Anti-war on Iraq Demonstration
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3811, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on supporting the 15 February anti-war on Iraq demonstration in Glasgow, and two amendments to that motion.
Two weeks ago in the chamber we discussed the grave international situation. Today the dark clouds of war and savage destruction are closer and more real than ever.
I read a fantastic article in yesterday's edition of The Mirror by the internationally acclaimed investigative journalist, John Pilger. His piece was headlined "Bloody Cowards", referring to George Bush and Tony Blair, who want to drag the whole world into a war on Iraq. They have both managed to avoid real war. That accusation is even more damaging for George Bush than it is for Tony Blair, as George Bush's family used their wealth and power to enable him to avoid the draft for Vietnam, so that he would not be in any of the 50,000 body-bags that returned. The present situation is much more damaging than Mr Bush and Mr Blair would have us believe.
Pilger described his experience of reporting from the front line in Vietnam. On reaching a village that had recently been carpet-bombed, he found that the street had turned into a crater. He
"slipped on the severed shank of a buffalo, and fell hard into a ditch filled with pieces of limbs and the intact bodies of children thrown into the air by the blast."
He described how the
"children's skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. A small leg had been so contorted by the blast that the foot seemed to be growing from a shoulder."
The sight made him vomit. He went on to recall how those graphic images did not appear in the news bulletins or in the daily newspapers.
In the article, Pilger referred to an announcement by the Pentagon in Washington, which reveals its intention
"to shatter Iraq ‘physically, emotionally and psychologically' by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.
This will be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War. A military strategist called Harlan Ullman told American television: ‘There will not be a safe place in Baghdad. The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before.'"
The strategy is called the shock and awe strategy. Mr Ullman described its intent:
"You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes."
Members should remember that Iraq is a predominantly urban country of 26 million citizens.
Two weeks ago, George Reid made an excellent speech in which he urged caution and calm, on the basis of the United Nations' estimates of casualties and after-war effects. Some members will be aware that although it has been leaked, that United Nations report has not been made public, as a result of pressure that has been brought to bear. The report estimates that some 100,000 Iraqi civilians are likely to die and that up to 500,000 of them will be mutilated or injured or will die from after-effects. It is estimated that some 900,000 Iraqis will be forced to move to Iran as refugees and that some 2 million people will be displaced within Iraq.
The sewerage system in Iraq, which has already been ruined by sanctions and the last war, will be completely destroyed, which will lead to disease—especially water-borne diseases such as cholera—and the possible death of 500,000 people, predominantly children. Half of the Iraqi population is under the age of 14.
It is important to bear in mind all that information. In my view, members who think that the so-called evidence that has been presented on the world stage to date justifies unleashing such terror and hell on the people of Iraq are wrong.
War must always be not just a last resort but a very last resort. We are being dragged, far too early, into a war that will have deplorable consequences, simply because the United States of America wants to spread its empire and its control of the world's economic resources—most notably, oil. The United States wants to introduce new international relations that are not based on diplomacy or discussion, but on the principle that might is right.
Each and every member of this Parliament should think about that. I encourage all members to attend the demo on 15 February. Some members are less anti-war than others, but all should remember that, if George Bush gets away with his new pre-emptive strike strategy, the future will be the wild west, where we shoot first and ask questions later. That is what George Bush wants to drag us into.
One country in the middle east has weapons of mass destruction, which it uses to impose its might, and aggressively attacks other countries on its borders. That country is not Iraq, but Israel. People across the world see the hypocrisy of the situation. Israel daily increases the toll of Palestinian children who are murdered, but instead of Israel being set up for attack it is given more aid and support. We do not need weapons inspectors to find out that Israel has nuclear weapons.
The politicians of the world have failed us, so I appeal to the people of Scotland to take to the streets on 15 February and march with heads held high. Say it loud and clear: "Not in my name." We must not unleash hell on the people of Iraq or murder and maim even more innocent Iraqi men, women and children in the name of George Bush's desire to create a new world empire that is built on military might and on control of the world's oil reserves.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the organisations that support the Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War that include the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Scottish UNISON, Scottish UCATT, Fire Brigades Union, Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Scottish Quakers, Iona Community, Trident Ploughshares, Faslane Peace Camp, Church and Nation Committee Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, Christian Aid, Scottish United Nations Association, Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, Islamic Society of Britain, UK Islamic Mission, Muslim Association of Britain, Glasgow Refugee Action Group, Chhokar Family Campaign, Scottish Green Party, Labour Party Campaign for Socialism, Labour Campaign for Justice Not War, Scottish Socialist Party, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Scotland, Democratic Left Scotland, Globalise Resistance, Socialist Labour Party, Campaign to Welcome Refugees, Scottish Centre for Non-Violence and Finance Workers Broad Left; agrees to support the demonstration on 15 February 2003 in Glasgow called by the Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War against attacking Iraq, and believes that waging world-wide war against poverty and injustice would deliver a more stable, peaceful and just world than a war waged on Iraq with the resultant loss of innocent Iraqi citizens' lives
The Executive notes the long list of organisations in Mr Sheridan's motion that support the demonstration in Glasgow on 15 February. It is hard to argue against facts and, for all I know, other bodies may be planning to participate.
I hardly need say that the Executive fully supports the right of individuals and groups to take part in peaceful demonstrations or protest marches. The citizens of this country have a democratic right to peaceful protest and to express their opinions on issues that concern them. We should remember that that is not always the case in other countries. I wonder whether a protest march might take place in Baghdad.
The prospect of war has always provoked a great deal of passion and heated debate, and rightly so. We all deplore the present suffering of the Iraqi people and, indeed, of any people who live in fear of war, poverty or disease.
I am sure that the Parliament will appreciate that the Executive is not in a position to enter into making foreign policy. The position of the parties in the Parliament was made evident on Thursday 16 January, when we debated the current international situation.
Does the minister agree that Mr Sheridan made a rather startling omission from his speech by not speaking to the last three lines of his motion, which the minister has now done? Those lines speak about the need for a worldwide fight against poverty, injustice, disease and famine. Mr Sheridan forgot all that in the rant that he delivered.
Mr Raffan makes a perfectly fair point. I am sure that all of us feel that citizens across the world should not face poverty and disease. Any efforts that are made to alleviate suffering would be supported by the whole Parliament.
It is absolutely obvious that this Parliament cannot make foreign policy, but does the Executive not feel up to endorsing the stance of the Church of Scotland's church and nation committee and the Roman Catholic Church's justice and peace commission, which will join the march against an unjust war?
It is not for the Executive to endorse or instruct the people of Scotland. If the people of Scotland, however constituted and in whatever body or form, freely and democratically come together to make a peaceful protest, that is entirely and completely appropriate.
I have nothing more to add to the debate other than to move amendment S1M-3811.2, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert—
"further notes the demonstration on 15 February 2003 in Glasgow called by the Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War against attacking Iraq, and endorses the right to express opinion in peaceful protest."
All politicians in the chamber value our democracy. We acknowledge the right of people to demonstrate, provided that they demonstrate peacefully and within the civil law. I hope that the demonstration that Tommy Sheridan will be part of goes along those lines. It will be interesting to see how many people turn out. The important thing is that that demonstration is peaceful and within the civil law.
On that basis, I accept the first part of Tommy Sheridan's motion. It is reasonable to record in the annals of the Parliament the fact that those groups and bodies have taken such a stance.
In expressing the concerns that we all share about the impending disaster for the people of Iraq, it is sad to say that the Iraqi leadership does not seem to share those concerns. I regret that there was no reference in Tommy Sheridan's motion to the people in our armed services who will be expected to lay down their lives in any future confrontation.
In examining the list of those groups that support the aims of the march, I recognise a certain consistency of views. In recent decades, many of those groups opposed the United Kingdom taking up arms in the Falklands, Kosovo and even in the Gulf on the last occasion. Indeed, they stood against the UK's defence policy that saw the major nations free from involvement in a third world war after the disaster of the 1939 to 1945 conflict. That policy was responsible for the collapse of the Berlin wall that brought freedom across Europe and reduced tensions within the world.
In the last debate on this subject, Tommy Sheridan said:
"smell the oil"—[Official Report, 16 January 2002; c 17035.]
There was no oil involved in the Falklands or in Kosovo, but we still took up arms and we did the right thing in the view of the UK Government and of the people of Kosovo, the Falklands and the United Kingdom.
I emphasise that my colleagues and I hope and pray that our forces will not be involved in military action. Quite honestly, given the scenes that Tommy Sheridan has described using John Pilger's words, none of us can want to see those things happen again. However, occasionally we have to take a stand.
The threat of armed conflict has already worked. The arms inspectors are back in Iraq and I believe that that is because of that threat. I am sad that France and Germany have split the solidarity that seemed to exist on the issue. They need not back armed conflict, but support for the threat at this time is important and could well work to reduce Hussein's resolve and produce a greater level of co-operation with the arms inspectors.
I would be interested to hear Mr Gallie's explanation of what leads him to believe that a tyrannical regime, hated by its own people, would feel pressure to capitulate to the demands of the west simply because there is a threat. If there is a threat, will they not fight to the last man because they know that they do not have the support of their people?
What is liable to happen is that those who surround Saddam Hussein—some of whom might be no better than Hussein in the way that they have administered Iraq over recent years—will try to save their own skins. One way would be to sacrifice Hussein. That is what I hope; it might not work but it is an option that I cling to because I do not want to see the war go ahead.
However, I believe that the arms inspectors must be given more time, although there should be a deadline. The 30 per cent of our armed services that are already committed to a possible campaign are in an alien situation and we cannot leave them there.
There is much more that I would like to say, but I reckon that time has caught up on me. For Saddam Hussein, it is not just a case of the arms inspectors finding nothing; he must demonstrate where his biological weapons, chemical weapons and missiles have gone. He cannot just have lost them—where are they now?
I move amendment S1M-3811.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end.
I hope that I—along with other SNP members—can rely on your forbearance, Presiding Officer, with our requests to speak. We have not lodged an amendment to the motion because we shall support it.
It was with some concern that I read the Executive's amendment, which would remove from the motion the statement of belief, that
"waging world-wide war against poverty and injustice would deliver a more stable, peaceful and just world than a war waged on Iraq".
That means that the Executive will ask the chamber—and its back benchers—to say that they do not agree with such a belief. I hope that other members will think long and hard when it comes to decision time.
Two weeks ago, when the SNP used its time to debate war on Iraq, we raised our deep concerns that the Government was pursuing an inevitable path to war with Iraq. Two weeks on, is it more or less likely that we are on an inevitable path to war? I listened to Tony Blair yesterday in Westminster, and he responded to the question, "Where next?" with, "North Korea". When he is asked where it all ends, he does not have answer; he says that it will go on and on. That is what many people fear—a perpetual war with no end, where we are fighting against states when we are supposed to be fighting against a terrorism that knows no state boundaries.
The SNP has serious concerns. It is clear from Tony Blair's reaction yesterday that he knows he is losing public support. He cannot expect the soldiers of this country to enter a war that does not have public support. Some 53 per cent of people would support a war only if it had UN backing; only 13 per cent support Tony Blair's position.
Only last night, I was speaking in West Lothian at a meeting on the war. My constituents were desperate to make sure that their voices were heard. They do not see politicians reflecting their voices and concerns about the situation. Their concerns related to the consequences of war. We talked about the children. Half of the population of Baghdad are children. Are we prepared to support, without evidence, a pre-emptive strike and a reign of terror to which Tommy Sheridan referred?
My constituents talked about the need for a war on poverty and injustice. Indeed, a man told me about his two sons, who are 19 and 21 and are on standby with the Royal Air Force. His loyalties were clearly torn between love for his sons and anger about what is being proposed in his name. We must recognise our responsibilities to our children. Last night, women were wondering what sort of example we were setting our children. Instead of endorsing the war, we should be seeking a peaceful resolution. Even Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf has said in the press that the UN inspectors need more time.
We are in a very worrying situation. As a result, we must recognise that we have a responsibility to speak out, which is why at the march in Glasgow on 15 February the leader of the SNP, John Swinney, will speak in support of the demonstration. That will be a day of destiny for many people, not least for Tony Blair. When he comes to Glasgow, he will hear the many voices of Scotland saying, "We want justice, peace and an end to poverty in our world." They want Tony Blair to think twice before he leads our country of Scotland and our Scottish troops into a war that he says may go on and on and on.
This is our last chance to give a warning. We must use the opportunity on 15 February to ensure that Scotland's voices are heard.
The Labour and trade union movement has a proud history of protesting against issues that it believes to be unfair, unjust or just downright wrong. Indeed, one of the defining features of a liberal, tolerant and democratic society is that individual citizens enjoy freedom of speech, are able to articulate their views and can participate in demonstrations with the purpose of influencing others. No one can deny that that should be the case, and in a fortnight's time many will assemble in Glasgow to exercise those rights.
Two of the organisations of which I am a member will be supporting the demonstration. Many people in Scotland feel deeply uneasy about the possibility of war with Iraq. War should be avoided whenever possible, although I am certainly not a pacifist. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that, too often in the past, many of our young people have been sacrificed for very little, if any gain.
Like many in the Labour party, I believe that unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom is not desirable, although I acknowledge fully that the current position of the national Government is pretty fluid and constantly changing.
The UN inspectors must be given enough time to carry out the terms of the UN resolution and, like many members who took part in the debate two weeks ago, I sincerely hope that that will happen.
It is easy to criticise the Prime Minister and to caricature him—as some have done—as merely following the US President's diktat. However, only today the Democrat minority leader in the US Senate indicated his belief that Tony Blair is and can be a restraining influence on the US President. We should recognise that and the role that Tony Blair has played in this difficult situation.
The final clause in Tommy Sheridan's motion addresses world poverty.
Will the speaker kindly explain where Mr Blair has been a restraining influence on the occupant of the White House? What does the speaker tell the two groups of which he is a member about his attitude to the war? He said that they oppose war.
I remind Dorothy-Grace that I was quoting the view of the Democrat minority leader in the United States Senate, who says that he believes that Tony Blair, our Prime Minister, has been and can be a restraining influence on George Bush. It is a difficult and complex situation and we must recognise that not everyone in the chamber—if anyone—knows all the facts.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have already taken one.
I am proud to be a member of the same party as Claire Short, Secretary of State for International Development in Her Majesty's Government. She has done more than anyone else to address the issue at a UK level during the past 30 years.
Claire Short addressed a public meeting in my constituency a few months ago. The knowledge and passion she brought to her subject was enlightening and uplifting. It is not the case that the Labour party or the Labour Government are not interested in and are not addressing this important issue. Those who wish to will attend the demonstration in Glasgow next week. They have every right to do so and I will support them. However, we must recognise that the issue is not whether people should attend a demonstration, but the fact that they have a legitimate right to make their views known. We should all be sincerely proud of that.
The position of the Liberal Democrats on possible war against Iraq is clear: there should be no military action without a United Nations mandate and no British troops should be committed before a debate on a substantive motion in the House of Commons.
Iraq is the current primary focus of American foreign and military policy. The question is whether it should be. Few doubt that the USA's overwhelming military might could remove the Iraqi regime, but that alone will not stall the spread of international terrorism. Indeed, it could achieve the opposite and further destabilise the middle east, further alienate the Muslim world and provoke even more terrorist attacks.
The war against international terrorism is a much more difficult war to conduct. It is against a largely invisible and elusive enemy who can strike anywhere, at any time. That war requires far more skill, patience, international co-operation and, indeed, good luck. That was brought home to me when I was in Kenya as an election observer over Christmas. I visited the devastated site of the bombed Paradise hotel, north of Mombasa, where innocent Israeli and African men, women and children were killed and maimed late last year.
The war against international terror requires a combination of and a delicate balance between diplomacy, intelligence, military action when justified and endorsed by the United Nations, and international aid.
The distinguished American economist, Jeffrey Sachs, said that, in the campaign against international terrorism, we must deploy
"Weapons of Mass Salvation … in addition to combating Weapons of Mass Destruction".
By "Weapons of Mass Salvation" I mean, and he meant, pharmaceutical drugs and medical treatment, and food and development aid, which could save millions of lives and turn the tide in the battle against epidemics and famine.
I warmly welcome the section of President Bush's state-of-the-union speech in which he spoke about the AIDS pandemic currently sweeping Africa—and which is now emerging on a devastating scale in both India and China. I welcome the increased aid that his Administration has committed to combating that pandemic. However, although the Bush Administration is prepared to spend $100 billion on the war against Iraq, it will still contribute less than 2 per cent of the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
At the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development, which I regret the President did not attend, the Americans committed themselves to a target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product in development assistance to developing countries. At a current 0.1 per cent of GNP, the USA is a long way short of that target—$60 billion short, to be precise. If the Americans lead the global war against poverty and disease as well as the international war against terrorism, not only will they save millions of lives, but they will also win the hearts and minds of millions more.
Phil Gallie talked about people opposing the bombing of Kosovo. Yes, many people did, for what they thought were principled, valid reasons at the time. However, as the wheel has turned, many in the right wing now oppose the refugees who have had to come here. Phil Gallie must make up his mind, because we will have to take in refugees from other Middle Eastern countries as well if the gates of hell are opened.
Will Dorothy-Grace Elder give way?
I have only three minutes, so I am afraid that I cannot allow Phil Gallie to intervene.
I would like to thank Tommy Sheridan for securing this morning's debate and for speaking so valiantly. This is a Parliament that is too often run by business managers, and the voices of the people and what they are saying on the streets must come through. That is what Tommy and other members have expressed today.
Last week in the European Parliament in Brussels, there came one of those chilling moments when an Austrian member, Herbert Bosch, stood up to speak. He was one of the people on the delegation to Glasgow, in which I was involved, over the closure of a cattle incinerator in the east end. Mr Bosch said that he had been appalled not just at the pollution, but also at the poverty levels that he had seen in Glasgow. He said of the 50 per cent of children in the east end of Glasgow who live in poverty that he did not know, until he visited Glasgow, that there was such a level of child poverty in a northern European country today. That decent man appealed for help for Glasgow, as did the Italian and Welsh members who were part of the delegation.
I have good news for all those who are concerned about war, including Tommy Sheridan. Obviously we can afford to end poverty and we can afford to do it very quickly indeed, because we can afford to go to war, it seems, and we can afford to lose billions. Britain may take many years to recover from such a war. Some £30 billion has been wiped off the stock exchange in the past 12 days as investors worldwide got nervous and as small investors started losing their pension money. That is just the money side. As everyone is saying in the Parliament today, we need a war on poverty. Instead, Chancellor Brown has already earmarked £1 billion in his war chest, and that will be just the down payment on death. There will be tens of billions more.
Other Arab countries will be horrified by what is planned, and all on no proof. What we really need is investment in anti-terrorism moves and investment in surveillance. America admits that it does not have enough Arabic speakers in its so-called secret service. So secret is that service that we have never had any help from it at all. Those were the people who failed us on Lockerbie, on Pan Am 103, and who failed to warn on the twin towers atrocity and on Bali. Are we supposed to believe them now about Saddam Hussein, or anyone? No.
Members should have the courage to press a little plastic button against a war, if they dare to ask others to lay down their lives.
I, too, welcome the debate, because it gives us another opportunity to consider the implications of what a war would mean. Whether members believe that it is right or wrong to attack Iraq, they must recognise the consequences. Of course, as has been mentioned, 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.
However, the main casualties of a war against Iraq will be Iraqi civilians, nearly half of whom are children. I am not going to apologise for going over the point again, or for making it clear to Parliament what a war will be all about. Of the population of Iraq, 42 per cent are children under the age of 15—9.6 million children. We know that 90 per cent or thereabouts of those who are killed in modern wars are civilians.
Those who are killed and maimed are often talked about as representing "collateral damage"—collateral damage that is caused by weapons such as cluster bombs, landmines, daisy cutters and other sorts of anti-personnel devices. Those weapons kill people indiscriminately and in large numbers. The weapons might be smart, but they do not stop to inquire whether the victim is a civilian or, indeed, a child. Anti-personnel landmines are particularly dangerous because they can look like colourful toys. However, the curious children who touch such mines are unlikely to survive and, if they do, they will have been maimed. Innocent children will be slaughtered in a war against Iraq, and we need to acknowledge that fact.
I was going to quote John Pilger from the article in The Mirror yesterday, but Tommy Sheridan did that in his opening speech. I urge everyone to read that article. In it, John Pilger talked about the deformed Vietnamese children he came upon who were victims of agent orange:
"This terrible chemical weapon, which the cliche-mongers would now call a weapon of mass destruction, was dumped on almost half of South Vietnam … the poison continues to move through water and soil and food, children continue to be born without palates and chins and scrotums or are stillborn. Many have leukaemia."
He said that we do not see those images. If we attack Iraq, we will not see the images of what will happen to Iraqi children.
I have to stop now, which is a shame, because I had so much more to say. A war on the underlying causes of conflict, such as poverty and lack of development, would be a war worth waging. A civilised nation would wish to deploy its resources in that way, not by spending them on weapons of mass destruction, which we will deploy in an unjustified and immoral war against a country where almost half the population are innocent children. We are all responsible for all the world's children, not just Scottish children. I went to see "Miss Saigon" last week, and I was touched by one of the songs, a lyric of which was:
"they are all our children too".
They are, and we should all attend the rally on 15 February.
Some of the speeches this morning have shown clearly that there is an absolute lack of clarity and understanding about the issue. The war on terrorism and the attack on Iraq are two separate issues. At no stage has anybody been able to produce any evidence that the current regime in Iraq has supported international terrorism. The issue should not be clouded by pretending that an attack on a state is in any way an effective manner in which to deal with al-Qa'ida or, indeed, with terrorist organisations that are based fewer than 21 miles from the coast of Scotland, and which the British state has been entirely unable to deal with over 40 years.
The Arab world—in particular the Muslim world—perceives the hypocrisy of an attack on Iraq when there is a country that has, since 28 September 2000, killed 2,160 civilians in occupied territory, against the Geneva convention and against United Nations resolutions. That country has weapons of mass destruction—200 nuclear warheads—and is carrying out indiscriminate daily attacks on innocent civilians. It is a country that needs to be dealt with; that country is Israel, as members well know. Members should understand that if Iraq is attacked and many civilians and many thousands of children—as Elaine Smith discussed—are killed, the perception in one third of the world will be that there is one law for one person, and a different law for another person. If that other person is Arab or Muslim, they can look forward only to the big stick, but no carrot.
Will the member give way?
No.
Lloyd Quinan is in his last minute.
In the long run, we must understand—[Interruption.] I am sorry—does Ms Hughes have something to say?
Mr Quinan cannot take an intervention, because he has less than a minute left for his speech.
The reality is that we will make the world more unsafe by attacking Iraq—the situation is as simple as that. We must understand that international terrorism has increased because of a failure to recognise the problem with the state of Israel. We could create the circumstances of our own destruction. I urge all members to support the motion and, more important—if they are not at the Labour party conference—to participate in the demonstration on 15 February.
I will support the motion and oppose the Executive's amendment because it is important that we should not be mealy-mouthed. The motion refers to the notion of justice in warfare. Justice is the concern of many of the organisations that are listed in the motion and it is why they will go on the march. They do not believe that a just war is being proposed.
We must define justice in warfare, but the Geneva convention helped us to define some of the terms that are understood in societies and cultures throughout the world, so I will go along with those terms. If we go to war against Iraq, the Geneva convention will be shattered. Even with the sanction of the United Nations, it is doubtful whether we will live up to the lessons that were learned following the second world war, but I will leave that to the side and deal with how the action will be perceived elsewhere, which Lloyd Quinan discussed.
We should be acutely anxious about the consequences that any war on Iraq will have on relations between the west and the Islamic world.
Will the member give way?
I will let Phil Gallie intervene after I have developed my point.
The Scottish Parliament cannot make foreign policy, but it has standing in the world, which Phil Gallie and I discussed yesterday. We therefore have a responsibility to articulate Scottish opinion and to add to world opinion; Scottish opinion has not been articulated in the declarations that have been made by the heads of state in Europe. I know from friends who live on the continent that the same unease is felt throughout the continent about the injustice of the proposed war.
It is important that we hear the perspective of Scots Muslims. That is why Parliament should articulate what Scots of all persuasions think. Two nights ago, I spoke to Scots Muslim friends of mine who are concerned that young Muslims will think that the inequity of the treatment of Israel in comparison with that of Iraq means that the west intends an attack on Islam.
No interventions. The member is in her last minute and we are very short of time.
Phil Gallie Thank you, Margo.
I am sure that Phil Gallie and I will pursue the issues, because both of us have sincere intentions.
I am adamant that the Parliament must make heard the voice of Scotland, including the voice of Scots Muslims, on the matter. Muslim parents are concerned that young Scots Muslims will be affected by what they see in the attitudes of Muslims throughout the world, which is that a great injustice is being done to Islam.
Margo MacDonald talked about Scots voices. It should be acknowledged that Scots voices on the matter are heard through the representatives whom we send to Westminster.
I find it interesting that, in her opening contribution, Fiona Hyslop mentioned that she held a public meeting in West Lothian last night despite the fact that one of the most vociferous opponents of the war against Iraq is the MP for Linlithgow. The member will correct me if I am wrong, but Linlithgow is in West Lothian. The voices of the people of West Lothian are adequately represented through the endeavours of Tam Dalyell, if they are against the war in Iraq.
We are all aware that if there is a war against Iraq it will be the ordinary people of that country who will suffer disproportionately. Elaine Smith rightly pointed that out in the figures that she quoted. We all know that that is why the matter cannot be countenanced lightly—indeed, I am sure that that would not happen.
I reiterate the point that I made in my opening speech that it is easy to caricature Tony Blair as someone who does only George Bush's bidding, although senior politicians in the United Sates are on record today as saying that they believe Tony Blair to be a restraining influence.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Tommy Sheridan and Lloyd Quinan rightly reminded the Parliament about the number of United Nations resolutions that have been broken by another country in the middle east. I supported Tom McCabe's amendment when we debated the subject two weeks ago because it implied that people cannot pick and choose which resolutions to support and which to break. If people believe in the sanctity of the United Nations, they have to be honest and say so. If the United Nations Security Council countenanced an attack on Iraq, we would have to support it. Some of the opposition parties in the Parliament have never come out and said that.
It is the usually the case that the public lobbies parliamentarians. In the motion today, however, parliamentarians are being asked to lobby the public in support of the march and rally on 15 February. Perhaps that brings a new meaning to the term "power sharing", which is one of the underlying principles of the Scottish Parliament.
Scott Barrie referred to Tam Dalyell MP. We all know Tam Dalyell's record, but the problem is that Mr Blair is not listening to him. In the vote on the recent SNP debate on the subject, the MSP for Linlithgow and other Labour members voted against the Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion, which supported Tam Dalyell's call for a vote at Westminster before troops were sent into action. Scott Barrie asked who represents the public: I say to him that it is neither Labour members of the Scottish Parliament, and nor is it the Labour MPs at Westminster who stand loyally by Tony Blair. That is why we need to articulate the different opinion that is held in Scotland.
We have yet to see a link between the war on terrorism and a war on Iraq. People are not convinced that such a link exists. I echo the words of the United Nations weapons inspector Richard Butler, who accused George Bush of having "shocking double standards" in considering unilateral action on Iraq. Mr Butler went on to say that a US strike without United Nations backing would breach international law and that it would
"set loose forces we'd deeply live to regret."
Another theme that has recurred throughout the debate is the question of what breeds terrorism. Is it a war that has no international backing or the war that is not being waged against poverty and injustice? I ask members to look closely at the motion and amendments on which they are to vote this evening. I have heard members from all sides articulating their concerns, but if they want properly to articulate those concerns, they should look to their consciences and voting buttons at 5 pm this evening.
In addressing the motion, I stress my conviction that the inspectors should be allowed sufficient time to establish the position beyond any possibility of doubt. The motion does not acknowledge that Saddam Hussein has already used weapons of mass destruction. He used chemical weapons to kill thousands of civilians of Kurdish origin—men, women and children in the town of Halabjah. From any point of view, that was a crime against humanity. If a dictator uses weapons of mass destruction on one occasion, it is conceivable that he could use them on another. What makes this dictator different from others is the unpalatable fact that he has used chemical weapons as weapons of mass destruction. The atrocity at Halabjah is undeniable.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only a minute. It makes sense for the issue to be pursued in the interests of seeing those weapons of mass destruction removed. Iraq must account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran war and for 6,500 missing chemical rockets. It must also produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax, among many other items that are under investigation by the inspectors. There is surely no room for naivety in dealing with a dictator who has ordered thousands of civilians killed.
As I made clear in the previous debate on the international situation, we believe that military action should be undertaken only as a last resort. We would want conclusive evidence of breaches of resolution 1441 of the UN Security Council before military action could be sanctioned. We would also have a strong preference for a second UN resolution to be made before such action could be authorised. Furthermore, we would like an assurance—I hope that the minister will take up this matter with the Ministry of Defence—that there will not be a second round of Gulf war syndrome after the deployment. Finally, we would like the Government to give higher priority to humanitarian considerations, including medical and food aid.
British servicemen have been called up in the context of prudent military preparations, and we do not consider that it would be appropriate to support the second half of Tommy Sheridan's motion, which we do not believe would make the world a safer place.
It is always regrettable when James Douglas-Hamilton speaks for the Tories, because I like him—he is a thoroughly decent guy. I wonder whether he and his colleagues have considered the complete and utter hypocrisy of their referring to crimes against humanity being committed by Saddam Hussein.
We know that, between 1983 and 1988, Saddam Hussein deployed some 13,000 chemical weapons not just against his own people, but against Iranian conscripts during the 1980-88 war. James Douglas-Hamilton is correct to say that Saddam Hussein used them against Kurdish Iraqis as well. However, I wonder why James does not mention the fact that the UK Government and the USA Government supplied those weapons in the first place. Why are the Tories not prepared to question why Douglas Hurd was able to travel to Iraq after 1988 to open up more trade links with the Butcher of Baghdad? It is not good enough for them to come here and berate the Butcher of Baghdad when he was their pal between 1983 and 1988.
Last night, I heard Colin Powell talking about links between al-Qa'ida and Iraq. He said that they were not proven and that it would be in the ear of the beholder whether people believed in those links, although the links go quite far back. I wonder how far back the links go. They go back to the time when al-Qa'ida was called the mujahedin and the people who trained its members were the Central Intelligence Agency and the Special Air Service. At that time, Osama bin Laden was the pal of America and the UK. [Interruption.] Johann Lamont is shouting from a sedentary position. I am sorry, but I do not know what she is saying.
I do not think that the member has offered to intervene.
If Tommy Sheridan thinks that I was shouting, he has obviously not been in my company often enough.
I want to make a serious point. I agree that there are serious issues about the selling of weapons in the middle east, which has created problems. However, that does not mean that, now that the weapons are there, we do not have the right to say that they ought not to be used against the Iraqi people or their neighbours. We can have a debate about what the Americans did in Iraq, but we will still have to deal with the current problems and with Saddam Hussein. People are troubled about how we can deal with and sort out the current situation.
Tommy Sheridan does not have faith in the United Nations. What does he have faith in that would sort out the current problems?
I thank Johann Lamont for that serious point. It is interesting that other members do not seem to have been able to make serious points.
The United Nations has been bullied, bribed and bought off before, and I am confident that it will be bullied, bribed and bought off again. Johann Lamont says that I have no faith in the United Nations, but I also have no faith in countries such as Russia and China—which have their own problems in Chechnya and Tibet, where there are abuses of human rights—which decide that our country should go to war with Iraq on the basis of a carve-up of the Iraqi oil industry.
Will Tommy Sheridan give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
Yes, I want to see weapons inspectors in Iraq. I am 100 per cent for that. However, why stop there? Last November, Jeremy Corbyn MP asked junior defence minister Adam Ingram what stocks of weapons containing depleted uranium were held by British forces operating in Iraq. The minister's reply was:
"I am withholding details in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information." [Official Report, House of Commons, 7 November 2002; Vol1392, c 466W.]
When we talk about weapons inspectors and information, perhaps we should realise that we do not know what weapons we possess. We do not know what biological weapons programmes we have under way. As soon as the UN inspectors are finished in Iraq, let us get them into America and the UK. In other words, let us not stop at saying, "Let's disarm Iraq", but let us disarm the other countries that have weapons of mass destruction.
My contention is that there is nowhere near enough evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the Butcher of Baghdad to justify war in any way, shape or form. That is why the demonstration on 15 February is so important. It will be up to the ordinary citizens not just of Scotland, but of the world—similar demonstrations will take place in 22 countries—to stand up and say, "Not in our name are we going to allow this death and destruction to continue."
My regrets, incidentally, to one member who asked to speak in the debate, but whom I could not slot in.