The Workings of Westminster
Welcome to what I hope will be the first of many columns on the workings of Westminster. My aim is to give you an idea of what I do in your name and why I do it.
This week sees MPs debating Industrial Development, Britain’s Future Energy Needs, the Communications Bill, Minimum Pensions and, of course, Iraq.
On Tuesday the Prime Minister makes a statement on this subject to the House of Commons. On Wednesday MPs will debate their support of the government’s “continuing efforts to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction”. We will also get our first-ever chance to vote on it.
It is the vote that makes this debate so different and so crucial. Traditionally, MPs present a united front in the face of an external threat. That is why there is no division. However, Iraq is a different case.
Though Saddam Hussein’s regime undoubtedly presents a threat to world peace it is not, at present, a threat to our territory. That is the basis on which most wars have been fought and it is why, for many people, the idea of going to war with Iraq is so difficult to justify.
However, the current situation is the direct result of Iraq’s invasion of its neighbour Kuwait’s territory twelve years ago. Saddam Hussein’s forces were driven out by the western allies and a cease fire was signed. This obliged Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. The UN’s weapon’s inspectors spent almost a decade trying to get the regime to do this. But in 1998 they were expelled from Iraq.
Three years later a new form of territorial invasion occurred. The twin towers were not brought down on September 11th by Iraq but by a disturbingly dispersed group of well funded extremists. On that day America’s attitude to the rest of the world changed. The prevention of further attacks became paramount. Britain was one of the country’s which managed to persuade the US that this must be done through a strengthened United Nations.
This threw the spotlight onto Iraq. It was in breach of a mandatory Chapter 7 UN resolution. Other countries, like Israel, were also in breach of UN resolutions. But they were non-mandatory Chapter 6 resolutions. In addition, no other country in the modern world besides Iraq had used chemical weapons against its neighbours and innocent civilians as part of a genocidal campaign. It is this deadly combination of capability and intent which makes Saddam Hussein uniquely dangerous.
That is why I share the government’s desire to disarm Iraq. But it is absolutely essential that we do not compromise the legitimacy of this desire by trying to enforce this disarmament unilaterally. It must be done through the world’s peacemaking and peacekeeping body - the United Nations.
We must also, as the motion before the House of Common’s on Wednesday states, give Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. Then, and only then should we start to think of war. Despite everything, this is not inevitable. But the responsibility rests with Saddam Hussein.
This column first appeared in the
Stevenage Herald
on 26 February 2003
