Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 13 Mar 2003

13 Mar 2003 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

International Situation

Swinney, John SNP North Tayside Watch on SPTV

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 the dangers of such a war rather than play Bristow Muldoon's political games.

I want to make two clear points at the outset of my argument. First, the SNP and I will always support Scottish armed forces. Hundreds of Scotland-based servicemen and women are being deployed to the gulf and part of our support for our troops is our telling the Government—the people who give the orders—when it is wrong to commit our troops to action. Our courageous and professional servicemen and servicewomen expect to be deployed as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. Today, although the inspection regime is delivering results, that is patently not the case.

The second point that I want to stress is that there is no disagreement in the Parliament that Saddam's barbaric regime is appalling and unacceptable. I find it offensive that those of us—in all parties—who oppose war are lectured on the nature of Saddam's regime. We are all well aware of Saddam's atrocities, but members of the Conservative Government were similarly aware when they approved the building of an Iraqi chemical weapons plant when Saddam was using poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war. Therefore, I will take no lectures from the gung-ho faction that warns of the dangers of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Those dangers have been heightened by the actions of previous UK and US Governments, which should be ashamed of their actions.

More than 50 years ago, the countries of the world came together in the city of San Francisco to establish the United Nations. Their primary aim, which was set out in the first words of the UN charter, is:

"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".

Crucially, the charter sets out that

"armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest."

The common interest is not the interest of the United States or the United Kingdom, but the interest of the world as a whole.

Nobody has given the United States monopoly power to decide what the interests of the rest of the world should be—that attitude is at best patronising and, at worst, profoundly dangerous. The proper forum for deciding the world's common interest is the United Nations and not the oval office. The United Nations has spoken; any unilateral war launched against Iraq would be contrary to international law. In a significant intervention, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said only on Monday:

"If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter."

From the world's top diplomat, that is as damning an assessment as it is possible to get.

It is clear that, as we debate the issue today—perhaps days from war—there is no UN mandate for military action in Iraq and there will, in the foreseeable future, be no UN mandate for military action in Iraq. For those of us who believe in the rule of international law, that means that there should be no military action in Iraq.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 13 Mar 2003

In the same item of business