"In resolution 1368, the Security Council authorised all necessary steps in response to the attacks"

The resolution endorses ‘necessary steps’ under the UN Charter (point 5 of the resolution) in response to the attacks of 11 September. A recent Library research paper considers that: "Security Council Resolution 1368 represents an important statement of legal weight on the general issue of taking action to combat international terrorism"

However, it was not clear to me on reading this resolution whether it was correct to interpret it as sanctioning military action against Afghanistan by individual countries. I therefore contacted the House of Commons Library (an independent research body) who outlined that United Nations resolutions are always somewhat ‘open’ in nature, usually pointing to the UN Charter and in this context SCR 1368 is posed in strong language in UN terms.

Article 51, the section of the Charter relevant to SCR 1368, reads as follows:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

There is debate as to the extent of this right and the right to use force in self-defence is qualified in various ways. The most widely held criteria are that it must be necessary and proportionate. Necessary, meaning force should not be employed when an alternative with a reasonable chance of success exists and proportionate to the need to repulse the attack. The attack against which one is defending oneself leads on to the question of anticipation of attack. Customary international law allows states the latitude to judge that a threat is such to justify defensive action but it does not allow carte blanche discretion to excuse any use of force through a retrospective claim of self-defence. The use of force in self-defence must be notified to the Security Council under Article 51 and I attach a copy of the letter from the UK to the UN informing them of the UK’s military action.

Point 6 of SCR 1368, that the Security Council "Decides to remain seized of the matter" means that the UN is constantly monitoring the situation and keeping their position under review. This does give some credence to the view that the UN would have spoken out, if they considered that military action by individual nations in Afghanistan, to counter the terrorist threat posed by the events of September 11, was not in accordance with SCR 1368.

I do accept that under SCR 1368, the US and the international community have legitimacy to enter Afghanistan by force in order to apprehend and arrest Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda network leaders. However, I remain to be convinced that the strikes that have been waged on Afghanistan are necessary and proportionate to this very precise task. I will use opportunities in Parliament, when the House reconvenes, to raise further questions.

Lynne Jones MP 11 October 2001

back to top

Statement - 4 October 2001

On October 4 2001 Parliament was recalled. Although indicating my wish to speak in the debate and attending between 9-30 and 7pm, I was not called to speak. This is the gist of what I would have said, had the opportunity arisen.

Members of the House and the British people are thankful for the emphasis the Prime Minister has placed on justice and not revenge. The public mood is neither for war nor perpetuating the cycle of violence but for actions that will improve, not harm, prospects for world peace.

On Tuesday the Prime Minister told the Labour Party Conference that the justice we seek is not only to punish the guilty but to bring the values of freedom and justice to people around the world.

He is right.

But, though it would be wrong to foster prejudice against Americans, it has to be acknowledged that in many places the USA is seen as a supporter of anti-democratic regimes which have been kept in place to support US financial interests.

This is a point made time and again in the flood of communications I have received from constituents in the last three weeks.

As we cope with the aftermath of the terrible carnage in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, I agree with points made by several honourable members that we must bolster and extend the role of global institutions. I would particularly like to endorse the comments made by the Honourable Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) in which he questioned the use of the veto in the Security Council.

We also need to reinvigorate our own democratic institutions, in which, we know from the general election, so many of our own citizens have lost confidence. This creates a dangerous vacuum that extremist elements will be only too happy to occupy.

We must make this Place more relevant.

Today, Parliament has been reconvened to give implicit, not explicit, support for the military action necessary to achieve the objectives that were laid down by the Prime Minister in his statement.

I, for one, accept the need for military action if we are to deal with those behind the atrocities in America, if at all possible by bringing them to justice in an international court. But action must be measured and only that which is strictly necessary.

There should have been a substantive vote today so that this House can set the framework within which we expect our Government to act on our behalf.

In a few weeks time, it is likely that the House will be asked to approve measures which we will be told will help combat international terrorism. The House has a responsibility to ensure that the effectiveness of any legislation is properly scrutinised, something that we have often not been effective in doing. The Government needs to consider whether the way it exerts its powers of patronage and marginalises critical voices contribute to good governance and effective law-making.

In my constituency, those of all faiths and none that I have spoken to have unreservedly condemned the atrocities committed in the USA. In Birmingham survivors of the 1974 pub bombings and the relatives and friends of those who did not survive, and even those like me who thought "there but for the grace of god go I" will empathise with the feelings of the American people. But at home it is the Muslim community that is suffering from threats of violence and actual violence. Those who threaten schools and mosques and circulate hate material are equally to be deplored as are those that rejoiced in the carnage in the USA.

Lasting good must come out of the events of September the 11th. We owe it to the lives lost that day.

On Tuesday the Prime Minister set out the challenges that face us. How can anyone think that National Missile Defence will help in anyway? The vast resources that would need to be deployed on this project would be better directed towards international institutions engaged in work to reduce conflict, bring justice and tackle the real threats to world order – poverty, climate change and abuse of human rights.

In everything we do from now on we should remember that this is what we want to achieve.

Lynne Jones MP

back to top

Letters to Jack Straw, 21 and 28 September

Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AH

Date: 21 September 2001

Dear Jack,

I am writing to pass on the messages from many of my constituents who, whilst being horrified at the terrible events of 11 September, are fearful about the rhetoric coming out of the USA and the possible extent of the proposed military retaliation. There is also concern about the UK’s apparent unquestioning support.

I share many of the concerns raised in the enclosed communications. It would be neither a just nor effective reaction to wage a war on the Afghan people who already face terrible poverty and oppression. Further loss of innocent lives would compound the tragedy and create further grievances that would sustain terrorism. Many of my correspondents feel that violence is a tragic expression of unmet needs. As Einstein put it: You can’t solve a problem by using the thinking that created the problem in the first place.

However, I was encouraged to note Tony Blair’s comment during the debate on 14 September that the US Government "together with allies, will want to identify, with care, those responsible. That is a judgement that must and will be based on hard evidence"

I do support a major diplomatic and intelligence effort to track down, arrest and try those responsible for the atrocities in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. We also need to utilise and foster the unprecedented international consensus that has emerged to begin the delicate process of untangling the web of hatred behind the horrendous acts we witnessed last week.

This brings me on to the point that the current crisis has thrown up opportunities as well as threats. I was horrified to hear reports shortly after the US tragedy that Israel were stepping up their attacks on the Palestinians. However, unprecedented pressure from the US has lead to a cease-fire (although this is of course fragile). I very much welcomed the unanimous resolution of the Security Council, the statement by Kofi Annan and the General Assembly resolution A/RES/56/1, all of which pledge support for the international effort to track down and bring the perpetrators to justice. It is right that statements of solidarity should be made in this global body and this is a real opportunity to build up our international institutions. A Commitment by governments across the world to work with these institutions is our best hope of ending conflict and creating global stability.

In view of this I am concerned that the Government has not emphasised the pivotal role of the United Nations and in turn the UK Media has almost completely ignored the positive work done by the UN during this crisis. There is still time to put this right.

Yours sincerely,

LYNNE JONES MP

Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AH

Date: 28 September 2001

Dear Jack,

Further to my letter of 21 September, I am writing to pass on the messages I have received from my constituents since that date. As with those enclosed with my previous letter all those who have contacted me are fearful about the possible extent of the proposed military retaliation.

I should like to add a further concern about the lack of prominence being given to the role of the UN. I noted in the Labour Party briefing sent to MPs on 24 September that:

"The Prime Minister spoke to Kofi Annan yesterday following this Government’s pledge of an extra £25 million to support Afghan refugees within Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. The PM asked the UN to consider further humanitarian aid".

Is this all the Prime Minister spoke to Kofi Annan about?

As I mentioned in my previous letter, the UN should be at the centre of the international effort to track down and bring the perpetrators of the attacks on America to justice. Britain should be taking the lead to show that a commitment by governments across the world to work with our international institutions is our best hope of ending conflict and creating global stability.

Yours sincerely,

 LYNNE JONES MP

back to top

Topical issues...

Identity Cards

Prostitution Consultation - Submission

Carers Rights Day

Attack on Falluja

The 'uranium from Africa' claim

• Topical issue archive