Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2003
13 Mar 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
International Situation
If that is what the First Minister is reduced to, it says everything about what he has to contribute to the debate.
Professor Black has further argued that the recent draft resolution—the so-called "second" resolution—does not constitute a legal mandate for war. He has said:
"Any contention by the UK and US governments that Resolution 1441 (either alone or if supplemented by the draft resolution) legitimises in international law resort to armed intervention in Iraq is without legal foundation."
I accept that that is just the opinion of Professor Robert Black. However, I do not know whether any member watched "Newsnight" last night, during which a clip was played of the United States ambassador to the UN. When he moved resolution 1441, he could not have been clearer: he said that resolution 1441 did not contain any automatic triggers for war. The First Minister's ridiculous argument is that we should question distinguished Scottish academics, but how on earth can he question the position of the person who moved the resolution in the Security Council? I do not see any member wanting to intervene now.
In the previous gulf war, when my party supported the position of the Government of the time, the UN had passed a resolution stating that "all necessary means" should be used to enforce compliance. We do not have a resolution that uses terms to authorise war because the UK and the United States know that the Security Council will not agree to such authorisation, because the majority of Security Council members know that the case for war against Iraq has simply not been proved. Even the 7 March resolution—which set a deadline, but does not constitute a mandate—will not receive Security Council approval. Whatever happens, President Chirac has said that France will exercise its veto. The Prime Minister's reaction is that for President Chirac to do so would be "unreasonable".
We are left with the question: when is a veto reasonable or unreasonable? Since 1980, Britain has voted with the majority of members of the Security Council on resolutions relating to Israel and the occupied territories on 14 occasions and the United States has vetoed those resolutions. Why is it reasonable to veto the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and unreasonable to veto war in Iraq?
Professor Black has further argued that the recent draft resolution—the so-called "second" resolution—does not constitute a legal mandate for war. He has said:
"Any contention by the UK and US governments that Resolution 1441 (either alone or if supplemented by the draft resolution) legitimises in international law resort to armed intervention in Iraq is without legal foundation."
I accept that that is just the opinion of Professor Robert Black. However, I do not know whether any member watched "Newsnight" last night, during which a clip was played of the United States ambassador to the UN. When he moved resolution 1441, he could not have been clearer: he said that resolution 1441 did not contain any automatic triggers for war. The First Minister's ridiculous argument is that we should question distinguished Scottish academics, but how on earth can he question the position of the person who moved the resolution in the Security Council? I do not see any member wanting to intervene now.
In the previous gulf war, when my party supported the position of the Government of the time, the UN had passed a resolution stating that "all necessary means" should be used to enforce compliance. We do not have a resolution that uses terms to authorise war because the UK and the United States know that the Security Council will not agree to such authorisation, because the majority of Security Council members know that the case for war against Iraq has simply not been proved. Even the 7 March resolution—which set a deadline, but does not constitute a mandate—will not receive Security Council approval. Whatever happens, President Chirac has said that France will exercise its veto. The Prime Minister's reaction is that for President Chirac to do so would be "unreasonable".
We are left with the question: when is a veto reasonable or unreasonable? Since 1980, Britain has voted with the majority of members of the Security Council on resolutions relating to Israel and the occupied territories on 14 occasions and the United States has vetoed those resolutions. Why is it reasonable to veto the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and unreasonable to veto war in Iraq?
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
Good morning. Our first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-4012, in the name of John Swinney, on the current international situation.I must tell the ...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
Two months ago, the Scottish National Party led a debate in this, our national Parliament. That day we set out our "deep and serious concern" that the United...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
Does Mr Swinney accept that there are serious people on both sides of the argument and that people in Scotland do not speak with a unanimous voice on the iss...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I could not agree more with Johann Lamont. That is why we are having a three-hour debate in my party's parliamentary time, which will give those of every sha...
Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab):
Lab
On the basis of Mr Swinney's argument today, does he maintain that the SNP was right to oppose the ending of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999?
Mr Swinney:
SNP
In the interests of having a quality public debate about a war that the people of this country will face in the ensuing few days, we should concentrate on th...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
I am obliged to Mr Swinney for giving way. He rightly puts much emphasis on international law. However, does he accept that for every statement on internatio...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
If Murdo Fraser will bear with me, I will address that point directly.The United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, which was adopted on 8 November, i...
Members:
Hear, hear.
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrats agree with that point. Nowhere in resolution 1441 is there a specific authorisation of force. The resolution cal...
The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):
Lab
Will Mr Swinney acknowledge that Mr Robert Black has been seriously wrong in the past on issues of concern to this country, including the Lockerbie disaster,...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
His running down of distinguished Scottish academics is not exactly a tribute to the First Minister's stance.
The First Minister:
Lab
It was wrong to run down Scots law when that law worked in the international interest and in the court in the Netherlands. Mr Black was wrong then and could ...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
If that is what the First Minister is reduced to, it says everything about what he has to contribute to the debate.Professor Black has further argued that th...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
Does the member therefore agree that the concept of an unreasonable veto exists and does he accept that those of us who are concerned about the Palestinian p...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I ask Johann Lamont merely to go and explain that to the Palestinian people, whose aspirations have been thwarted by the vetoes that I mentioned.Mr Blair sho...
Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD):
LD
Does Mr Swinney agree that the inspections are achieving containment and that Iraq is currently no threat to us or to its neighbours?
Mr Swinney:
SNP
That is a fair point.
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Does the member believe that Iraq would have made the recent concessions if there had not been the pressure of having troops on its borders?
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The concessions have been brought about by the pressure of the international community to ensure that Iraq complies with resolutions that have been passed by...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I thank Mr Swinney for taking less than the allotted time, despite taking interventions.
Mr Jack McConnell (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab):
Lab
In October 1977, I went on my first demonstration. We were protesting against apartheid and demanding the end of an evil regime. Britain was on the right sid...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
I am glad that the minister protested against apartheid in 1977. Whose side is he on now, however? Is he on the side of Nelson Mandela, who is against this w...
Mr McConnell:
Lab
I am on the side of the people of Iraq. I remind Mr Sheridan that, for decades—well over a century—socialists have supported those who are being persecuted a...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I hear what the First Minister says about the UK Government's attitude to a second resolution in the UN. Will the First Minister support military action if t...
Mr McConnell:
Lab
I have three things to say in answer to that question. First, it would be wrong, in this country and elsewhere, to comment on hypothetical situations when th...
Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Nonsense.
Mr McConnell:
Lab
That day, Andrew Wilson said that Alex Salmond was right to describe that action as "unpardonable folly". However, he was not right; he was wrong. That examp...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
The First Minister said that he would not comment on hypothetical situations, but then went on to comment on actions that the French Government might take. T...
Mr McConnell:
Lab
I will address that point. The amendment that I will move makes the point that action should be authorised by the United Nations.Difficult decisions must be ...