Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 March 2013
19 Mar 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Iraq Invasion (10th Anniversary)
When the sirens whined, we dived to the floor, struggling with our flak jackets and helmets, yet the local politicians carried on as if nothing had happened, despite the risk. They had become accustomed to the sirens and the missiles.
That was repeated over and over again during the three-day visit of the House of Commons Defence Committee to Basra, Umm Qasr and Baghdad. During that visit, 40 missiles fell within range. Even the green zone in Baghdad was not spared the infringements. We were due to meet the Iraqi president, but his house had been hit that very day. The missiles were a normal, daily occurrence. They were a matter of fact.
That was in 2007—four years after Tony Blair and George Bush made that fateful decision to invade.
A few weeks after I visited Iraq, I was at the funeral of Scott Kennedy. He was a young soldier who died in Iraq, blown up by a roadside bomb. His funeral was in Oakley, in my constituency. The community turned out en masse to show their support for the family. They recognised the difference between the armed forces and the Government. They recognised the talent and commitment of their soldiers, but disagreed with the war.
A normal occurrence in Iraq, which happened every day of the week at the time, cost Scott Kennedy his life, and it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, friends and relatives. We felt it in Fife that Scott Kennedy had lost his life, but in Iraq many others whom we did not know also lost their lives. Just today, another 48 people have died and scores have been injured in bomb attacks in Baghdad. The war cost us £1 trillion but, a decade on, Iraq is still rocked with instability and division. The war was based on a false premise. It was illegal, costly, bloody and just plain wrong. [Applause.]
Although I am proud that our party opposed the war, I am more ashamed that our country went to war in Iraq. It was a war that secured the support of the UK Parliament and this Parliament. I am ashamed that that happened, and of the intervention by the Labour Government, with the support of the Conservatives. I praise John Lamont for his contribution. I disagree with what he said, but I commend him for standing up and saying it because people need to hear why the case was made for the Iraq war.
Back in 1999, Tony Blair laid out new criteria for what he believed was humanitarian intervention. Those principles were not wrong; he just did not stick to them. His failure to adhere to those principles damaged not just the principles but, as we have heard, lives.
It is often said that countries, generals and leaders fight the last war rather than the next one. Decisions taken often reflect more the success or failure of previous conflicts rather than the special circumstances of the next. Iraq was affected by the success of Kosovo, Sierra Leone and, to a limited extent at the time, Afghanistan. However, failure in Iraq should not preclude future action elsewhere. It should not alter our collective responsibility to support freedom and protect human rights around the world. Doing nothing can be as bad as cavalier adventurism. No war is ever won; it is just that some are less bad than others. However, always sitting on our hands can be even worse.
What tests, then, would we apply to future military action? If we are to have a serious debate, that is what we should focus on. I have four simple tests. The first is whether military action is legal under international law. Secondly, does it command local and regional support? That is also important. Thirdly, are we confident that it will alleviate suffering? Finally, and often most controversially, is the United Nations behind it, or, in the absence of that support, are there reasons to intervene on clear humanitarian grounds?
Those are the questions that we need to apply to future conflicts. In Libya, I would say that the limited special forces action and air strikes relieved suffering. We secured the support of Arab countries surrounding Libya. We also secured a strong mandate from the UN and our action was judged legal. I would say that it passed the test. We also passed the test in Mali.
Syria is the biggest test because the United Nations is clearly divided. With Russia standing firmly behind its ally, we have been limited to humanitarian aid. However, thousands of people are suffering and lots of people have died. Many more will die in future. The UK Government, along with many other European Union countries, has agreed to provide non-lethal equipment to the Opposition in Syria but has refused to rule out further support. It is a really difficult test. Do we stand aside when more people die in Syria? We need constantly to reapply the tests that I set out, which are whether we have regional support, whether action is legal and whether we have UN support.
I supported the 1 million British people who marched against the war in 2003. They were not duped by Saddam Hussein and his deception and cruelty, but what they could not understand was why the containment and deterrence approach was to be abandoned; nor did they accept that military intervention was justified. They did not believe that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. They believed that the measures that were being taken were sufficient at the time and they were not convinced of the need for military action. They feared the wider consequences in the middle east, for Israel and Palestine, but also for the Iraqi people. They were anxious about Bush adventurism and revenge for the perceived failures of his father. They were concerned by the actions of a seemingly overcompliant UK Administration that was too eager to please George Bush. It is a shame that this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament did not listen to those people more carefully.
For Scott Kennedy and the hundreds of thousands of others who have lost their lives, it is imperative that we study our history and learn our lessons. That could be their legacy.
I move amendment S4M-05981.1, to insert after “UN resolution”:
“; regrets the decision of the Labour government, with the support of the Conservatives, to press ahead with the invasion despite considerable opposition and many warnings about the danger of armed conflict; is of the view that the intervention was illegal under international law”.
14:55
That was repeated over and over again during the three-day visit of the House of Commons Defence Committee to Basra, Umm Qasr and Baghdad. During that visit, 40 missiles fell within range. Even the green zone in Baghdad was not spared the infringements. We were due to meet the Iraqi president, but his house had been hit that very day. The missiles were a normal, daily occurrence. They were a matter of fact.
That was in 2007—four years after Tony Blair and George Bush made that fateful decision to invade.
A few weeks after I visited Iraq, I was at the funeral of Scott Kennedy. He was a young soldier who died in Iraq, blown up by a roadside bomb. His funeral was in Oakley, in my constituency. The community turned out en masse to show their support for the family. They recognised the difference between the armed forces and the Government. They recognised the talent and commitment of their soldiers, but disagreed with the war.
A normal occurrence in Iraq, which happened every day of the week at the time, cost Scott Kennedy his life, and it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, friends and relatives. We felt it in Fife that Scott Kennedy had lost his life, but in Iraq many others whom we did not know also lost their lives. Just today, another 48 people have died and scores have been injured in bomb attacks in Baghdad. The war cost us £1 trillion but, a decade on, Iraq is still rocked with instability and division. The war was based on a false premise. It was illegal, costly, bloody and just plain wrong. [Applause.]
Although I am proud that our party opposed the war, I am more ashamed that our country went to war in Iraq. It was a war that secured the support of the UK Parliament and this Parliament. I am ashamed that that happened, and of the intervention by the Labour Government, with the support of the Conservatives. I praise John Lamont for his contribution. I disagree with what he said, but I commend him for standing up and saying it because people need to hear why the case was made for the Iraq war.
Back in 1999, Tony Blair laid out new criteria for what he believed was humanitarian intervention. Those principles were not wrong; he just did not stick to them. His failure to adhere to those principles damaged not just the principles but, as we have heard, lives.
It is often said that countries, generals and leaders fight the last war rather than the next one. Decisions taken often reflect more the success or failure of previous conflicts rather than the special circumstances of the next. Iraq was affected by the success of Kosovo, Sierra Leone and, to a limited extent at the time, Afghanistan. However, failure in Iraq should not preclude future action elsewhere. It should not alter our collective responsibility to support freedom and protect human rights around the world. Doing nothing can be as bad as cavalier adventurism. No war is ever won; it is just that some are less bad than others. However, always sitting on our hands can be even worse.
What tests, then, would we apply to future military action? If we are to have a serious debate, that is what we should focus on. I have four simple tests. The first is whether military action is legal under international law. Secondly, does it command local and regional support? That is also important. Thirdly, are we confident that it will alleviate suffering? Finally, and often most controversially, is the United Nations behind it, or, in the absence of that support, are there reasons to intervene on clear humanitarian grounds?
Those are the questions that we need to apply to future conflicts. In Libya, I would say that the limited special forces action and air strikes relieved suffering. We secured the support of Arab countries surrounding Libya. We also secured a strong mandate from the UN and our action was judged legal. I would say that it passed the test. We also passed the test in Mali.
Syria is the biggest test because the United Nations is clearly divided. With Russia standing firmly behind its ally, we have been limited to humanitarian aid. However, thousands of people are suffering and lots of people have died. Many more will die in future. The UK Government, along with many other European Union countries, has agreed to provide non-lethal equipment to the Opposition in Syria but has refused to rule out further support. It is a really difficult test. Do we stand aside when more people die in Syria? We need constantly to reapply the tests that I set out, which are whether we have regional support, whether action is legal and whether we have UN support.
I supported the 1 million British people who marched against the war in 2003. They were not duped by Saddam Hussein and his deception and cruelty, but what they could not understand was why the containment and deterrence approach was to be abandoned; nor did they accept that military intervention was justified. They did not believe that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. They believed that the measures that were being taken were sufficient at the time and they were not convinced of the need for military action. They feared the wider consequences in the middle east, for Israel and Palestine, but also for the Iraqi people. They were anxious about Bush adventurism and revenge for the perceived failures of his father. They were concerned by the actions of a seemingly overcompliant UK Administration that was too eager to please George Bush. It is a shame that this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament did not listen to those people more carefully.
For Scott Kennedy and the hundreds of thousands of others who have lost their lives, it is imperative that we study our history and learn our lessons. That could be their legacy.
I move amendment S4M-05981.1, to insert after “UN resolution”:
“; regrets the decision of the Labour government, with the support of the Conservatives, to press ahead with the invasion despite considerable opposition and many warnings about the danger of armed conflict; is of the view that the intervention was illegal under international law”.
14:55
References in this contribution
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05981, in the name of Alex Salmond, on 10 years on from the invasion of Iraq.14:22
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
SNP
In discussing the motion, we should reflect that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. As we consider the lessons and implicat...
Margo MacDonald (Lothian) (Ind)
Ind
Although I agree that no Parliament should lend a hand to that, does the First Minister agree that a great number of people whose loyalty was found to be too...
The First Minister
SNP
I basically believe that to be case.
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lab
Will the First Minister give way?
The First Minister
SNP
I will answer Margo MacDonald first and then I will gladly give way to Johann Lamont.I was not in this place; I was in the House of Commons. I know people wh...
Johann Lamont
Lab
The First Minister ought not to describe other people’s motives in relation to how they vote in this place. I say for the record that when I voted as I did, ...
The First Minister
SNP
I read the debate. I remember that, according to the record, Johann Lamont was first up to advocate the war and question those who were arguing against it. P...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Will the First Minister give way?
The First Minister
SNP
No.We should reflect on the best way to fulfil our obligation, as good international citizens, to participate fully on the world stage—Interruption. I hear t...
Lewis Macdonald
Lab
Perhaps the First Minister, in his tone of considered reflection on the events of the past 10 years, will tell us why he believes that an independent Scotlan...
The First Minister
SNP
Because, as we know, the Prime Minister of the day distorted the intelligence that he had. We know that intelligence was presented that we were 45 minutes fr...
John Lamont (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Con
I begin by saying what barely needs to be said and pledging our unwavering support for UK personnel—military and peacekeeping—who have served and continue to...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
John Lamont
Con
I will give way later, but I want to make some progress.I state at the outset that 10 years on, the situation in Iraq is far from ideal. Violence levels rema...
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
The Presiding Officer
NPA
The member is not giving way; resume your seat.
John Lamont
Con
For too long, international words of condemnation were unmatched by meaningful international action; for too long, the Iraqi people suffered under the very s...
The First Minister
SNP
Will the member give way?
John Lamont
Con
I will give way in a minute; let me finish my point. For too long, Kurds in the north and Shias in the south continued to fight a tyrant whom we ourselves sh...
The First Minister
SNP
Some of us who have consistently opposed Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime over the years remember that Tory ministers visited him to talk about arms months ...
John Lamont
Con
I did not say that. Interruption.
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Order.
John Lamont
Con
I do not dispute that the situation is far from ideal today, but it is improving and it is better than it was. If it were a choice between Saddam Hussein and...
The Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport (Shona Robison)
SNP
Will the member give way?
John Lamont
Con
I give way to the minister.
Shona Robison
SNP
Is the member able to tell us who armed Saddam Hussein to use those weapons against his own people? Would he like to tell us that?
John Lamont
Con
I am sure that Saddam Hussein had various sources of weaponry. That does not make it right that those actions were allowed to continue for as long as they we...
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
LD
When the sirens whined, we dived to the floor, struggling with our flak jackets and helmets, yet the local politicians carried on as if nothing had happened,...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lab
Listening to the speeches of John Lamont and Willie Rennie, I was struck by the seriousness with which they have engaged in reflecting after 10 years. I am d...