| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): My credentials for initiating what I gather is the first debate in the House on relations with Iran for many years are that, in October, I spent 17 days on holiday with my wife on a bus tour of Iran, organised by the British Museum Travel Company. The tour leader, Raphael Marinello--who expertly led the visit--and Dr. Sheila Candy, the deputy director of the western Asiatic department of the British museum, would agree on the kindness and warmth shown towards us by the Iranian people. It was in no way an official visit, but I did get the impression that there was a good case now for dialogue. The demonising of Iran should be something of the past, and the fatwa and the difficult case of Salman Rushdie should not cut out negotiations with the new political leadership in Teheran. The more locked in we are to commercial relations, the harder it will be for the hardliners to wreck relations.
Against that background, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State two questions of which I have given notice to the Foreign Office. What initiative to develop relations with Iran can we expect during the British presidency of the EU? Is a presidency visit to Teheran--for example, at political director level--contemplated? As regards the fatwa, have the Government recently invoked the help of any Muslim leader--for example, President Assad of Syria--at least to downplay that difficult issue?
I referred to my visit in October, and one of the things that would strike any visitor from the west was the war memorials in Tabriz, Hamadan, Kashan, Rashd, Isfahan, Shiraz and Yazd. Those war memorials are of first world war proportions, as 1 million Iranians were lost in that terrible Iran-Iraq war. No one has greater cause than the Iranians to loathe the regime of Saddam Hussein, yet they do not support the American-British military action that was proposed in certain circumstances.
The latest edition of Persia Update reported:
I come briefly to the question of the Shi'ites. I quote from the most recent edition of Dialogue, which is published by the Public Affairs Committee for Shi'a Muslims. It says:
In an article in The House Magazine of 9 March, my hon. Friend the Minister wrote:
I refer to a question that I asked the Prime Minister on 16 March:
The last time that I had an Adjournment debate to which my hon. Friend the Minister replied, I slightly overran, so I make only one further point. Like many colleagues, I sat through the Budget speech of my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer--it was, rightly and justifiably, proposed as a green Budget. I listened to everything that he said about carbon emissions and pollution, and I welcome the anti-pollution measures, including those on vehicles. However, compared with what could be done in western Asia to help the world's atmosphere, anything that we do in western Europe is entirely marginal.
One of the most striking aspects of my visits both to Iran in October 1997 and to Iraq in 1994 was the extent of the pollution and broken-down equipment. In Iran, oil refineries had had to be moved quickly from the Iraqi border to the area between--heaven help us--Shiraz and Isfahan, which created pollution in Pasagahdai and Persepolis. Even if we do not take into account the ancient monuments, that is sad--the pollution in that part of the world is terrible.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett):
I want to pick up on the concluding comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about our relationship with the Muslim community in the United Kingdom and with the religion of Islam. We should avoid at all costs demonising any one religion in the world.
One of the tasks that I have set myself is to ensure that, whatever representations I make, I never fall into the trap of viewing the world as divided between religions. A small but, to my mind, significant event during the recent Iraq crisis was that, for the first time, we had a meeting in the Foreign Office with leaders of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. I am determined that those meetings should continue and should take place not only during a crisis but as regular events that will give us an opportunity to understand each other much better.
Whenever I have visited the middle east and other parts of the Islamic world, I have taken the opportunity to stress the need for multi-faith co-operation. I had the pleasure of visiting the Sheik of Al-Azhar at Al-Azhar university, which was an important opportunity to make it clear that when we define issues in the United Kingdom, we never differentiate by religion but consider the basic values.
My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the war memorials in Iran and said that the 1 million dead constituted a tragedy on the scale of the first world war. That was a painful but apposite reminder of the scale of the Iran-Iraq war and of the number of lives that were lost--indeed, wasted--in those years.
Iran and other countries in the region have every reason to be fearful of an Iraq with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. The Iranians, along with the Kurds, have experienced Saddam's use of chemical weapons. The war memorials graphically underline and emphasise
the importance of the Security Council resolutions and the world's commitment to ridding Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.
My hon. Friend has been vigilant on the matter, and I congratulate him. It is an important parliamentary function to ensure that there is proper questioning and debate on such issues. He has always made the point that he was opposed to the threat of military action in our dealings with Iraq. I want to put it on the record that I have never had any doubt that he is as opposed to chemical and biological weapons as anyone else. We differ not on objectives but on means.
My hon. Friend must consider how the Kofi Annan memorandum of understanding could have been achieved without the threat of force by the United Nations and the international community. That is the key question. We would all love the world to be able to take rational decisions.
If leadership were always rational, we would not have to deal with crises such as arose with Iraq, but the fact is that we were dealing with a leader who had invaded one of his Arab neighbours; who had used chemical weapons against his own people and the people of Iran; and whose violations of human rights and of traditional processes of international relations were well known to us.
Both in Baghdad and on his return to New York, Kofi Annan said that diplomacy can go a long way, but that diplomacy backed by resolution and force goes a lot further. That is surely a vindication of the position that we took, and poses starkly and dramatically to my hon. Friend the question of what would have happened had the threat of force not been available to Kofi Annan in his negotiations.
On his return to New York, Kofi Annan said that the British Prime Minister was a true peacemaker and peacekeeper for the United Nations. That shows what can be achieved by the intertwining of diplomacy with the threat of force. In international relations, force is sometimes a representation of our failure to achieve our objectives through diplomacy, but sometimes it has to be used or threatened.
We welcome the memorandum of understanding and hope that Saddam Hussein will adhere to the agreements and commitments that he has made, but Saddam's record of keeping his word does not suggest that my hon. Friend could bet on it with any confidence. On each and every occasion in the past, Saddam Hussein has broken the commitments that he has given to the international community. It is in the interests of the people of Iraq and of the wider region that he should keep his word on this occasion, and we in the international community have said that, if he does not, he will face the severest consequences.
There is no doubt about what that means. It is understood in Baghdad. To find excuses for any further breach would be beyond the imagination and wit of any defender of Saddam Hussein. This recidivist has been given so many opportunities that, if he breaks the current agreement, the international community's patience will well and truly have run out.
Last week, I visited Kuwait: a country and a people who know Saddam Hussein very well. People there know what happened when Saddam invaded their country seven
years or more ago, and they are still extremely cautious, with good reason. They are also extremely grateful for the position taken by the international community and supportive of the position taken by the United Kingdom Government.
I saw our troops in Kuwait last week and took the opportunity to thank them for their contribution. They are living in trying and difficult circumstances, but nobody can doubt their commitment and professionalism. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I congratulate them, and thank them for the work that they have done in their role as peacemakers and peacekeepers.
My hon. Friend raised some important points about the oil-for-food regime and the need to deal with humanitarian concerns about the ordinary people of Iraq. The fact that we are talking about the way in which Saddam Hussein has been able to pervert the oil-for-food humanitarian regime for his own purposes, rather than using it to feed his own people, is one of the most damning indictments of his regime.
We are determined that the ordinary people of Iraq should not be punished for the decisions taken by their leadership. They are not responsible for those decisions. Indeed, if they were to exercise what we would consider a basic human right and criticise the regime, their lives would be short. We know the regime's record. It is difficult for the people to criticise the regime or to contemplate a change of regime, because the risks are so great. They are clearly not responsible for the decisions of a totally irresponsible and out-of-control leadership, and it is our task to help them if we can. We are determined to do so.
"The Leader said the US pursues a purely American agenda in its confrontation with the Iraqi government, and added that the US bears the responsibility for civilian victims of any military attack on Iraq."
I am glad to say that the Iranian attitude to the Americans seems to be softening--perhaps, after the football World cup, it will soften a good deal more, because, as we know, the two nations have been thrown together. We are at a moment in history when the traditional friendships between the British and Persian peoples might well be restored.
"However, bombing Iraq--still a likely option despite widespread international revulsion"--
that is what it thinks; it is not what I think--
"would be both wicked and futile. It would be unlikely to achieve its goals, whatever they are, but it would dangerously destabilise the region. Healthy Iraqis and a self-confident Iraq are far more likely to bring down the regime. A regime as isolated and psychotic as Saddam's would find it difficult to cope with normal relations with the world."
18 Mar 1998 : Column 1263
I ask, against that background, what progress is being made in New York in discussions with Iraqi authorities on the new British-inspired Security Council resolution to increase the sale of oil for food. If the Iraqi Government prove slow to accept the resolution, should we not aim to improve the conditions of the Iraqi people, as well as readmitting more Iraqi oil to world markets? Should not a European Union delegation go to Baghdad, to show the Iraqi people that the Security Council wants to help them?
"Meanwhile, we are looking at what we can do for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein's obstinacy in refusing to accept the Security Council demands, or implement properly the oil-for-food programme, has caused the Iraqi people untold misery. Following the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council on 30 January recommending the oil-for-food programme should be expanded, we again took the lead at the UN in drafting and negotiating a Resolution (SCR 1153), which more than doubles the amount of oil Iraq is allowed to sell to purchase humanitarian goods. The new figure is US $5.2 billion every six months. The programme has safeguards in place to ensure the benefits go to the Iraqi people and not the regime."
I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if we do not help specifically with the pumping equipment, the resolution will look like a false gesture. All those who have personal experience of Iraq will testify to the breakdown of vital equipment. I think that Ministers should hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) says when he returns from Iraq--he will have first-hand knowledge.
"pursuant to the oral answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 10 March 1998, Official Report, columns 307-8, what criteria he will use to determine the extent of Iraq's compliance with the recent agreement between Iraq and the UN to allow inspections to take place; and if he will submit these criteria to the scrutiny of the French, Russian and Chinese authorities as members of the Security Council."
The Prime Minister replied:
"Security Council Resolution 1154 was adopted unanimously by the Security Council. All members agreed that further violations of Iraq's obligations under the relevant Security Council Resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding signed in Baghdad would be followed by the severest consequences.
We should be clear about whether the British think that, with the Americans, they have the right, in difficult circumstances, to launch a military attack without going back to the Security Council. The Chinese ambassador to the United Nations and others have made definite statements that three members of the Security Council take the view that no military action should be taken without a clear, unambiguous decision having again been taken by the Security Council. In the light of what Marc Webber and other international lawyers have said, are Britain and the United States entitled under international law to let loose traumatic air bombardment without having returned to the Security Council?
The question of Iraqi compliance will be dealt with in reports to the Security Council from the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency."--[Official Report, 16 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 450.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |