Iraq

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 10:50 am on 9 December 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour 10:50, 9 December 2004

May I continue, Presiding Officer? We are deliberating democracy.

UN Security Council resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1051, 1281 and 1441 were breached. Not just the United Kingdom Government or the United States Government arrived at the conclusions that I described; on the evidence that was available, the whole international community arrived at them.

As for critical resolution 1441, which was about weapons of mass destruction, the whole international community and all international intelligence services in the world recognised the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Even with the concession about the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction immediately, the Iraq survey group found that Saddam Hussein still had in his regime the production capability to ensure that weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons programmes could be resumed when the UN investigators were asked to leave.

I acknowledge the massive division over Iraq in my party, the Parliament and the country. However, that is not helped by moralising to everyone about positions that they held in the past or at which they—like me—arrived after much deliberation in the past few years about the need to intervene in Iraq because of the specific and unique nature of Saddam Hussein's regime, which I, at least, can argue that I consistently opposed from its development in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The reality today is that, when asked, most Iraqis say that they want democratic elections. Members should support that. I am not prepared to take lectures from the inheritors of the Leninist tradition. Lenin believed in terror and the execution of enemies and was willing to take part in systematic human rights abuses. Historically, that was never rejected by many individuals in socialist parties. I am not prepared to take lectures from them.

The issue is what we want for Iraq. We want the people of Iraq to have the right to develop a free and open democracy. The people who use weapons—the remnants of the Baathist regime or religious fundamentalists—oppose the establishment of democracy in Iraq. We need to ensure that the multiparty system that I believe that Iraq can develop is allowed to flourish.

In the past day or so, we have had interesting debates in the chamber. I have seen a poster that makes the great claim that we should have the right to free self-expression—the capacity and opportunity to express one's opinion. That right is more than just a slogan on a poster; it applies to the people of Iraq.

I support the amendment in Duncan McNeil's name.