Hansard

Okay; some MSPs did, and I am coming to that.

MSPs had the chance to register their opposition by supporting a motion in the name of John Swinney. However, 62 members decided not to take that view and backed the action that we have seen over the past 19 months. Ignorance is no defence. Many voices across the world—including that of the Scottish Socialist Party—warned about the situation that we would find ourselves in. For us, where we are today in Iraq is no surprise. Millions took to the streets across the world and across Europe, yet there are MSPs in this building who took no heed. They slavishly put up their hands in support of the warmongers, Bush and Blair.

Now we know that those who supported the war did so on the basis of lies and deceit—that is the basis of the occupation of Iraq. There are no weapons of mass destruction and there are no links with al-Qa'ida—or, at least, there were not before the invasion. The only line that people can cling to is the fig leaf of regime change. I presume that the regime-change argument expects us to believe that the invasion by United States and United Kingdom troops was doing the Iraqi people a favour. Well, I wonder how the children of Baghdad—the ones who were playing in the parks and playgrounds—see it. We saw those children days before the bombs dropped, in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11". Did we do them a favour? Did we do civilians a favour? Did we do the people of Fallujah a favour? Is what we did a favour in the name of regime change?

Let us make no bones about it: those who supported the war—those who put up their hands in Parliament—voted to drop bombs on the playgrounds, schools and homes of those children. Ignorance is not an excuse. How could they use napalm? Given all that we know about Vietnam, how could members support the use of napalm? Now that the US has admitted that it used napalm last year and now that the information is coming out about Fallujah, what are people trying to do? They are trying to cover it up and pretend that it did not happen. That is exactly what the amendments from Labour, the Liberals and the Tories do—they take out every reference in the motion to the use of napalm. That is an absolute disgrace, and members should be ashamed of yourselves. In this debate, I would like to hear some defence of that. If members do not think that napalm should have been used, they should condemn it openly. They should support our motion and not the amendments that attempt to take those references out.

Let me make it clear: US and UK troops are not liberators; they are an occupying army in a sovereign country. They broke international law by invading Iraq, so we should not be surprised that, throughout the 19-month occupation, they have continued to breach international law on human rights in prisons and in relation to utilities. They now stand condemned by the International Committee of the Red Cross of further breaches of human rights.

The incidence of malnutrition among children in Iraq has increased dramatically. One of the main reasons for that is the lack of clean water in which to cook food, yet in Fallujah, Samarra and Tell Afar—those are only the places that we know about; journalists are not allowed into large parts of Iraq—750,000 people have had their water supply cut by occupying forces as a means of war. The civilian population has to pay for what is a complete breach of the Geneva convention, which specifically forbids the denial of water to civilians during conflict. That will really win hearts and minds. It will have a dramatic effect on the people of Iraq.

This week, we have heard that the battle for hearts and minds has been lost and is being lost for good. We have read in the papers this week quotes from the report of the Defense Science Board—one of the top security advisory bodies in the US—which states:

"in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering."

Has the occupation made the world a safer place? Is that what direct intervention in the Muslim world has achieved? The report makes the point:

"American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States".

That is no surprise to those of us who were on the anti-war campaign and spoke at meetings up and down the country. It was always clear—even Douglas Hurd made the point—that an American and British invasion force would never be seen as liberators and would always be seen as an occupying army. The Defense Science Board's report continues:

"American efforts have not only failed … they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended."

The conclusion that we must draw is that the world is a less safe place. After so much money has been spent on the war, after the civilian tragedy and the humanitarian disaster, nobody has benefited and the world is not a safer place. Those are not my words; they are the words of the advisers to Donald Rumsfeld. The report concludes that the actions of the US in Iraq have played right into the hands of al-Qa'ida.

Given the amendments from the Liberals, the Tories and Labour, I want to pose a question. They are all cheering on the sidelines for elections, and they probably hope that the elections will come along in January and save us from the quagmire.