Page du President (Iraq)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Terrorism
25 September 2001

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom). - From time to time in the lives of all of us, there comes a moment that we never forget - a moment of success, a moment of defeat, a birth or a death. Usually, such moments affect the lives of individuals or families. Occasionally, there comes a moment that affects a whole community or a whole country - an invasion, an earthquake or a Chernobyl. Rarely - very rarely - there comes a moment that affects us all. Such a moment occurred when we heard the news of the death of President John F. Kennedy. Another such moment occurred on 11 September.
Many of us have experience of terrorism in countries from Spain in the west to Russia and Turkey in the east and many others in between, but 11 September was different not simply because of the scale of what happened, although that was enormous, but because many of us watched it. Through the medium of television, we watched thousands of people die. They were people with whom we could identify - not only Americans, but people from elsewhere in North America, from South America, from Europe and from countries further afield. They all died. That brought it home to us all that terrorism is not a national problem; it is international.
There is increasing evidence that terrorists learn from each other, work with each other, co-operate and co-ordinate their actions. That being the case, we the democrats must adopt their tactics. We must learn from each other. We must work together. We must co-operate and co-ordinate our efforts to prevent terrorism in all our countries and to apprehend the terrorists.
So, Mr President, what is to be done? It is perhaps easier to explain what should not be done. First, I believe that we must be careful about our language. We must not use words such as war, revenge and retaliation. Instead, we should use words such as crime and justice. We must also ensure that international solidarity does not turn the international community into an international lynch mob. In short, we must not allow our actions to be determined by our emotions. We must not allow anger and fear to lead us to betray our principles and values.
Our actions must be proportionate. We must not kill more innocent people elsewhere in the world to avenge the deaths of 6 000 people in the United States of America, nor must we allow ourselves to be tempted into condemning groups of our fellow citizens or the citizens of other countries.
Sixty years ago, we learned that it was essential for us to stand up against anti-Semitism. Now we must stand with equal strength against anti-Muslim hysteria. Some time soon we must examine the roots of terrorism and analyse the causes. To explain is not to excuse. This is a political issue. Too often, our engagement with those countries with large numbers of Muslims has consisted of support for despotic regimes against their own people. Muslims are not the only ones who take the view that the global economy is run for the benefit of relatively few wealthy industrialised countries and that the role of a so-called developing world is to be used and exploited.
Justice is about more than punishing criminals. We need international programmes that not only tackle terrorism, but deal with some of the world's fundamental injustices. Many of us think that such programmes are best conducted by the United Nations, but that does not mean that we can simply stand aside. All our international organisations, especially the Council of Europe, have a role to play, but that is all long term. In the short term, one value that the Council of Europe must defend is freedom of expression.
The world will not make progress if we refuse to listen to people who believe that it is moving in the wrong direction. Rhetoric is not enough. What is to be done now? That is the question we must address. We need a list of practical measures to prevent terrorists killing yet more thousands of innocent people - men, women and children.
The draft resolution and recommendation are a modest attempt by the Political Affairs Committee to prepare a list - a preliminary one, no doubt - of measures that can be taken. They represent a start to our search for an answer to the question of what can be done now. I commend them both to the Assembly.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): I share the scepticism expressed about the motives of President Bush, but we have been asked in this debate to focus on the Prime Minister's belief that Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction and what should be done about it.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that the Government have two aims: first, to ensure the return of United Nations inspectors to Iraq; and secondly, to ensure the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction discovered by the inspectors. They have also made it clear that they believe that the threat of military action should be used to achieve those aims, but those aims and that threat raise two questions which the Government have yet to answer in this debate. First, when should the decision to use military action be taken? Secondly, who should take the decision that military action is necessary? The answer to the first question must be that no decision can or should be taken until we know the response of Saddam Hussein to United Nations' insistence, expressed in a new resolution, on the return of UN inspectors-or, if they return, until we know the results of those inspections. A decision cannot and must not be taken in advance. We should take care-the Government should take care-that any new UN resolution does not contain any loose words or phraseology which could be used or abused at some time in the future and without any reference to the UN to authorise or to claim authority for military action that was not intended by the UN.
As for who should authorise military action, I share the view expressed by several Members in this debate that the decision to do so should be taken by the Security Council of the United Nations. It is not enough for the decision to be taken by one man-not even President Bush, or perhaps especially President Bush. The United Nations should decide whether the inspectors' findings, and Iraq's response or lack of it to them, justify the use of military action. Of course United Nations resolutions should be enforced, but the method of enforcement should be specifically authorised by the UN Security Council and not determined by a self-appointed vigilante. This question and the answer to it are important because President Bush made it clear in his speech to the United Nations-and those authorised to speak on behalf of his Administration have also made it clear in their statements-that he believes that the President of the United States, with at most the authority of the US Congress, is entitled to take the decision to enforce UN resolutions. I do not agree; I think that a lot of Members do not agree with President Bush's position. I hope that our Government do not agree either and will make it clear to the United States that it is not acceptable to many of us that it should take such decisions alone and without the authority of the United Nations.

8 January 2003

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham Hodge Hill): Who is better placed to decide whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction: President Bush or Hans Blix?
The Prime Minister: A process is set out in the UN resolution, whereby the inspectors go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein has made his declaration of 8 December, and everyone is deeply sceptical about the contents of that. It is for the inspectors to examine whether there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction. If there is such evidence, that is a breach of the UN resolution. A combination of the judgment of the UN inspectors and the judgment of the international community is involved.

3 February 2003

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): What is the Government's best estimate of how many Iraqi civilians will be killed or injured if there is a war?

The Prime Minister: We will do all that we possibly can to minimise any civilian casualties. I should say to my right hon. Friend that we have striven hard to try to avoid the prospect of any casualties at all, precisely by delaying action and allowing the UN process to work. The real casualties in Iraq over the past few years have occurred as a result of Saddam's policies.

Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): Is there any other Labour party, Socialist party or Social Democrat party anywhere else in Europe that supports the British and American approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein

The Prime Minister: Yes: for example, the Polish Government.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Debate about The Threat of War with Iraq
26 September 2002

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom). - The lesson of recent wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan and indeed of the Gulf war a decade ago is that, however careful we are, ordinary people - men, women and children - get killed, so we must be very careful before taking military action. As the draft resolution emphasises, war must be a measure of last resort, all other approaches having been exhausted.
What is the case for war against Iraq? As presented by President Bush and those authorised to speak for him, there are four points.
First, Saddam Hussein is a dictator. That is true. We would all rejoice if Iraq became a democracy. But Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator in the world or the Middle East. It is not acceptable for one country to use military force to remove a dictator from power in another country.
Secondly, it is said that Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator. That is also true. We accept that he has committed terrible abuses of human rights over many years and we accept that, in some situations, a case can be made for military action to save people from persecution or worse. However, many of Saddam Hussein's abuses occurred at a time when western governments were supporting and supplying him in his war against Iran.
Thirdly, President Bush says that for many years Iraq has flouted many United Nations resolutions. That is also true, but again Iraq is not alone. Many other resolutions have been ignored by other countries for even longer periods.
So we are left with the fourth part of the case - the allegation that Saddam Hussein has continued to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, contrary to United Nations resolutions, and has refused to allow effective inspection by United Nations representatives, again over a period of many years. In the Socialist Group we agree that it is very important to support the United Nations and insist on the implementation of its resolutions, but that is a matter for the United Nations.
Above all, military action to enforce United Nations resolutions can be authorised only by the United Nations Security Council. It is not for one country to take military action alone, or with the support of its allies. The decision cannot and must not be taken by one man, President Bush or anyone else, on the basis that he is not satisfied with Saddam Hussein's response to United Nations resolutions or the findings of the United Nations inspectors. In his speech at the United Nations, President Bush said that this situation is an important test for the United Nations. He is right, but it is not only a question of whether the United Nations can control Iraq but also a question of whether the United Nations can control the United States of America.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Debate about Iraq
30 January 2003

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom). - This Assembly stands united in condemning the policies and actions of Saddam Hussein, especially his many abuses of human rights. Many of us have talked to refugees from Iraq, and know of their experiences at first hand. We know only too well what they have suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein. No one in this Assembly trusts him with weapons of mass destruction. We are also united in our emphasis on the role of the United Nations.
Three things give the Socialist Group particular cause for concern. They all involve the attitude of the United States of America. First, the United States seems to ascribe too little importance to the effects of war on civilians - the ordinary people of Iraq who will be the casualties of war, who will lose their lives, who will carry the wounds of war for the rest of their days, who will be forced to become refugees in other countries.
Secondly, we are concerned about the United States apparent determination to go to war, with or without the authority of the UN Security Council. Of course President Bush would prefer the Security Council to authorise military action, but it is becoming increasingly clear that if the Security Council does not authorise military action the United States will still go to war. They would prefer the authority of the United Nations but, if the UN does not approve of what the United States wants to do, President Bush will do it anyway.
Thirdly, we are concerned because it has become increasingly clear that, if Saddam Hussein is found to be in breach of the UN resolution, the Security Council will consider what action to take. However, it is also clear that, whatever the inspectors find, the United States has already found Saddam Hussein to be in material breach of the resolution. If the inspectors find weapons of mass destruction, we would all agree that there is a serious issue to be tackled. However, the United States and President Bush, in particular, have made it clear that, if the inspectors find no weapons of mass destruction, President Bush will still regard Saddam Hussein to be in breach of the UN resolution. That will just show that Saddam Hussein must have hidden them.
I am reminded of something that I read about a test that was applied in the middle ages and that was used in some places to determine whether someone was a witch. A woman was tied up with stones attached to her and she was thrown into a lake. If she floated, clearly she was a witch and must be burned. If she sank, she was not a witch and it was a pity that she died anyway. The Socialist Group rejects such medieval thinking.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Debate about the War with Iraq
3 April 2003

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom). - This war is not an accident. It is the direct result of a deliberate decision taken in Washington a year ago. In the mean time, we have discussed Iraq in this Assembly on two separate occasions. In both its resolutions, the Assembly has made it clear that we do not have any sympathy for Saddam Hussein or support him in any way. We all condemn his abuses of human rights.
In addition we made it clear that we want the United Nations to investigate all allegations about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction but we also made it clear that we want any subsequent action to be specifically authorised by the UN Security Council.
Many of us in the Socialist Group are critical of this war precisely because we do not accept that it has been authorised by the United Nations. Of course some governments argue that Resolution 1441, with its reference to earlier resolutions from the Security Council, can be interpreted as having authorised military action. I have no doubt that international lawyers will argue about that interpretation for decades to come. I simply point out that that interpretation was not mentioned when Resolution 1441 was agreed by the Security Council.
Whether or not a second resolution was legally required, there is no doubt that it was a political necessity. That is why the Socialist Group supports the draft resolution. We support it for another reason. In both our previous debates, the Assembly has made clear both our overwhelming concern and fear of casualties among soldiers, and our concern for the safety of Iraqi civilians, men, women and children who have done no harm to anyone. They are being killed and mutilated even as we sit in this Assembly discussing the resolution. The deaths and injuries of these men, women and children are dismissed as "collateral damage", as if they were bridges, roads, railways and buildings; inanimate objects.
In this Assembly, we do not accept such language. That is why we want to put an end to this war and get on with providing humanitarian aid through the United Nations and NGOs and the long-term job of reconstructing Iraq. We need the long-term physical and political rehabilitation of Iraq, not its occupation. The Assembly of the Council of Europe will accept nothing less.

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom). - On behalf of the Socialist Group, I congratulate Ms de Zulueta on her personal initiative, which has led to this debate today, and on the draft resolution that she has prepared for the Political Affairs Committee and the Assembly. The members of the Socialist Group are all agreed that we should support the draft resolution and I hope that the Assembly will do likewise.

I wish to emphasise three points. First, the members of the Socialist Group think that the most important group of people involved in this situation is the Iraqi people. When we refer to the Iraqi people, we mean all Iraqis, whatever their origins, religious beliefs or political opinions. We are anxious that any discussions should involve everybody in Iraq, and not simply one dominant group.

Secondly, history has given the Iraqi people a special role. We all know that the origins of European civilisation lie in the rivers of Iraq. That means that the people of Iraq are the trustees for the heritage of Europe. That is an important point. Although the people of Iraq are most important, the origins of our civilisation are also important. We therefore want to see much more being done to protect the important artefacts - the physical remains - of the origins of our civilisation in that country.

Thirdly, the members of the Socialist Group welcome the point made in paragraph 11.i of the draft resolution, which states that we "support … efforts towards a multilateral solution for the post-war future of Iraq with the leading role to be taken by the United Nations". We wish to emphasise the definite article. It is significant that Ms de Zulueta referred to "the leading role" and not a leading role. In other words, the United Nations should be in the driving seat, not the passenger seat.