Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2003
13 Mar 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
International Situation
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 UN.
This week, it has become clear that the inspectors will not be given enough time. The United States wants the inspections to be over by tomorrow and the UK wants them to be over by Monday. Both countries have rejected the Franco-German proposal that they should be allowed 120 days and the non-aligned proposal that they should be allowed 45 days; the United States has decided to go to war and nothing will divert President Bush from that path. I doubt that anyone in this country honestly believes that the UK Government is in control of events or the time scale. It has never been more obvious that, on this issue, power lies with the United States and that the UK is simply an outstation for the White House's press office.
The British Government is now relying on what it calls six key tests—six conditions that it has set for Iraq in order to avoid war. One of those tests is that Saddam Hussein should appear on television. Last night, a former national security adviser to the White House called that test trivial—he was right. Tony Blair must understand that demanding a television appearance is no substitute for a legal mandate for war.
As with all wars, there is one certainty—civilians will suffer most and innocent people will die. According to the UN, up to 2 million people could be left homeless and some 900,000 refugees could be created. In February, the UN launched an appeal for $120 million to cope with the impending humanitarian disaster but, so far, western Governments have pledged just a quarter of that amount. The British Government has allocated an extra £1.75 billion to the Ministry of Defence to fight the war, but the Department for International Development has not received an extra penny to cope with the consequences of that war. I have no doubt that many of those who support war do so out of genuine concern for the Iraqi people and the conditions in which they live, but I would have more respect for the politicians who make such arguments if they backed their tough words with hard cash.
These are desperately dangerous times for the world and the issues are desperately difficult to wrestle with. No right-thinking person can feel anything but revulsion for Saddam Hussein's regime. However I, and the vast majority of people in this country, cannot escape the feeling that what is happening is plainly wrong. A unilateral strike on Iraq, ignoring international law and going to war without the evidence are all wrong.
Three years ago, in a widely admired speech, the now deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party told the Parliament:
"Please understand that the peace process is not just about an absence of war; it is about taking positive steps to resolve conflict."—[Official Report, 11 Nov 1999; Vol 03, c 614.]
As I survey the world today, I simply do not believe that enough has been done to resolve the conflict peacefully. The next few days will prove to be crucial for all of us who live on this fragile planet; decisions that will be made will have profound consequences for generations to come. Today, the Parliament can make its voice heard—I urge the Parliament to ensure that that voice is a voice for peace.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that no case for military action against Iraq has been proven; believes that no United Kingdom forces should take part in any military action without a United Nations mandate that specifically authorises such action and is based on clear, compelling and published evidence, and believes that any pre-emptive action by the United States of America and the United Kingdom without such a mandate would be contrary to international law.
This week, it has become clear that the inspectors will not be given enough time. The United States wants the inspections to be over by tomorrow and the UK wants them to be over by Monday. Both countries have rejected the Franco-German proposal that they should be allowed 120 days and the non-aligned proposal that they should be allowed 45 days; the United States has decided to go to war and nothing will divert President Bush from that path. I doubt that anyone in this country honestly believes that the UK Government is in control of events or the time scale. It has never been more obvious that, on this issue, power lies with the United States and that the UK is simply an outstation for the White House's press office.
The British Government is now relying on what it calls six key tests—six conditions that it has set for Iraq in order to avoid war. One of those tests is that Saddam Hussein should appear on television. Last night, a former national security adviser to the White House called that test trivial—he was right. Tony Blair must understand that demanding a television appearance is no substitute for a legal mandate for war.
As with all wars, there is one certainty—civilians will suffer most and innocent people will die. According to the UN, up to 2 million people could be left homeless and some 900,000 refugees could be created. In February, the UN launched an appeal for $120 million to cope with the impending humanitarian disaster but, so far, western Governments have pledged just a quarter of that amount. The British Government has allocated an extra £1.75 billion to the Ministry of Defence to fight the war, but the Department for International Development has not received an extra penny to cope with the consequences of that war. I have no doubt that many of those who support war do so out of genuine concern for the Iraqi people and the conditions in which they live, but I would have more respect for the politicians who make such arguments if they backed their tough words with hard cash.
These are desperately dangerous times for the world and the issues are desperately difficult to wrestle with. No right-thinking person can feel anything but revulsion for Saddam Hussein's regime. However I, and the vast majority of people in this country, cannot escape the feeling that what is happening is plainly wrong. A unilateral strike on Iraq, ignoring international law and going to war without the evidence are all wrong.
Three years ago, in a widely admired speech, the now deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party told the Parliament:
"Please understand that the peace process is not just about an absence of war; it is about taking positive steps to resolve conflict."—[Official Report, 11 Nov 1999; Vol 03, c 614.]
As I survey the world today, I simply do not believe that enough has been done to resolve the conflict peacefully. The next few days will prove to be crucial for all of us who live on this fragile planet; decisions that will be made will have profound consequences for generations to come. Today, the Parliament can make its voice heard—I urge the Parliament to ensure that that voice is a voice for peace.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that no case for military action against Iraq has been proven; believes that no United Kingdom forces should take part in any military action without a United Nations mandate that specifically authorises such action and is based on clear, compelling and published evidence, and believes that any pre-emptive action by the United States of America and the United Kingdom without such a mandate would be contrary to international law.
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 ...