Iraq War
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1346, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on no end in sight to the war in Iraq. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the continuing effort of Rose Gentle from Pollok, Glasgow, and Beverley Clarke from Stafford to have the legality of the Iraq War tested in court; further notes that the Stop the War Coalition has called demonstrations in Glasgow and elsewhere on 15 March 2008 to mark the fifth anniversary of the start of the conflict; recalls the massive worldwide demonstrations against the war on 15 February 2003, in which many MSPs and people from the south of Scotland and across the country participated; believes that the legality of the war should be tested in the courts and continue to be discussed in the wider public arena; supports the demonstration taking place in Glasgow on 15 March, and believes that work in the international community should continue to speedily bring about peace and stability to Iraq.
It is clearly with much sadness that we are having this debate. Who in the Parliament can feel pleased that we are discussing the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq when troops and civilians are still being killed and when people across the world who dissented so strongly from the decision to invade are still being ignored?
If we did not continue to display our opposition to the war and to use every avenue open to us to show our dissent and to reaffirm that the actions that the United Kingdom Government took at this time five years ago were not taken in our name, we would be failing humanity and the memories of the people who have died as a result of the conflict.
It just so happens that, five years ago, I could voice my abhorrence of the war only by joining anti-war groups and taking to the streets. Five years on from those actions, I have had the privilege of being able to secure a debate on the subject in our Scottish Parliament. This is my first members' business debate and it is timely. My motion supports the actions of Rose Gentle in her pursuit of justice as we mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion.
I cannot think of an issue that, in my 12 years of active political engagement, has galvanised a generation of political activists more than the Iraq war. With colleagues in the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Green Party, I set up the anti-war movement at the University of Glasgow. The movement was the fastest-growing group on campus, which, given that its membership came from an age group and section of society that is often accused of apathy, demonstrated people's motivation to ensure that their voices of opposition to Tony Blair's actions were heard. Alas, as we all know, the people were ignored.
On 15 February 2003, people took to the streets with a sense of optimism that the Government would listen and Tony Blair's path could change from one of intent towards conflict to one of diplomacy and reason. The 2 million people who marched in London, Glasgow and other towns and cities throughout the UK exploded the myth of political apathy. It looked as though people power might win the day and the heart and mind of a Prime Minister who did not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. Folk who felt distanced from politics took their chance to re-engage.
What was the aftermath of all that action? The Guardian summed up the situation when it described the bleakness that stemmed from a political elite that wanted to keep the public's sustained disquiet at arm's length and carry on with business as usual, despite the fact that a disastrous invasion had gone ahead for deceitful purposes. That is what hurts most: our country was taken into a war that the people evidently did not want or believe in and of which people did not accept the legality.
Far too many experts in international law think that the war did not comply with international law for us simply to ignore the issue and let its legality go untested. The people who marched five years ago and Rose Gentle and other relatives of people who have fought and died still do not know whether the decision to invade Iraq was legitimate.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations at that time, Kofi Annan, said of the invasion:
"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the deputy legal adviser in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote in her resignation letter:
"I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution … I cannot in conscience go along with advice—within the Office or to the public or Parliament—which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression".
Professor Philippe Sands and other notable academics said in a letter to The Guardian in 2003:
"There is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council … There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise … has no basis in international law."
Who can submit a robust counter-argument to that? Those quotations illustrate that the rationale to go to war was illegitimate and unlawful and that the war has proven to be an expensive and destructive mistake.
It is no wonder that the families whose loved ones are serving in the military are calling for an inquiry into the legality of that most hideous conflict. I spoke to Rose Gentle the other day, to let her know about the debate. She told me that the military families who want an inquiry are desperate to find the truth and cannot understand why, if there is nothing to hide, they will not be granted an inquiry. They are not calling for an inquiry as a press stunt or to get their photos in the paper; they are doing so because they want to find out whether their sons and daughters lost their lives needlessly—and if they did, to get answers and some form of redress.
All members of the Scottish Parliament will sympathise with the sorrow and grief that those families feel and respect their determination not to let their campaign wither on the vine. As Rose Gentle told me, the campaign's aim is to ensure that what happened does not happen again. The families know the pain of war and what it is to suffer. They are feeling the consequences of the UK's decision to invade Iraq. Their campaign is based on the hope that the Iraq war can be the illegal war to end all illegal wars. They hope to restore the rule of international law and to ensure that no more soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians die because of that futile conflict.
I want to use this opportunity to show the people who marched on 15 February 2003 and those who will be at Blythswood Square on Saturday that politicians care passionately about humanity. Politics does not need to be about backroom deals, imperialistic conquests and hidden documents; it can and should be about openness, listening and doing what is right. That is why politicians from the Parliament should march in solidarity with Rose Gentle on Saturday.
My motion calls for a positive and peaceful resolution, but that can be achieved only if there is full honesty about, and understanding of, how the war began. If Scotland had had the powers of a normal country, with a top-table voice in the UN, it would have had an opportunity to stand up for the rule of international law. That is why I want Scotland to take its place in the international community. I joined the Scottish National Party not to change flags but to change society and to play a role in making Scotland a centre for fostering peace and reconciliation throughout the world.
Another Scotland is possible and another world is possible. We must find the gumption to do our bit to ensure that we are never dragged into a murderous conflict again.
I thank Aileen Campbell for lodging the motion, which I supported. I acknowledge that it is timely to discuss the matter in advance of Saturday's demonstration to show our support for the stop the war coalition.
Members will note from today's Business Bulletin that the president of the stop the war coalition—Tony Benn, a prominent member of the Labour Party—is next week's time for reflection leader. That was the idea of my comrade, Bill Butler. I commend him for it and for good timing, as it has turned out.
It is appropriate to recognise the courage, dignity and determination of mothers such as Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke five years on from the start of a war that cruelly robbed them of their sons. The Parliament debated the Iraq war on a number of occasions before it was launched and in the aftermath, and I participated in most if not all of those debates. It is a tragedy—albeit a predictable one—that we are still debating it five years on.
In one of the first debates, in January 2003, I said:
"Whether members believe that it is right or wrong to attack Iraq, they must recognise the consequences. ... there will be consequences for our armed services and for others who are drafted in, such as doctors and nurses, and there might be consequences for our civilians at home."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; c 17649.]
All those consequences were suffered: families, including Rose and Beverley, lost loved ones in the war, and the so-called war on terror has since moved directly to our shores, including an attack on Glasgow airport.
Also as predicted—and as is the case in modern warfare—the main casualties of the war were Iraqi civilians, including children. Those people were not "collateral damage" as the perpetrators of war like to put it euphemistically; they were ordinary people, indiscriminately killed in a war that was not only of extremely dubious legality but most certainly unnecessary and inhumane. We should also remember that the people who were bombed so that they could be "liberated" had already suffered at the hands of a US and UK-supported policy of sanctions against the Iraqi people that killed millions.
It was hoped in March 2003 that the Parliament could send a strong united message by voting for an amendment in John McAllion's name, which I and four comrades—including Bill Butler, who has stayed for this evening's debate—supported. The amended motion would simply have said, "This Parliament believes that no case for military action against Iraq has been proven" but, sadly, the amendment was not supported by enough colleagues to succeed. I know that some regretted that later. Speaking to the amendment, John McAllion said:
"That is a simple but powerful statement. It has the potential to unite all members of the Parliament who are concerned to stop the outbreak of what now appears to be an imminent attack on the Iraqi people.
We know that the United Nations has not sanctioned any attack on Iraq. There is no second Security Council resolution authorising such an attack. Those who believe that any attack without explicit UN sanction and authorisation would be wrong and a breach of international law can vote for the amendment, because without such sanction and authorisation the case for an attack on Iraq has simply not been made or proven."—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19442.]
It was neither made nor proven, nor has it been since, but I am sure that it does not give John McAllion or anybody else any satisfaction to reflect that what he said was correct.
The destruction of Iraq continues. A million or more are dead and millions have been driven from their homes. The social and economic infrastructure has been devastated and the powerlessness and hopelessness remain. We also should not forget Afghanistan. Only today it was reported that two women and two children were killed in an air strike carried out by forces there.
The countless senseless deaths act as a constant reminder that the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in endless suffering for the victims—not only those who were killed, but those who have died in the aftermath as a result of disease, starvation and an inability to access health care. Nonetheless, British troops remain there. Our years of debate mount up, as does the death toll of the innocents, and Iraq still remains an occupied country.
I take this opportunity to express, again, my fervent opposition to the war. I do so on behalf of other members of the Labour Party who protested and marched against the war. I call for an immediate end to the military occupation of Iraq and the full transfer of sovereignty to its people. I will continue to oppose vigorously the seemingly endless war that is imposed by the US and its allies on sovereign states, including the threats that are currently being made against Cuba. I hope that tonight all members can unite in support of peace and stability in Iraq and elsewhere.
I thank my friend and colleague Aileen Campbell for securing this debate, which, as she said, is timely. It is important and right that the Parliament should have a chance to discuss what is happening in Iraq today and how we arrived at this position over the past five years. My only concern is that tonight's debate may not be long enough to do those matters justice.
Although the debate is timely, I imagine that many are surprised that we are in a situation that makes it necessary. The fact that there has been a US and UK military presence in Iraq for five years and that there is no sign that that presence will end any time soon is testament to the lack of forward planning and thinking through of the consequences by those who took us into conflict during the headlong rush to war in 2003.
The consequences of the decision have been severe. According to CNN, there have been 4,279 coalition deaths in Iraq since 2003, and approaching 30,000 American troops have been wounded in action. Those deaths and woundings have scarred a generation of young servicemen and women, mostly of my generation, for no considerable good. Nor must we forget the tens of thousands of violent deaths of innocent Iraqi men, women and children since the invasion in 2003. I offer no more specific number because it is impossible to do so, as no official count of the Iraqi dead is made. That is significant, because it sends out the dangerous message that their dead—the dead men, women and children of Iraq—are worth less than our dead. Estimates of Iraqi casualties vary from the fairly conservative 50,000 to more than 1 million, but what are 900,000 or so dead individuals when no one is really counting?
We do well to remind ourselves that many of those who have died in Iraq have died as a result of terrorism that was unleashed in the internecine chaos that followed the invasion. One of the great ironies of the invasion is that its main protagonist, the United States Government, invaded on the dubious basis that Iraq was involved in the promotion of fundamentalist, Islamic-sponsored terrorism. The fact that Osama bin Laden was no friend of the Baathist regime and called Saddam Hussein an infidel was conveniently overlooked by, or unknown to, George Bush.
As repressive as the Saddam regime was, terrorism was not a domestic problem in Iraq before the invasion of 2003. The lack of forward planning and the dismantling of the state infrastructure of Iraq following the Pyrrhic victory of the coalition of the willing contributed directly to the unleashing of terrorism on the Iraqi people.
I have mentioned that the war on terror formed part of the rationale for going to war, but the basis for the war was formed above all by the idea that Iraq was attempting to build a weapons capacity that could strike at our shores within 45 minutes. The fact that Iraq has been laid waste to for five years and not one scrap of evidence for the existence of such weapons has turned up gives the lie to the idea that they ever existed.
We all now know that the war in Iraq was about regime change and the desire to control that country's resources. I had no desire to support the maintenance of the Saddam regime, which was undeniably a barbaric form of government, but Saddam was equally barbaric when he was an ally of the United States and Britain against Iran; he perpetrated some of his worst crimes against the Iraqi people at that time. Where was the moral outrage from the American and British Governments then? There was none—Saddam Hussein was feted as an ally and Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet and greet him. The old maxim "my enemy's enemy is my friend" held true in relation to Saddam Hussein—until such time as it did not suit.
I agree with the sentiments that Aileen Campbell has expressed in her motion. I hope that the legality of the war will, one day, be tested in the courts and that, when it is, those war criminals who are responsible—including George Bush and Tony Blair—are made to pay for their crimes.
This is a timely debate. However, I argue that it is timely not because there is a march on Saturday, but because over the past two or three weeks the violence in Iraq has become considerably worse than it has been for six months. Last week, 69 people were killed by a roadside bomb; 44 people, including British soldiers, were killed on Tuesday; seven people were killed by a car bomb yesterday; and today we heard about the kidnapped archbishop who has been found dead—we do not know whether he was murdered. So, it is a timely debate.
Jamie Hepburn stated that nobody cares about the body count in Iraq and that work is not being done to look into it. He does a great disservice to the World Health Organization and its work: its staff are risking life and limb day in and day out to work out what the body count is. It has produced what it thinks is a reasonable estimate of 150,000 people killed, which is a horrendous number.
I do not want to look to the past, although the Conservatives agree that a Privy Council inquiry into the origins and conduct of the war ought to go ahead. William Hague has been quite clear about that. I want to focus on what we should try to do going forward. We find ourselves in the position that we are in, but it is critical that we try hard to influence what happens going forward so that we get—as Aileen Campbell's motion says—an effective way to bring about peace and stability. We probably all want to see effective peace and stability, although we may disagree across the chamber about how that can best be achieved.
As far as we are concerned, future withdrawal of troops must depend on conditions on the ground. We must listen to advice from military commanders about what is best. We hear people promising a timetable for withdrawal, especially in the current US presidential campaign, but I argue that a prescriptive timetable for withdrawal is also a timetable for extremists. It is not just about what members have described as an "invasion" of Iraq by foreign troops; the situation is far more complex than any of those who have spoken in the debate have acknowledged. We see Shia death squads all over the country. We see Sunni extremists and rivalry even among the Shia groups in the south of Iraq. A simple withdrawal or pulling out of the troops at this stage, without military advice, would be even more catastrophic than the current situation.
Does Gavin Brown accept that the situation that he describes in Iraq was created by one thing, which was the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
I do not accept that. Even if that were true, we would still find ourselves in the position in which we find ourselves. It is important to focus on how we go forward. The death count increased markedly in February 2006, following the bombing of an important Shia shrine. The case is not as simple as that which Jamie Hepburn puts forward.
A survey that was published in The Economist last year gets to the heart of the issue. The first question was about the extent to which Iraqi people supported or opposed the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. Six per cent strongly supported it, 16 per cent somewhat supported it, 32 per cent somewhat opposed it, and 46 per cent strongly opposed it. That is fairly compelling. The second question was how long Iraqi people thought US and other coalition forces should remain in Iraq. Thirty-five per cent thought that they should leave now, 38 per cent thought that they should remain until security is restored, 14 per cent thought that they should remain until the Iraqi Government is stronger, and 11 per cent thought that they should remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently. Almost everybody, apart from that 35 per cent, felt that the troops should stay until security is restored.
"No end in sight", says the motion. Hard to see the end? The truth is that the assault on the Iraqi people has been going on for so long that it is hard to see the beginning.
The war started with Iraq's decision to invade Kuwait. The lies also started then. How often were we informed that we were going to liberate Kuwait? "To liberate" has a very specific meaning for me: it means "to hand back control of a country to the people of that country." That was never the intention in moving coalition forces into Kuwait; to misquote the American president Franklin D Roosevelt, "We wanted our son of a bitch back in charge."
We followed the ending of the war in Kuwait with a prolonged and continuous assault on the people of Iraq. There were bombing raids on roads, bridges, power stations, factories that produced concrete and so on. We methodically destroyed a large section of Iraq.
I apologise for intervening on the member, but, given the honourable position of the Liberal Democrats at Westminster on the issue, does he share my disappointment that not one Liberal Democrat member is contributing to the debate?
I share that disappointment.
At the same time that we were methodically destroying a large section of Iraq, we were killing large numbers of the Iraqi people. Bombing was not enough; we needed sanctions, too.
In order to make sure of things, we added a second—illegal—war to the first one: a war against weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we did not do that because we disapprove of WMDs. The United Kingdom is very much in favour of WMDs—after all, we are about to spend £100 billion building and maintaining a lovely new collection of WMDs. We just think that no country other than the UK or the US can have them. In terms of the war in Iraq, WMDs were a digression. No WMDs were found; no WMD could be found. The United Nations inspectors had made it clear that Iraq had no nuclear capability and no chemical capability—no WMDs were present.
Suddenly, the war became a war for democracy: Saddam was an evil dictator. Saddam must be fought. The minor fact that UK ministers had visited nice Mr Hussein in the past; the minor fact that we had sold nice Mr Hussein the ingredients for chemical weapons; and the minor fact that Mr Hussein had been a friend was not a problem. Well, they might have been problems, but they were—of course—forgotten.
We were told that it was a war for democracy, but it is a strange kind of democracy that can be imposed over the barrel of a gun and with the use of torture. It is a strange kind of democracy that was backed by Bush's threats to bomb off-message television stations—a democracy in which the Iraqi Government could be ordered to rewrite its constitution. Whatever the real reason for the invasion of Iraq, it was not democracy.
The Iraqi Government is now under severe pressure to pass a new oil law, the sole purpose of which is to hand control of its oil from the national people to the multinational companies, to those companies' great benefit. Whatever the reason for the war, it was not democracy. If we had had any interest in democracy, we would not have backed nice Mr Hussein in the first place.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry. I have already taken one.
Of course, if the UK had any interest in democracy, human rights or basic justice, we would not have ethnically cleansed Diego Garcia, assisted in the genocide in East Timor or supported Suharto, Pinochet, or Saddam Hussein. The list of what the UK would not have done if it believed in democracy is almost endless.
We imposed sanctions on a country that imported 70 per cent of its food and relied on 90 per cent of its oil for foreign income. The result of those sanctions is 500,000 children under five dead and between 1 and 2 million Iraqis dead. Denis Halliday, the former United Nations humanitarian co-coordinator in Baghdad, who resigned in 1998 in protest against the sanctions, described the sanctions in one word: "genocide". More people died under sanctions against Iraq than died in the genocide in Rwanda. The west did not hesitate to condemn the genocide in Rwanda. Do we hear much nowadays about the sanctions?
In a just world, the political leaders who called for and supported those sanctions should stand trial for crimes against humanity. We—the UK and the US—followed those sanctions with war. We followed slaughter with more slaughter. We ordered the United Nations observers out and we commenced killing. We called it "shock and awe"; in Gernika, they called it something else.
The war in Iraq was not about democracy or human rights; it was about power. The war in Iraq was built not on principle or truth, but on deceit. The war in Iraq has not liberated or ended torture; it has left over 1 million dead. I say to Gavin Brown that the figure is not 150,000 dead, but well over 1 million. That is the reliable figure from The Lancet survey and the University of Oxford study. One hundred and fifty thousand is a vast underestimate.
In 2000, the Lord Advocate acknowledged that the rule of customary international law is a rule of Scots law. There can be no doubt that the perpetrators of the Iraq war can stand trial in this country. Equally, there can be no doubt that were they to do so, the signal that it would send to future political leaders would make this world a safer place.
At one point in the debate it suddenly hit me that, five years along the line, here we are yet again debating the war in Iraq. I turned to my colleague Jamie Hepburn and said, "Isn't this so depressing? This country has been at war for five years."
I thank Aileen Campbell for bringing the debate to the Parliament and I thank all the members who have spoken. We have heard from members of the Labour Party, the SNP and the Conservatives, and I know that Patrick Harvie would have stayed if he could have done to speak on behalf of the Greens. Although we might not all agree on everything that has been said, one point that has come across clearly is the heartfelt conviction that everyone has that the war should be over and that the actions that took us into the war should be investigated properly. Aileen Campbell's debate is on a sombre topic and is, as she said, tinged by the sadness and personal loss of many individuals throughout the country.
Elaine Smith referred to the first debate in the Parliament on Iraq, with speeches from John McAllion and many others. It was clear from that debate that the Parliament felt that, no matter what powers are reserved from Scotland's Parliament and Government and held at Westminster, morality, humanity and common decency certainly are not and never can be reserved. In 2003, there was a big sense that people power could change the course of world events but, as I said, here we are five years later still debating an on-going conflict. At that time, we marched and said that the war was not in our name, but it was in our name that we were taken into an illegal war by the then Prime Minister. The conflict is in our name and it is the responsibility of each and every one of us—I know that many people in Scotland are deeply ashamed of that.
Many service personnel have died in those five years, including 18 Scots and four others from Scottish regiments. Each of those deaths is an individual tragedy. It is important and appropriate to note the contribution that our soldiers, sailors and fliers make to the preservation of our peace, as well as the contribution that Scots have made to peacekeeping and peacemaking throughout the world, often under the auspices of the United Nations. That should always be remembered. They have ended up in Iraq in an illegal war, which is a difficult situation for service personnel to be in. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict, there is absolutely no doubt that our servicemen and women deserve our support. Likewise, I am absolutely sure that every member wishes the Iraqi people well. I know that every member will offer a hope that Iraqis can finally live in peace, control their country and be free to use their nation's obvious wealth—which many members have mentioned—to benefit their people.
In the 1950s, Dag Hammarskjöld and Ralph Bunche changed the United Nations into an active peace-seeking organisation and developed the principles of peacekeeping—disinterest, parity, permission and negotiation. We should all cherish that legacy and we should expect our political leaders to cherish it and to act on it on our behalf. Scotland believes fundamentally in peace and prosperity and in the rule of international law. We have heard this week about citizenship and that we should all swear oaths of allegiance to the country. People in this country and in England and Wales and the north of Ireland all show their patriotism in how they care for their countries and those about them. They want and deserve a Government in which they can trust. If people feel that the leader of that Government told lies to take them into an illegal conflict, it is a bit rich of those who were involved to demand that we show them that we care about our country. It would be far better if those who are in power showed the people whom they supposedly serve that they care about their country and the people in it.
Members have used previous debates in the Parliament to question the legality and morality of the conflict in Iraq and of wider international policy. Tonight, Bill Wilson gave a bit of a history of the so-called ethical foreign policy that has been perpetrated in our name for many years. Scotland's voice must be heard. There is anger that soldiers were sent into combat with equipment that appeared to be unfit for purpose, and concern that the troops are still on duty in Iraq. It is in that larger court of public opinion that morality and decency are judged, and each of us here has a say in that judgment.
I wish the people well who march on Saturday for peace. I hope that it is as big a march as previous ones. Sadly, five years down the line from when the war began, people are getting a bit dejected. They think, "What's the point? Those who are in power and supposedly represent us, aren't doing so," and that turns to apathy. I urge as many people as possible to turn out at the march, to show clearly that it is still our opinion that this is a war that should never have been, that it is a war that should be stopped and that we need solutions to bring our Scottish troops home. Many other countries have pulled out of Iraq.
There was a lot of talk about hearts and minds when the war was entered into. What is in the hearts and minds of the people of Scotland is that we should not be in Iraq and that there should be proper reparation by those who took us into the war. What is in the hearts and minds of the people of Scotland is that we should support the Iraqi people for peace and prosperity in future—and that we need some truth.
Meeting closed at 17:46.