| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Is the Secretary of State aware that--whatever words he may have used--he has, in effect, announced today a state of war against Iraq with the Americans to remove Saddam when there is absolutely no United Nations authority for that action? Is he aware also that we now know that the United States used the United Nations Special Commission to spy in order to identify current targets? Government policy towards Iraq over the years has failed absolutely, but, although the Government have announced a very important change today, Ministers have been reluctant to come to the House and allow us to debate the matter. This is a state of war, and British pilots are at risk because of the decisions taken by the American and British Governments, which, as I have said, have no legal authority.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, regardless of the statements that he makes in the House, the use of depleted-uranium bullets during the war with Iraq and the suffering in that country have engendered a legacy of hatred which will probably last for generations? We need a middle east peace conference that will address a clutch
of issues, including the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq and Cyprus, the Palestinian question and the position of the Kurds. That is the way forward. The Government demand ceasefires whenever wars break out elsewhere in the world, but they have renewed their attacks on Iraq when we should be looking at all the problems of the middle east--including the need to lift sanctions for humanitarian reasons. I beg the Secretary of State to ask his colleagues to allow the House to debate those issues in a manner that will allow more exchanges than are possible in the context of a private notice question.
Mr. Robertson:
I refute absolutely my right hon. Friend's allegation that this amounts to a declaration of war. If Saddam Hussein stops threatening the lives of our aircrew, we will not need to respond--it is as simple as that. Saddam Hussein's forces are attacking our aircrew and our planes. They are seeking to kill pilots of the Royal Air Force and we are taking defensive action.
It is absurd for my right hon. Friend to suggest that this is in some way a declaration of war or that we are acting without United Nations authority. He will remember the attacks on the Kurds in the north--I saw him on the television standing in solidarity with some of those Kurds a few weeks ago--and what happened to the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq. The no-fly zones were put in place in response to those attacks, and they rightly remain today because the threat has not gone away.
Our pilots are at risk. They have a humanitarian mission: they willingly fly every day because they believe in international law and order. They should be applauded and congratulated on their efforts. When I visited them last month, I recognised their bravery and the risks that they are taking. I must remind my right hon. Friend--in all comradeliness--that, if we had listened to his advice in 1990, Kuwait would still be occupied by Saddam Hussein and the gross violations of human rights that we witnessed then would be continuing.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
I do not doubt the need to maintain the no-fly zones or the bravery of Royal Air Force aircrew and the risks that they run. However, does the Secretary of State understand that those of us who supported the use of force as a last resort to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions none the less feel unable to give the Secretary of State the blank cheque to which he alluded today? Is there not a substantial distinction to be drawn between a defensive response to the threat of attack and, as is now apparently taking place, the systematic destruction of Iraq's air defence system? Is that not an escalation that goes far beyond the mere tailoring of the rules of engagement, as the Secretary of State has suggested?
Mr. Robertson:
No, it does not. I say bluntly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what we are doing is proportionate. It uses precision-guided weapons; it is directed only at military targets. There is no escalation that is not mirrored by the increased threat to coalition aircrew. The decision is taken with a heavy heart, and with regret. I take no pleasure in ordering young men--those on the ground who support them suffer the deprivation of being away from home, too--into battle in these circumstances, but we do it because the threat
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments today have the overwhelming support not only of the parliamentary Labour party but of the British people? Is he further aware that some of us greet with nausea the comments of apologists for Saddam Hussein, who seem to take no account whatever of the fact that all these actions derive from the annexation of Kuwait and the looting and murder of Kuwaiti people? All these actions arise from thisman wanting to dominate the middle east with non-conventional poisonous weapons through persistent violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, which, despite the inaccurate and illiterate niggling which has occurred, fully authorise the action that is being taken today--and previously.
There would be no need for military action or a no-fly zone if Saddam Hussein did not massacre his people, as he has again recently. The Government should continue with the action that they have bravely undertaken in collaboration with the United States Government. It can end only when Saddam Hussein either at long last complies with the Security Council resolutions or is turned out.
Mr. Robertson:
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, which has been consistent down the years, as has his support of the Iraqi people and his opposition to the regime that has visited so much misery on them and their neighbours. He is right to point to the annexation of Kuwait and the renewed threat in the past two months to the borders of Kuwait.
I keep hoping--perhaps it is a vain and naive hope--to hear some of my right hon. and hon. Friends plead with the Iraqis to release the prisoners of war, the disappeared, who were taken from Kuwait following the Gulf war and have not been heard of since. I am glad that the UN Security Council has set up three panels--one on disarmament, the second on the humanitarian needs of Iraq and the third on the Kuwaiti disappeared. It would be nice to hear some of those who express an interest in this subject, and who may even have back channels with the Iraqis, saying a little more about that. To reinforce my right hon. Friend's point about the regime, what kind of leader watches his children die and his hospitals operate without drugs, but keeps $275 million-worth of medicines and medical supplies locked up in a warehouse?
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
The Secretary of State has talked about the risks that RAF pilots are taking, and he has rightly drawn attention to the dedicated efforts that the RAF makes in the area. However, will he answer the specific question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked what the status of
Mr. Robertson:
I answered the question, and I will answer it again. The obligations of the Geneva conventions apply to Iraq, whether there is a declaration of war or not. The mission of those pilots is humanitarian in its purpose. Iraq would have to, and would be, obliged to adhere to the Geneva conventions.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State spoke of his ordering British pilots into battle against Iraq. A few minutes before that, he said that there was no declaration of war against Iraq. Will he make absolutely clear the state of relations between Britain and Iraq? What are the long-term objectives of the bombing missions and the deployment of aircrew over Iraq? At what point would he be prepared to send in ground troops? Many people wish to know--not as apologists for Saddam Hussein, but as supporters of the Iraqi people--the exact long-term objectives of Britain and the United States in the region.
Mr. Robertson:
The objectives are absolutely clear: to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the resolutions that were adopted by the United Nations after the Gulf war, to which Saddam Hussein subscribed, and to ensure that Saddam does not represent a continuing threat to his neighbours in the region and, through that, to international stability.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware how sickening it is for the vast majority of us in the House to listen literally day by day to those who echo the views of the murderous regime in Baghdad, who use every opportunity in the House of Commons--an opportunity that people in Iraq do not have--to express the views of Saddam Hussein? As my right hon. Friend said, the people who opposed the liberation of Kuwait nine years ago are the ones who now echo the views regarding the no-fly zones.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |