War against Iraq could only be justified if Saddam
Hussein possesses both the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction and the intention
to do so. We know he has neither nuclear capability nor missiles to deliver WMD. So far
the weapons inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq has chemical or biological agents
and former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter,, concluded that any such weapons concealed
from the UN inspectors before they pulled out in 1998 would by now have degraded and
become useless. Even if the Dictator does possess some residual capability, he has never
used chemical and biological weapons without the acquiescence of the most powerful states
that supplied them in the first place. President Bush has suggested that Iraq could
supply arms to terrorists. However, there are no links between the Iraqi dictatorship and
al-Qaida and the small paramilitary groups that Iraq has supported, the Arab
Liberation Front (in Palestine) and the Mujahidin e-Khalq (for Iran) have never received
access to Iraqs more advanced weaponry.
Bush has sought war with Iraq throughout his presidency. He and a handful of advisers,
who are part of an organisation that calls itself "the Project for a New American
Century", are obsessed with the desire to control Iraq and its oil resources. The war
they want will cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people (Baghdad
has a population four times the size of Birmingham) and displace millions more. UK
soldiers will also be killed and for what? Far from helping to combat terrorism, attacking
Iraq will provide the recruitment drive that al Qaida and their ilk are looking for
I very much doubt that they are opposed to the war.
In answer to the question what should be done about Saddam Hussein, I would answer that
this depends on the threat he poses and what your objective is. Is it disarmament or
regime change? The real threat comes from terrorists, as evidenced by the bombs in Bali
and Mombassa. They dont need Saddam Hussein, whose secular regime is despised. A
more coherent response would involve assistance to former Soviet satellites to
decommission nuclear material and opening up the arms trade to international scrutiny. We
must strengthen the treaties and bodies set up to prevent weapons proliferation. I condemn
the US for not paying their dues on time to the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons, and the UK Government should not have supported them when they ousted
its Director, José Bustani, when he was trying to get Iraq to sign up to the Chemical
Weapons Convention last year.
The human rights of the Iraqi people must not be ignored but organisations like Amnesty
International are not calling for war. They are calling for the deployment of human rights
monitors throughout Iraq without delay, in line with UN requirements. Furthermore, if we
take a moral stand, we have to take a consistent approach to other human rights abusers.
For example the UN has condemned the military occupation of Palestine by Israel, which is
being bankrolled by the US.
Finally, we have to respect the UN. The Government say we have to attack Iraq because
the UN is being flouted but they will ignore the UN if it doesn't give them the
authorisation they want. That would be illegal under International law.
LYNNE JONES MP 12 MARCH 2003