relationship with the United States is no impediment to Europe acting in a more concerted way or to Britain's relations with Europe. "Strong with the United States, strong in Europe"--that should be Britain's motto. It is good for Britain, good for Europe and good for the United States of America.
"to respect the legitimate concerns of Iraq relating to national security, sovereignty and dignity"?
How much risk is there that those words could be used by Saddam Hussein as a pretext for further delay and obstruction? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the new procedures for inspection will not be subject to any veto by Saddam Hussein? Can he also say a little more about the consequences of any failure on the part of Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the new agreement?
"all relevant resolutions of the Security Council"
includes resolution 678, which authorises the use of force? How confident is he that a further resolution will be secured authorising the use of force if the agreement is not kept? The Prime Minister referred in his statement to the "most severe consequences". May we presume that that means the use of force?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |