Iraq (Judicial Inquiry)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 4:34 pm on 22 October 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Professor Ross Cranston Professor Ross Cranston Labour, Dudley North 4:34, 22 October 2003

I am sorry but I must decline; I have already taken two interventions and a third will eat into my time.

Much has been made of the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Kay's inquiry is still under way. However, to focus on the presence or absence of WMD is to misunderstand Iraq's obligations under international law. From the time of Security Council resolution 687 until resolution 1441, the obligation was that Iraq must demonstrate that it had disarmed. Whether Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction was not the major issue; it had to demonstrate that it did not have them.

The onus was on Iraq, as 1441 made clear. Of course, UNSCOM was obstructed and it left Iraq in 1998. Resolution 1441 gave the unanimous judgment of the international community that Iraq was in material breach; it had not disarmed. In fact, even after the conflict, in May 2003, in Security Council resolution 1483, the international community again reaffirms the importance of Iraq's disarming itself of weapons of mass destruction and confirming that to the international community.

Much has also been made of the September dossier. Mr. Campbell used the phrase he has used on a number of occasions about going to war on a false prospectus. Mr. Clarke got very heated about the issue. Mr. Lilley also majored on it.

However, in my view, this is a very Anglo-centric view of the world. It is also seeing the world through the eyes of hindsight. It is misconceived because it assumes that we became involved on that basis and that basis alone. As the Foreign Secretary asked, are we suggesting that when France signed up to 1441 it was using our dossier? Are we suggesting that Russia, China or Syria were using our dossier? Of course not. One only has to state the proposition to realise how ridiculous that notion is.

Apart from 1441—there has been some discussion about the factual basis of the Attorney-General's opinion—we had the Blix reports, which are available in Command Papers and on the UN website. I do not have time to go through them, but in the January report there was the famous phrase from Dr. Blix:

"Inspection is not a game of 'catch as catch can'".

He also spoke about co-operation involving substance as well as process. It was not enough to open doors. He said about the VX nerve agent:

"UNMOVIC however, has information that conflicts with this [the Iraqi account]."

He said about anthrax—this was a reference back to the history:

"There are strong indications that Iraq has produced more anthrax than it declared."

There was a February report, to which I shall not refer. In the March report, Dr. Blix again referred to 1441 and quoted the words about the requirement for

"immediate, unconditional and active cooperation".

He said that, yes, there might be now, after three or four months, active co-operation, but it

"cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

Details of the unresolved disarmament issues were attached to the report. Therefore, in my view, once we had 1441 and the Blix reports, the September dossier faded away. It was subsumed by the new evidence.

I want to speak briefly about what the Security Council has said about the post-war situation. I have mentioned resolution 1483 in May. There was then resolution 1500 and resolution 1511 last week. Resolution 1483 begins by recalling all the previous relevant resolutions: 1441 and the 17 resolutions including 678 and 687. These resolutions say two important things about the Saddam Hussein regime. First, they say clearly that the members of that regime must be made accountable for the crimes and atrocities committed while governing Iraq, that countries cannot provide them with a safe haven, and that countries must bring them to justice. Secondly, resolution 1511 condemns in the strongest possible terms—as terrorism and attacks on the Iraqi people, the international community and the UN—the various terrorist bombings which we know about so well. The international community is saying, in that unanimous resolution, that in carrying out those attacks the remnants of the previous regime are unequivocally in breach of international law and must be brought to justice.