Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 13 Mar 2003

13 Mar 2003 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

International Situation

Reid, Mr George SNP Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

On September 12 2001, the day after the mass murder in New York and Washington, Le Monde carried a banner headline, the translation of which is, "We are all Americans now." That headline encapsulated our feelings of outrage and grief. In London, in a speech of great clarity and compassion, Tony Blair called for justice and mercy, a campaign to extirpate the terrorists from their lairs and a ruthless war on the global poverty that fuels terrorism. I warmly endorsed that speech. Just for a moment, it seemed that good might come out of evil.

Today, the French, the Germans and other old Europeans are openly vilified in the American media. Afghanistan, which has been almost forgotten, is slipping back into anarchy, and some of the poorest countries of the world—Angola, Cameroon and Guinea—are being openly bullied and bribed in the Security Council.

The Executive amendment is right to stress the primacy of the United Nations, but members should look at today's headlines:

"Blair's gamble as allies prepare to go to war"

without the UN, or

"War looms as Prime Minister prepares to bypass United Nations".

How can that be? It can be only because the war is not about Iraq. It is about a new world order, it is about the cold war being over and it is about the world's only superpower being determined to impose its own order of pre-emptive strike and pax Americana. That is a serious argument.

Even though I oppose it, I concede that there is an argument for Britain to be part of that order. Such a case is based on perceptions of British self-interest and realpolitik. However, such a case can never be argued on the grounds of compassion and international law.

In recent weeks, our television studios have seen a stream of pundits unburdening themselves of the pain and agony that they personally experienced before deciding to march unto war. Let me tell members what pain is by providing just one personal flashback from war. Pain is a little boy with what is left of his leg in an Oor Wullie bucket of antiseptic, taking it out, turning it over, looking at it and then looking at me as though I knew the answer. I had no answer then, as I have no answer now, except to keep my mouth open.

The war has already claimed its first victim, which is the truth. The resolution is not a mandate. A mandate must specifically authorise the use of military force, as happened in the Korean war and in the previous gulf war. A mandate must be rooted in compelling evidence. In war these days, the truth is that it is safer to be a soldier than to be a civilian. Nine out of 10 casualties of war are civilians, most of whom are women and children. The allies look for a surgical strike with not many dead. I have my doubts about that, but even if it were true, the killing goes on long after the war is over.

Last week, the Scottish Trades Union Congress called on all silent MSPs to say where they stand, and many have done so today. Many in the chamber take the old European view, which was articulated by John McAllion, that there is no case for military action against Iraq. The case has not yet been proven. Perhaps later today, we can rally round that one position across the parties—the Liberals, the SNP, the John McAllions, the members of the Labour party and, indeed, perhaps some members of the Tory party.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 13 Mar 2003

In the same item of business