Plenary, 20 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, November 20, 2003

Official Report 819KB pdf

---

World Peace

The next item of business is motion S2M-618, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on world peace. There are three amendments to the motion and an amendment to one of the amendments.

If I sound hoarse, it is probably because I have been on one demonstration too many this week.

Our motion is strongly worded, because George Bush is being wined and dined and flattered and fawned over in London, and we want to counter that view of George Bush with the truth. The truth is that George Bush has blood on his hands—the blood of many hundreds of Americans and of tens of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis. This is the man who, as governor of Texas, executed 152 people. One of the last of his victims was a grandmother with learning difficulties who was found guilty of murdering her abusive husband. This is the man who used his privileged family background to dodge conscription in Vietnam and arranged to do his military service in the national guard—the equivalent of Dad's army—while thousands of young Americans of his generation were being killed in the jungles of Vietnam.

I thought that, according to the party's last speaker, the SSP was against personal attacks.

I take it from that remark that Alex Johnstone is a fan of the man—the man who has now sent 400 young American soldiers to their deaths in the desert of Iraq and has not had the common decency to turn up at any of the funerals or memorial services for those service personnel.

In May 2001, George Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban—yes, the Taliban—just months before he dropped the bombs and pulverised their regime. He continues to give money and weapons to dictatorships, but only to dictatorships who are the good guys, we must understand. For example, he gives money to the feudal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, which carries out public beheadings for witchcraft, stones women to death for adultery and—by the way, let us be clear about the fact that it is a freedom-conscious capitalist country—bans music, cinema, theatre and art. Let us hear it for capitalist democracy in Saudi Arabia.

Our motion is not against the Americans. George Bush was elected by just 25 per cent of the American electorate. In the future, when Michael Moore is President of the USA, we in the Scottish Socialist Party will be delighted to invite him on a state visit to an independent, nuclear-weapons-free, socialist Scotland. Members should get on his website and find out the truth. We are not against the American people. We are against the warlords in Washington who exploited the death and misery of the events of 11 September to unleash the dogs of war against the ordinary people of Afghanistan and Iraq to serve their own economic and political interests.

Our motion condemns Tony Blair for war crimes because of his complicity, his deceit of the Scottish Parliament, his deceit of the Westminster Parliament and his deceit of the people of the United Kingdom. In March, this Parliament voted narrowly and reluctantly to support the bombing and invasion of Iraq. Most of the MSPs who voted for war—they can speak for themselves in the debate, because they all put their hands up and supported it—did so because they believed Tony Blair. They believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be used within minutes. I am sure that they believed that the war would make the world a safer place. They will have their judgment day. They put their hands up and they can give their views in today's debate.

Now, we know—and I hope that other members will acknowledge in today's debate what the Scottish Socialist Party said all along—that there are no weapons of mass destruction.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In this very important debate, there is nobody on the Government front bench.

That is not a point of order, but it is a matter that the Executive will doubtless wish to consider.

Please continue, Ms Curran.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is obvious how important the issue is to the Executive. It is national headline news and on the front page of every newspaper, and the Scottish Executive does not feel able to participate in the debate.

Will Frances Curran accept an intervention?

I am afraid that I have to carry on as I am in the last minutes of my speech.

We know that there are no weapons of mass destruction. I hope that members will agree that, instead of creating a more peaceful and more stable world, we have stirred up a cauldron of hate in the Muslim world, which stretches from the Mediterranean to the Indian ocean. Generations will live with the consequences of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

I ask this new Parliament, which is supposed to stand for freedom and democracy—if we listen to the front-bench members, who are not even here today—to send a message on behalf of the Scottish people that reverberates across the world: that we support the mass demonstrations that are assembling in London as we speak to demonstrate against George Bush. Let us hope that the demonstration is 100,000 or 200,000-strong, or bigger. Let us also hope that the Scottish Parliament dissociates itself from Tony Blair and the Labour Government's decisions in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament sends a message that we stand for peace, solidarity and co-operation with the people of the world. Let us make our voice heard in a world that is clamouring for war.

I move,

That the Parliament opposes the State visit to the UK by George W Bush; deplores the complicity and subservience of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who now shares the responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and dozens of British service personnel; considers that the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament were deceived into backing an illegal, immoral and unjustified war; believes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned the world into a more dangerous and unstable place than ever before; agrees to send messages of support to the many thousands of protestors participating in the "Stop Bush" UK national demonstrations in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and recommends that the International Court of Justice should place George W Bush and Tony Blair on trial for war crimes.

The prospect of achieving world peace by means of a 75-minute Scottish Socialist Party debate in the Scottish Parliament seems a little optimistic. As I have just five minutes in which to open for the Labour Party, let us take it as read that the commitment to peace and justice is one of the Labour Party's fundamental principles—it always has been and it always will be.

Indeed, I sincerely hope that every member of the Parliament supports the principle of world peace. Perhaps we should give a special welcome to the opposition to violence that was expressed by Frances Curran and in the motion lodged in Tommy Sheridan's name. The SSP draws its political inspiration from one Leon Trotsky, who was famously committed to the achievement of his objectives by

"revolutionary, that is, violent means".

If we have moved on from that position, we should welcome such progress.

Frances Curran has just spoken to a motion that proposes some kind of moral equivalence between the elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the likes of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. On reflection, even Tommy Sheridan might acknowledge that that proposition is rather silly.

A lot of us might like to see regime change in the United States of America. A lot of us are very worried about the US Administration's position on climate change and extremely disturbed by the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo bay. However, the United States is a democracy. Next year, the American people will have an opportunity to elect a new President. It is a good thing that the people of Iraq should soon be able to elect their own Government at long last.

I thank the Scottish services personnel who have fought—and it is tragic that some have died—to make it possible for the Iraqi people to exercise that right. I take this opportunity to express our support and sincere gratitude to the men and women of the British armed forces and the police officers and others who are engaged in that difficult and dangerous mission. Just last week, soldiers of the Royal Scots regiment, who are recruited in the Lothian area, left Edinburgh to be deployed in Iraq. I salute their professionalism, their courage and—dare I say it—their indefatigability. Above all, we want them all to return safely to their families at the end of their tour of duty.

Incidentally, I say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues that I noticed that Mike Rumbles's amendment would, in amending the amendment that I lodged, leave out the expression of support for British troops. I hope that that is an oversight; if it is not, it is deplorable.

The big question that underlies this debate is whether it can be justified for democracies to deploy military power against tyrants who are oppressing their own people or threatening their neighbours. I accept that there is a perfectly respectable pacifist position that military action can never be justified, but I disagree with that position. I believe that military action can be justified and I am extremely grateful to my father's generation for taking up arms against Nazi Germany.

I spent some time doing relief work in areas of Bosnia that were under siege by Serb forces. I will never forget the suffering that I saw during the long wait before the United States agreed to deploy with NATO against those oppressors.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry. I have only a couple of minutes left and this is an important debate.

How many citizens of Srebrenica might be alive now if NATO had deployed sooner? Perhaps the victims of poison gas at Halabjah would have had a chance if the west had not turned a blind eye to Saddam for such a long time.

Yes, war is hell—I know; I have seen it. Yes, it would be infinitely better if we had an effective United Nations to take responsibility for these matters. Yes, it is a deplorable fact of realpolitik that it is not possible to tackle each and every rogue state immediately. However, I suggest that it would be a counsel of abject despair to use that fact as an excuse for a refusal ever to intervene against any tyrant anywhere.

The SSP motion is, in effect, a condemnation of the presence of British and other coalition peacekeepers in Iraq and it is a call for them to be withdrawn. That is exactly what the people who bombed the United Nations and the Red Cross in Iraq want us to do. If our forces were withdrawn, a bad security situation would become catastrophic, reconstruction would become impossible and the plight of Iraq's people would become even worse. Saddam Hussein would probably return to power and I do not think that that would be a good idea. If Saddam returned to power, what message would that convey to the rulers of Zimbabwe or Burma, and what hope would there be for the implementation of United Nations resolutions on Palestine?

The trouble with the SSP's world view is that it would make the world a safer place for dangerous tyrants. No thank you, Tommy. I want real criminals to be brought to justice in The Hague and I want Britain to use its influence to tackle the underlying causes of terrorism and to achieve a just resolution in the middle east. I strongly support the case for peacekeeping and peace-making intervention forces, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations. I express the Parliament's gratitude to and support for Scottish service personnel in Iraq.

I move amendment S2M-618.3, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"supports all those who are working for world peace and the extension of democracy; reasserts its support for the route map to peace in the Middle East; believes that the contribution of UK service personnel, including those from Scotland, should be commended, and expresses its sympathy to the families of those members of the armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and in the pursuit of world peace."

In stark contrast to the extremist and intemperate motion from the Scottish Socialist Party, the Liberal Democrat amendment not only reflects the public mood but identifies the three main issues that must be addressed if we are to make real progress in our efforts to make the world a safer place.

My amendment aims, among other things, to strengthen the search for peace in the middle east, which is why it starts at the point in John Home Robertson's amendment that it does. I believe that I am the only member in the chamber who has been on active service in the fight against terrorism, so I trust that John Home Robertson and other members will accept that my amendment to his amendment would not, and does not, devalue those members of the armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

The Liberal Democrats, both in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster, made our opposition to the Government's position absolutely clear. We argued most strongly that military action against Iraq should take place only as a last resort and that more time should be given for the weapons inspectors to do their job. The Government, however, justified military action on the ground that the threat from weapons of mass destruction was too great for the inspectors to be given any more time and that the UN had previously authorised such action. The facts are that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq and that the UN has been marginalised and ignored. I wish that it was otherwise.

Our amendment makes it clear that, although we believe that initiating military action in Iraq without a clear mandate from the UN was wrong, President Bush's visit provides an opportunity for us in the United Kingdom to press him to take action on three important fronts.

First, Iraq must not be abandoned. Those who went to war have a moral duty to make Iraq safe and give the people of that unfortunate country the opportunity freely to choose their own form of government. Self-determination of the Iraqi people must be a fundamental principle of the occupying powers.

Secondly, the British citizens who are imprisoned by the Americans at Guantanamo bay must be charged and receive a fair trial or be sent home to face justice here in the United Kingdom. The Americans must realise that they risk losing all moral authority in their war against terrorism. How can they achieve their aims of upholding the rule of law, defending democracy and preserving freedom if they fail to uphold those great ideals in their treatment of the people whom they imprison at Guantanamo bay? Those prisoners are held without charge; they are seemingly non-persons who are outwith the protection of any legal system. Our Government must act on its duty to protect the British citizens who are held there. The Liberal Democrats believe that action must be taken either to charge our citizens with an offence prior to a fair trial or to bring them home to face justice. The status quo is simply not an option.

Last, but certainly not least, the source of injustice that feeds the cancer of international terrorism must be addressed. The US President must honour his promise to continue his unremitting search for peace in the middle east through providing security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians.

I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would send a clear and constructive message to our American allies, and to a wider audience, that is designed to achieve movement towards a more peaceful world in the months and years ahead.

I move, as an amendment to amendment S2M-618.3, amendment S2M-618.3.1, to leave out from "reasserts" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the deep feeling aroused by the State visit of the US President George W Bush; believes that initiating military action in Iraq without a clear UN mandate was wrong, and recognises the opportunity presented by the visit to make clear the public's wish that those who initiated the war have a duty, under the supervision of the UN, to make Iraq safe and give its people the opportunity of a democratic future, that the British citizens in Guantanamo Bay are either charged and receive a fair trial or are sent home to face justice within the UK, and that the promise to continue the unremitting search for peace in the Middle East with security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians must be honoured."

The pictures on television last night of George Bush being fawned over in London must have been painful for the families of service personnel who lost their lives in his illegal war and for the families of those who are still in Iraq and who risk their lives every day. The present situation in Iraq is connected to the nature of that war. We cannot take unilateral action in defiance of the international community and then expect other countries to help us to pick up the pieces. Is it any wonder that Iraqi people now view the US and the UK not as allies on the road to democracy, but as an occupying force in their country?

In London yesterday, George Bush defended the use of measured force. A war that involves the use of thousands of cluster bombs, tonnes of depleted uranium and 30 canisters of napalm and that killed up to 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians could be described as many things, but measured is not one of them. Other countries must become involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, but that can happen only if the United Nations is put in charge, as that would allow the international community to start to lay the foundations of democracy and to work to return the country to the Iraqi people. That should be done when it is in those people's interests, not when it suits George Bush's re-election prospects.

The anger that people feel about Iraq is huge and tangible, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The debate is about world peace, which will always be an elusive dream without the positive contribution of the United States. Right now, one of the threats to world peace is the way in which the US Administration chooses to wield its military and economic might, which, whatever George Bush says, is rarely to further democracy or human rights or to lead the charge against world poverty and disease. What George Bush does and says is in America's interests, or rather what the neo-cons—the disciples of the pre-emptive strike and the full-spectrum dominance school of politics—perceive to be America's interests.

Many American citizens are as appalled by that as the rest of us are. Bush and his cronies are not representative of the majority of decent American people. Bush and his cronies are not leading the world, but putting the United States at odds with the world. They reject the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court and turn a blind eye when Israel breaches the road map to peace. They preach free trade to the impoverished third world, but engage in blatant protectionism of their industries, oblivious to the fact that nearly 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2 a day. They lecture the world about human rights, while presiding over the most appalling abuse of human rights at Guantanamo bay.

More than 600 suspected Taliban fighters—five of whom are children—have been held in Guantanamo bay for nearly two years without charge, access to lawyers or any prospect of a fair trial. It is a little known fact that, under US environmental law, iguanas on Guantanamo bay have rights. However, it seems that, under the US Administration, foreign children have no rights. That situation is justified in the name of fighting terrorism. Clearly, we all want to combat international terrorism, but understanding some of the factors that cause terrorism might be a good place to start. It is a sobering thought that, although al-Qa'ida was not active in Iraq before the war, it is now.

Bush said last night that Britain is America's best friend in the world; the problem is that Britain is one of the American Administration's only friends in the world. If Blair were a true friend of the United States, he would tell Bush today in no uncertain terms that he is on the wrong course. Sadly for all of us—not just members, but people throughout the world—no one should hold their breath for that to happen.

I move amendment S2M-618.2, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"regrets the State visit to the UK by George W Bush at a time when civilian and military casualties in Iraq continue to rise; condemns the decision by George W Bush and Tony Blair to pursue an illegal war in Iraq on the basis of false and misleading information; considers that US military command in Iraq should be passed to the United Nations and that the process of handing over control of the country to a democratic government should be accelerated in the interests of the Iraqi people rather than the re-election prospects of George W Bush; believes that the total disregard of the current US administration for the views of the international community, as illustrated by its stance on Iraq, the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court and its abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay, poses a threat to world peace, and calls on Tony Blair to raise these issues in the strongest possible terms with George W Bush during his visit to the UK."

I congratulate John Home Robertson on his amendment and on the way in which he spoke to it. I do not agree with everything that he said, but I agree with much of it. I emphasise that Conservative members support his unamended amendment, should ours not be agreed to. I also agree with something that Frances Curran said—I believe that this Parliament and the UK Parliament were misled by our Prime Minister at the outset of the Iraqi war. However, I contrast that with the actions of President Bush, who was honest about seeking a regime change, which we backed. I do not believe that the war was illegal; I believe that United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 covered our involvement in the war.

The United States has been Britain's greatest ally in striving for worldwide peace. The partnership dates back through the entire 20th century and in no period was stronger than when the United States entered the 1939-45 war, when Britain stood alone against the fascism that had been imposed throughout western Europe by Nazi Germany. Since that time, we have been through the anxious years of the cold war, when Conservative support—both in government and opposition—for nuclear deterrence was key to sustaining peace between the major power blocs and, ultimately, to bringing freedom to the eastern European countries, some of which are now at the point of entry into the European Union. I pay tribute to the many Scottish workers who worked at Holy Loch, Faslane and Rosyth in support of that programme.

The protesters who operated under the banner of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament are back on the streets today for another reason. However, on this occasion, those people will not be supported by former CND members such as Tony Blair.

As we cast our minds back to the war years, no member can fail to deplore the waste of life—50 million people died in the second world war and as many again, if not more, carried their wounds into the remainder of their lives. Anyone who supported war along those lines would need to have their heads examined. I am sure that no member would wish that to happen again. I suspect that no one in 1939 wanted the war that followed, but this nation was forced into it.

Inevitably, the war in Iraq produced casualties, but the death toll of Iraqis does not exceed the number of people who were murdered by Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. More Iraqi lives have been saved than were lost. The deaths of British servicemen and all others who have lost their lives as a consequence of military action are a heavy price to pay for our intervention in Iraq. However, so too were the deaths in action in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Bosnia. I say to Frances Curran that we went into Bosnia to protect Muslims, not to fight them, which is often forgotten these days. I well recall criticisms that were made of the Tory Government for failing to take action in Rwanda and the Congo. Those criticisms came from many of those who will be marching today over Iraq.

George Bush is a democratically elected leader of the world's only remaining superpower. He has great responsibilities on his shoulders. For us to turn our backs on him at this time would be criminal. We should remember that, for the present time, whether we like it or not, he is the voice and physical presence of every United States citizen. I deplore the way in which the Scottish socialists and Greens, among others, have attempted to stir up animosity. Given the debate on poverty that we have just had, I remind them all that many jobs in Scotland could be affected by our actions at this time.

I move amendment S2M-618.1, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the State visit to the UK of the democratically elected President of the United States of America, recognises the close ties that have existed between governments and peoples of the UK and USA in times of world war, cold war and peace, and believes that without that level of co-operation there would be no free world as we know it today."

As a long-standing member of CND, I was looking forward to this debate. To me, world peace is the most important issue that we can debate. The world has been torn apart by wars for far too long. Anything that we can do to promote peace is well worth our time and we should not miss such an opportunity.

I did not support the war in Iraq and I reject war as a solution to any of the world's problems. That comes from my belief in non-violence. I have difficulty even with the statement that war should be used only as a last resort, because the inevitable consequence is people dying. That, to me, is a good enough reason to reject war as a solution. Today's conflicts have complex roots and some have been caused by previous wars. We will not solve the problems or address the disaffection that is felt in communities and societies by recourse to violence.

However, state visits between countries are part and parcel of the communications between nations. Although we can condemn the detail of Bush's visit, the real issue is how we can promote world peace. I believe that we should seek non-violent solutions.

Over the weekend, Bush contended that the fact that we have the democratic right to demonstrate and freedom of speech is a justification for going to war. However, lots of us have taken part in demonstrations and marches and I am sure that we would have chosen to stay quietly at home if we had believed that not marching and not demonstrating would save a life or stop a bomb.

We often hear talk of a lack of interest in politics. However, once again, the demonstrations yesterday and today show that there is a deep, heartfelt interest in the politics of the world and, particularly, in the promotion of world peace.

Will the member join me in welcoming the large number of young people who came to demonstrate in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and throughout the UK, yesterday, giving the lie to the line that young people are apathetic about politics?

Yes. That is exactly the argument that I am making.

I have always believed that what we do as individuals has an effect on the wider world and I am pleased that so many members have taken this issue so seriously and come together to debate peace. What we do and say individually has an effect on how we are seen in the wider world. Scotland and the Parliament need to take their place in striving for world peace. It is a pity that we are not debating a wide-ranging statement on world peace that the majority of members could have supported easily or perhaps that we could have agreed to unanimously. Instead, the public see and hear us argue and fall out. I sincerely hope that we can look forward to a more peaceful world and that each of us will do what we can individually to promote peace in our own circle of influence.

Last night in the UK, George Bush said that violence was necessary to bring peace—what a philosophy of despair. The protests against the war in Iraq were the biggest protests ever held in the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people were out on the streets. That is the democratic will of the people—it is democracy in action—whereas the visit of George Bush is not. Where is the peace in the middle east that his foreign policy was supposed to bring? I will concentrate on one aspect of that policy.

The Daily Telegraph of 24 September reported that 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq during the recent war. The UK Government refuses to give figures, but that figure has been suggested by other researchers. The DU-coated weapons explode on contact, turning the DU into a fine radioactive dust to be blown around in the winds of Iraq—a dust that will be radioactive for the life of this planet. That is a moral outrage. Those weapons are tested here in Scotland, at Dundrennan, where some 5,000 DU-coated weapons have been fired. If their use is morally unjustifiable, so is their testing in Scotland.

If the Executive has any claims to decency, it must make representations to its English leaders to stop the testing and use of DU weapons. I am deeply disappointed that the Executive has so little interest in world peace that it could not send even one minister to the debate.

I suspect that the situation is worse than that. I think that the Executive is boycotting the debate.

I thank the member for that.

DU emits predominantly alpha radiation, which poses little external risk. However, if alpha radiation is ingested into the lungs or stomach, it is more lethal than either beta or gamma radiation. Paradoxically, low levels of alpha radiation can cause more damage than high levels can, because cells that are simply killed by high-level doses can survive low-level doses and mutate into cancers. Alpha radiation particles that are lodged in the body can stay there for life. The United Nations environment programme has warned of the risk of inhaling DU dust during the Iraq war.

It gets worse. It has been suggested that the DU that has been used was not clean. DU is a waste product from the enrichment of uranium in the nuclear industry. It is now claimed that the DU that was used in Afghanistan also contained enriched uranium and even plutonium. The process is not clean.

The European Green parties helped to ensure that the members of the European Parliament voted on 13 February for a moratorium on uranium weapons. A third of the US troops who were active in the first Gulf war are now on disability pensions with Gulf war syndrome. The European Committee on Radiation Risk recently published a report showing that previous risk models for DU exposure are incorrect by a factor of up to 1,000. In other words, DU is up to 1,000 times more carcinogenic than was previously thought.

On impact, DU explodes into a fine radioactive dust. That dust will blow in the winds of Iraq for all time for the children to breathe. That is an environmental crime. These are the weapons of mass destruction that have been used in the Iraq war. The use of depleted uranium weapons is a crime against humanity and the testing of such weapons on the beautiful Galloway coastline is an outrage.

I congratulate Mr Sheridan on securing this debate to highlight the crimes that have been committed by the Labour Government in the Iraq war and I call on the Executive to stop the testing of DU weapons in Scotland forthwith.

Wendy Alexander slagged us off this morning for Bush baiting. While Bush is baiting the rest of the planet, we will continue Bush baiting on every possible platform and the Scottish Parliament will be no exception. I will pass my speech to Stewart Stevenson later, as he and his researchers seem to have loads of time to be my political stalkers.

I support what Chris Ballance said about the Executive ministers, who clearly could not be bothered to come to the chamber. I agree with Christine Grahame that they seem to be boycotting the Parliament. Is that not extreme? It is a pity that they do not boycott, behave badly and express themselves in direct action like that when that is required in the streets or in the Parliament.

We have had Pinochet and Putin, so why not go the whole hog and have George Bush as well? The UK is fast becoming a red-carpeted safe haven for every bloodthirsty killer on the planet. When innocent people come here fleeing poverty and war or seeking a better future, they are fingerprinted, photographed, cross-examined, humiliated, frightened and detained, yet the warmonger can come freely and is wined and dined at the taxpayer's expense.

This morning, we talked about poverty and heard that we have no money for services, wages, free school meals or hospitals. However, it seems that we have an open cheque book when it comes to death and destruction. Let us look at what we get for our blood money. Since the second world war, the USA has been involved in the deaths of at least 86 million people, mainly from countries in the southern hemisphere. The majority of victims of armed conflict are women and children. Rape is routinely used as a weapon of war, yet rape victims are rarely granted asylum. It cost £6.6 billion to attack and invade Iraq while 1.5 million people die of malnutrition every year.

Having worked in the area, I know that many soldiers are either conscripted or join the military to escape poverty or to get training or employment. I also know that our job centres are now full of army recruitment officers soaking up young people who have no other opportunities and who are then forced to kill people who are even less well off than they are. When those young people return sick from the effects of pollution and traumatised by the terror of killing, they are ignored by their Government.

The USA's war on terror enforces economic, political and military domination on behalf of the oil industry and multinational corporations. Capitalism and the arms industry wander freely throughout the planet, their way paved by war, while the victims and asylum seekers are treated with cruelty and suspicion.

Tony Blair has no friends other than the warmongers any more. His invitation to George Bush is an insult, given that people on all sides are dying daily as a result of the attacks, which were based on lies. More than $900 billion has now been spent on military budgets worldwide instead of on caring for everyone on the planet.

Earlier, we talked about poverty—at least, some of us did. When Gordon Brown was asked how much he was prepared to spend on war, he replied that he would spend as much as it takes. That is the Brown principle. I ask members to imagine what would happen if that principle could be applied to poverty.

The Washington warlord is not welcome and the Scottish Parliament should and must distance itself from his visit in the way that the Scottish Executive has distanced itself from this debate.

This debate is primarily about US foreign policy and the fact that the UK Prime Minister has given his blessing to it. The world faces a dilemma in that we cannot achieve world peace without the backing of the US but neither can we achieve it with the current US leadership in place.

I remind the chamber that yesterday was the 13th anniversary of the signing in Paris by the members of the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of the treaty that signalled the end of the cold war. However, in this new millennium, few people in Scotland or internationally would think that the world has become a safer place in the past 13 years. We all know that, thanks to the USA's short-sighted foreign policy, the world is a much more dangerous place.

As an indication of the changes that have taken place over the past 13 years, I draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that, last week, a survey revealed that 53 per cent of Europeans think that the USA is a danger to world security. That places the USA on a par with North Korea and Iran. Of course, George Bush has become unpopular throughout Europe not only because of Iraq, but because of his back-pedalling on the environment and his opposition to the International Criminal Court.

Previously, the cold war united Europe and the USA, but now America is the only huge economic and military superpower on the planet. It has decided to use that might to become the archetypal playground bully, thinking that the only way in which it can do things is by using that economic and military might.

What happened on 11 September should have been a wake-up call to the USA but, instead, it seemed to view it as some sort of call to arms. After 11 September, we were all united behind the USA in the fight against international terrorism. However, America moved the agenda away from that and towards weapons of mass destruction and, later, regime change. In the meantime, other issues that it could have tackled, such as world poverty, famine and the issues that feed terrorism throughout the world, have been completely neglected, particularly the crisis in the middle east, which seems to have fallen off the USA's radar screen.

Surely our strategy must be to isolate the terrorists. However, the current USA policy, to which Blair gives his blessing, isolates America and the UK, not the terrorists. Further, it gives terrorism a worldwide recruiting sergeant and it undermines the UN.

The challenge facing Scotland, the UK and the rest of the international community is somehow to persuade the USA that international interests are also America's interests. At the moment, the USA is trying to persuade the rest of the world that its interests are the same as international interests.

Bush has to start learning how to make friends and not just create enemies. Yesterday, the UN put out an appeal for aid to help in the 21 crises throughout the world that have been neglected because of what has happened in Iraq and, previously, in Afghanistan. The UN wants $3 billion to that end, which is a tiny percentage of the $87 billion that Bush asked Congress for to deal with the situation in Iraq. What would the world be like today if Bush had thought that it was in the USA's interest to ask Congress for $87 billion to tackle world poverty and famine? Think of the bridges that that would have built and the resentment towards the USA that would have been eliminated.

Scotland should be confident of being able to make a contribution to the process that I have described. We should remember that, back in the early 1990s, Norway helped the middle east peace process and that, as Ireland takes over the European Union presidency, it has put on the EU's agenda a range of issues relating to international development and world peace. If a small nation such as Ireland can make that sort of contribution, Scotland should be able to do so as well. It is despicable that the Scottish Executive ministers have not appeared for this important debate.

The message from this chamber today should be that the USA's leaders must change their foreign policy and that, if they will not do that, the people of the USA must change their political leaders.

This debate has provoked some genuine and strong speeches. Two or three members have noted that no Executive ministers are sitting on the front bench. The reason for that is quite clear: there is no Executive position on this reserved matter and the two Executive parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, are here today to state their own views.

Mike Rumbles expressed the Liberal Democrat case in relation to war. We argued passionately that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to do their job in Iraq. We believed that war should have been undertaken only as a last resort and that action should have been taken only with the clear authority of the UN.

I believe that Prime Minister Tony Blair was sincere when he argued in the foreword to the February dossier that Saddam Hussein's

"military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

That is the case for war that was put by his Government and for which he won parliamentary backing. However, the fact that the USA-led survey group has failed to find any evidence whatever of weapons of mass destruction shows that that premise was fatally flawed and, therefore, that the war was wrong.

Would the member also like to put on record the fact that no evidence has been found of any linkage between Iraq and al-Qa'ida or the attacks on 11 September?

That is well recognised and I take that point.

There are many who suggest that George Bush should not have visited the UK. I believe that we must give him the respect that he deserves as the democratically elected President of the USA and that he should be welcomed.

Is George Lyon seriously suggesting that George Bush got more votes than his rival?

We could spend all day discussing that matter. Whether we like it or not, he is the elected President of the United States. Although his visit might be ill-timed, it presents us with an opportunity to make clear to him the public's wish that those who initiated the war have a duty, under the supervision of the UN, to make Iraq safe and give it the opportunity of a democratic future. The timetable for bringing the troops out of Iraq and handing over power must be driven by that goal alone and not by George Bush's re-election campaign.

George Bush must also be told that British citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo bay must either be charged by the American authorities and receive a fair trial or be returned here to the UK to face justice. Either way, President Bush must make a decision on the matter. I understand that, when Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, met President Bush yesterday, he was given an indication that progress would be made on the issue. However, we need an announcement today, before President Bush leaves the country.

I put on record the Liberal Democrats' tribute to our troops in Iraq and to those who have lost their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The troops have done us proud in their conduct during the war and in their attempt to manage the peace since the war's conclusion.

The visit of President Bush offers a real opportunity to drive home to him the deep concerns that the British public have about his Government's foreign policy and about his intentions on Iraq; to reinforce to him the desperate need to continue to pursue a solution to the running sore in the middle east; and to demand action on his treatment of British citizens at Guantanamo bay. I hope that all members will take the opportunity of tonight's vote to send a clear message from the Parliament to George Bush that we want action. Support our amendment.

I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on world peace. It is useful to remind ourselves of necessary priorities in our attempts to make the world a safer place. If Tommy Sheridan and his colleagues had been in Iraq and had opposed Saddam Hussein's regime in much the same way as he opposes the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, it is unlikely that he and they would have lasted long. That is a point that is very much in favour of British democracy. However, I defend absolutely the right of Tommy Sheridan and his party to speak their minds forcefully and to the point.

We support peace and peaceful developments, but not at any price. That has been a Scots tradition since the declaration of Arbroath.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am not giving way. I am entitled to freedom of speech as much as SSP members. The SSP has allowed only one hour for a debate of the greatest possible magnitude and I regret very much that the whole morning was not provided for it, in which case I would have given way repeatedly.

The declaration of Arbroath stated:

"For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honour, but it is liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life."

That was a wholly honourable and worthy sentiment.

As we near the 40th anniversary of his assassination, I cannot help recalling the words of President John F Kennedy in his inaugural address:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That, again, was a wholly honourable and worthy sentiment.

The reasons why freedom can protect peace are the very ones that President Roosevelt gave when he set out the four central human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Where there is lawlessness, disorder and indiscriminate murder of civilians, there is no freedom of peace of mind for those in the vicinity, because the rights and freedoms of those concerned have been violated. Communities throughout the world have the right to survival against such threats of violence.

In the course of the debate, a number of less-than-complimentary remarks have been made about President George W Bush. As it happens, I hold in my hands a letter that he sent to me shortly after his election. In that letter, he commented on the theme of this morning's debate, namely peace. As he cannot be here this morning, it is only fair that I report to the Parliament what he wrote. He said:

"We will undoubtedly face a number of challenges in the years ahead. I am confident that, with a spirit of mutual respect, co-operation, and open dialogue, we can successfully meet these challenges. The future also presents enormous opportunities. Together we can use these opportunities to advance the peace, freedom and prosperity of our peoples."

I commend his words to the Parliament.

I welcome today's SSP debate on world peace. Many members have been saying that it is ridiculous to debate world peace in only an hour and a quarter. We cannot solve the problem in an hour and a quarter, but if we and people round the world stopped talking about ideals, ambitions and dreams, we would never get anywhere.

The SSP has the right to use its debating time for the subjects that it wishes to debate. We hear all the time from the Scottish Executive that everyone has rights and responsibilities. The SSP has the right to discuss world peace and I believe that the Scottish Executive should at least have the responsibility to turn up and listen to the debate. George Lyon gave us a reason why the Executive ministers are not here: it is because they have no position on world peace. Will that same Executive display absolute hypocrisy by turning up at 5 o'clock this evening and pressing their buttons to vote against—

World peace.

Yes, against world peace—on which they do not have a view. That would be purely so that they do not embarrass Tony down the road by the Parliament saying that it totally opposes what he and his friend George Bush are up to.

Instead of hearing from the Scottish Executive, we heard John Home Robertson, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party. He is no longer in the chamber either—unless he is creeping round the back somewhere. John told us that the commitment to peace and justice is fundamental to the Labour Party. He should tell the Executive that, and ministers should be here to listen. He should also tell Tony Blair that, because he seems to have forgotten about that fundamental commitment of the Labour Party.

John Home Robertson went on to salute the Scottish soldiers, which I think everyone does. He noted that the Lib Dems did not include that in their amendment, and said that that was deplorable, unless it was an error—which George Lyon cleared up. It is also deplorable that the Scottish Executive is not represented here to salute the Scottish soldiers, in line with an amendment lodged by a member of the Labour Party.

The debate moved on. Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochhead and others were at pains to express the fact that we are not against the Americans or American ideals; we are against how those ideals have been traduced by the right-wing cabal that now has power in America. We heard references to the American President being democratically elected. Is there anybody here who really believes that, after the debacle that was the last presidential election in the USA? We are against the apparent unquestioning acceptance by the Prime Minister of this country of everything that that right-wing cabal in America says, which has led us into a disastrous war, with disastrous and continuing consequences.

I thought that Chris Ballance's contribution on gulf war syndrome and depleted uranium and its effects was very interesting. It would do everyone good to read his speech in the Official Report tomorrow and to come to a view on how we can protest about that particular element of policy. That leads me to the weapons of mass destruction that are located down on the Clyde. If we are seriously talking about world peace, then let us talk seriously about ridding our country of nuclear weapons.

The debate obviously goes much wider than Iraq. The problems of Iraq are not the only ones in the world. Let us do some of that talking, dreaming and real radical thinking and move towards looking at world peace. Let us start with a debate on the arms trade and the fact that, for as long as western Governments prop it up, we will never achieve world peace. Please support the SNP amendment.

In my four minutes I will add my voice to the voices of many Scots who have strong emotions about the current situation in Iraq and the visit of President Bush. The motion in Tommy Sheridan's name asks us to condemn the visit by President Bush and indict Bush and Blair for war crimes. I have no trouble supporting the first part of the motion, but I do not think that the second part in any way attempts to pull in a broad-based position. I believe that it is Saddam Hussein and his ministry who should be brought before a war crimes tribunal. I cannot welcome Bush's visit on any count, not just because of his dishonesty over the war, but because of the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay, which cannot continue, and his failure to sign the International Criminal Court agreement and the Kyoto agreement. There are numerous reasons why I do not welcome his presence in the United Kingdom.

Will the member give way?

No. I do not have time.

Frances Curran said that perhaps we should have Michael Moore for president. He is a funny guy, but he is making lots of money, so I do not think that he is a socialist.

We have had a mature debate this morning, as we have had mature debates on this subject in the past. It is crucial that that level of dignity continues. If we do not have a level of dignity around debates in which we disagree, we are not representing seriously our constituents, who have a variety of views to which they come in a considered way. I am working with Scottish universities that are working with institutions in Baghdad to help the Iraqi people in some way. We should all consider what we can do.

I turn to the amendments to the motion. The SNP amendment is fair, but I will not support the Tory amendment tonight. I have a couple of words to say on the Liberal Democrats' position. I do not believe that it is a fundamentally antiwar position, although I understand where the Liberal Democrats are coming from. This is the second time that they have called for peace in the middle east and I support that; however, if they really believe in peace in the middle east, they must join others in the Parliament and in the cross-party group on Palestine and add their voice. I have said that before.

Will the member give way?

Only if it is to hear the member say that he will come to the cross-party group. I am sorry that I do not have the time.

Prime Minister Blair and President Bush have claimed that they want to achieve world peace and that they want a solution for the Palestinian people.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I do not have time, because I want to talk about the Palestinian cause.

It is just a short intervention.

The member is not taking an intervention.

Prime Minister Blair and President Bush's words on that are weak, because there has been little action on it. It is important to recognise that the reason why we need a solution for the Palestinians is that there will not be peace in the world or the middle east unless we resolve the matter.

I want to put on record why that is important. Palestinians are a people without a country; they are displaced in the middle east. Some people might say that they are a people too many; I say that they are a country short. To be an ordinary Palestinian today means having experienced half a century of conflict, being deprived of the elementary right to live in one's country and being forcibly removed from one's house to allow one more Israeli family, who might not have been born in the region, to settle. Palestinians have no means of identity, unlike every other citizen in the country. They have no Palestinian passport and they are denied the national expression and national identity that every other person in the world—with notable exceptions—has.

It is important to recognise the balance of power in the conflict. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will join me in condemning what is happening with the building of the so-called security wall, which is further isolating poor communities in the west bank from their water supply, and the crippling checkpoints that mean that ordinary Palestinians cannot get to the doctor or attend a funeral. That is the reality of life in the occupied territories. I know that there is consensus about getting peace, but we need action from everyone to ensure that we get it.

I might have to raise my voice as the sound of some members of the Executive making their way to their seats at long last might be problematic for members' hearing what I have to say.

Pauline McNeill said that she was glad to join us in condemning the visit of the warmonger George Bush to the United Kingdom but that she is not prepared to support our call for him and Mr Blair to be present in an international court to answer the accusation of war crimes. Last night, one of the key members of the defense policy board, which advises the United States Department of Defense, Mr Richard Perle, made a speech in London. In that speech he said about the invasion of Iraq:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

The reason why we want Mr Blair and Mr Bush tried for war crimes is that they have broken international law. I find it absolutely offensive for members such as Phil Gallie, John Home Robertson and others to compare in any way, shape or form the threat of Adolf Hitler in 1939—the real and urgent threat of the Nazi regime—with the phoney web of deceit and lies that was fabricated to justify the invasion of Iraq and which has led to the deaths, according to Medact, of between 22,000 and 55,000 people in Iraq, at least 11,000 of whom were innocent civilians. That is four 11 Septembers. That is what happened in Iraq on the basis of a fabricated tissue of lies and deceit that the Iraqi regime posed any threat to either the US or Britain.

The reality is that the Iraq regime was odious and tyrannical and the people of Iraq should have been supported with international solidarity in overthrowing it. I say to James Douglas-Hamilton that I will take no lectures from a Tory, because in government his party supported, financed and armed that odious, tyrannical regime throughout the 1980s. I say to John Home Robertson that I will take no lectures from him, with his selective amnesia. When he was having a go at Milosevic and Hussein, why did he leave out Suharto and the regime that was given 100 arms deals by his leader, Tony Blair, before the people of Indonesia—not bombs or foreign invasions—overthrew that odious regime? It is a pity that John Home Robertson forgets how odious it was.

The whole world is now a more unstable place than it was before the bombs were unleashed in Afghanistan and Iraq and before more and more people began to say, "What about Osama bin forgotten and Saddam who?" The war was supposed to be about them, but it had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the United States of America securing a cheap oil supply and ensuring its domination across the globe. It is a great pity that the Executive, which wants to talk day in, day out about the neds, the thugs and yob culture, is not prepared to come here today to defend the biggest ned on the world stage, George Bush. That is the problem that the Executive faces.

It is a pity that the Executive is willing to have the courage to vote to send servicemen and women to an early grave, as well as innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan, but does not have the courage to sit on the front bench and defend its position in this morning's debate. That type of behaviour is absolutely reprehensible.

This country might not have been united in its opposition to the war in Iraq, as many people had their doubts and thought, "Maybe they know something that we don't; maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt," but there is now a mood throughout the country as people realise that the case for war was a complete and utter fabrication to justify the invasion of Iraq. Tony Bliar lied to the people of this country, and he should be ashamed of that.

If we are talking about friendship, perhaps we should invite George Bush to Scotland; however, the only reason why we should invite George Bush to Scotland is so that we can put him in one of the Trident submarines and send him back to America with his nuclear weapons. If he is not willing to come to Scotland, perhaps he will come to Hartlepool and get on board one of the toxic ships that we can send back to America as well.

In this Parliament, we should express nothing but solidarity with the American people, but we should express complete and utter contempt for the American Government and Administration. They should be in court, in the dock, for their international war crimes, which have made our world less safe to live in.

Before we move to First Minister's question time—[Interruption.]

I suspend the meeting for three minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—