Since Saturday afternoon 19th of March 2011 the United Nations has put into practice a doctrine first proclaimed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Chicago in 1999 that the nations of military and economic power should collectively intervene to prevent the genocide of civilians whether by nation upon nation or one people on another people within a nation.
Earlier on the Saturday, at a meeting hosted by the President of France in Paris, and attend by British Prime Minister David Cameron, and US Sectary of State of State, Hilary Clinton, together with the United Nations General Secretary and other leaders and representatives of the Arab world in North Africa and the Persian Gulf, from NATO and elsewhere, it was agreed that the USA should take on the role of organising the first phase of action to prevent the massacre of citizens of Libya by representatives of their government and to require the government of Libya to cease all hostilities against their people and to pull back from those places where representatives of the government had and were continuing use violence, and in particular to stop the use and movement of military aircraft, rockets and artillery.
It will have been evident to all the Members of the United Nations Security Council and to the Arab League of Nations before resolution 1973 was passed without a veto, but with important abstentions, that in order to achieve this objective there would be need to use rocket missiles and bombs to eliminate command, control and intelligence centres and defence systems and destroy any Libyan military resources, doing so by all available means to protect civilian life.
Although the USA, France and the UK possess weaponry which can destroy targets to within a metre, the possibility of malfunctioning ordinance and the use lf human shields by the Gaddafi regime was a strong possibility, despite whatever local intelligence was available to the United Nations action force. It was therefore no surprise that immediately after the first bombardment there were claims of civilian casualties, although none have been produced for visiting journalists to see, except soldiers dressed in civilian clothing. There was some apparent wobbling of position on the part of the Secretary fo the Arab league, a man who is in contention to become the next president of Egypt under a new constitution and Russia, China and India who had abstained misguidedly rushed in to make their position clear to the rest of Muslim world.
This was the setting for what I regard as the most important debate and vote in the House of Commons since the period for the Second World War. I agree with Mr Hague, British Foreign Secretary that the situation is potentially more significant than 9/11 or the recent banking and financial crisis.
It was also evident what the Official Opposition and back bench contributed, that they also saw the implementation of the UN Resolution as having profound implications for the future foreign policy and relations between Muslim countries and the rest of the world, and that, albeit on a case by case basis, standing by as genocide was committed with the slaughtering in their hundreds, their thousands, and their hundreds of thousands of non combatant men, women and children was not something which civilise countries could not longer accept. This by implications also meant a fundamental review of future arms exports and the nature of diplomatic and commercial trading relationships in countries practicing gross violations of basic human rights.
By coincidence I have been working on a list of all the wars and acts of genocide together with natural disasters and pandemics of human illness() since the birth of my father in 1880 and which accumulatively amount to over one thousand million deaths, providing the perspective to what I believe may prove a new era, breaking with what has gone on before, although as many, including the British Prime Minister, drew attention, that while the UK with others had been given the opportunity to achieve a change for the better, there remained the possibility that our collective failure in the instance of Libya could lead to an escalation in conflict and in civilian deaths. In my writing on wars and pandemics I make the point that it is impossible to comprehend or cope with knowledge of civilian deaths in the thousands and hundred of thousands and that I, and I suggests others, can only be influenced by the experience of those who individually survive or witness the reality of these events, and yesterday there were several voices echoing this viewpoint.
The most powerful of these was made by Kris Hopkins, the Member for Keithley, and other Members who have served in the military over recent times and who have only recently been elected to Parliament
Mr Hopkins said this
“Having watched these debates and diplomacy since the Falklands war, and having observed the battles on CNN and sanitised movie footage of jets taking off, troops returning fire and Union Jacks attached to aerials and advancing tanks, I find it a daunting thought to be in the House debating and contemplating our responsibility for the deployment of people whose principal purpose is to kill other people on our behalf. During my basic training in the Army, I realised that a sergeant shouting at me to stab and scream and stab again a bale of hay with a fixed bayonet was teaching me how to rip somebody apart. A few years later, I saw the remains of an IRA terrorist unit that had been ambushed by a Special Air Service unit. The remains had been shredded by the hundred of bullets that had gone through their bodies.
Following the first Gulf war, a friend of mine showed me some pictures that he had taken of the convoy attempting to escape back up to Iraq. One of the pictures was of the charred, black head and a desperate hand-black and maimed-of someone trying to leave their vehicle. There is nothing glorious or romantic about war. To those in the media who have portrayed what is happening now-or what has happened in previous wars-as some form of entertainment, I say that that is just not right. I am afraid that human beings need to commit brutal, savage attacks on each other to win wars.
I have spoken in the House before about our lack of political capital following the illegal war in Iraq and what I believe is a folly in Afghanistan. There may be moral reasons to fight again, but I will be honest: we are struggling to find the moral high ground from which to project that morality. As people have said, Gaddafi is the man who brought down the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, the man who shipped the weapons that killed some of my colleagues and the man who killed WPC Fletcher. However, I feel uncomfortable about going to war. It is not a simple choice; it is a really difficult choice to contemplate.
This morning when I was coming to work, I listened to a phone-in from BBC television about whether we should kill Gaddafi. It was almost gladiatorial, as though people were phoning in so that we could see whether the populace was giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I have to say that I was fairly disgusted that the killing of another human being, however disgusting he is, could become a form of entertainment.
While we pontificate about morality and our obligations, brave men and women are putting their lives at risk at our request. This is not a debate about student fees, the Scotland Bill or the double summer time Bill; this is about the business of war. We do not take this decision lightly. While we wage war on our enemy, Muslim brothers and Arab leaders-with a few exceptions-remain silent. It is more convenient for the infidel to kill their Muslim brothers and gesture disapproval than it is to stand up to a tyrant. To the new leaders of the emerging democracies out there in the middle east, I say this: "The next time a murderer comes to the end of his road, you gather in your House, like we are today, and think about how you're going to take your share of the responsibility and what you're going to contribute."
I said that this was a decision that I do not take lightly, and I do not think this nation takes it lightly either, but I will support the Government. The Prime Minister was right to secure a UN mandate. His leadership stands in stark contrast to the leadership that has gone before in this nation. Let us hope that the positive responses from the United Nations are a sign of something to come because, fundamentally, it is the weakness of United Nations members that has created so many international disasters in the past.”
Mr Hopkins was born in 1963 and saw service in Northern Ireland as a Member of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment. Before entering The Commons in 2010, he was deputy Leader and then Leader of Bradford City Council.
This was an emotional speech which I believe will have a profound impact on all who listen and those who now read, but the contribution which I believe will have the greater impact on the future policy of all the main political parties in the United Kingdom was made by a second member of the Conservative Party, Mr Rory Stewart of Penrith and the Borders, who said:
This is not something that began in Libya, and it will not end in Libya. It came out of a regional situation. It is a response primarily to Egypt and Tunisia. We should be celebrating, but with immense caution, what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have supported because of that broader regional context. We are talking about not one country and one month, but a series of countries and 30 years. We have to keep our eyes on that, or we will find ourselves in a very dangerous and difficult situation.
The situation in Libya and the no-fly zone are driven, of course, as everybody in the House has said, by our humanitarian obligation to the Libyan people. It is driven by our concerns for national security and, probably most of all-this is not something that we should minimise-by the kind of message that we are trying to pass to people in Egypt or Tunisia. If we had stood back at this moment and done nothing-if we had allowed Gaddafi simply to hammer Benghazi - people in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria would have concluded that we were on the side of oil-rich regimes against their people. We would have no progressive narrative with which we could engage with that region over the next three decades.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly significant that both the Arab League and countries in the area such as Qatar support the engagement and the UN resolution?
Rory Stewart: I agree very strongly. That is immensely significant, but the meaning of that needs to be clear. The limits that the Prime Minister has set are so important to all of us exactly because of that point. The reason we need the Arab League and the UN on side, the reason we need a limited resolution, and the reason all the comments from around the House warning that the situation should not become another Iraq are so important is that we are talking about 30 years, not just the next few months.
Respectfully, I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell); the most important thing for us now is to be careful with our language and rhetoric, and careful about the kinds of expectations that we raise. I would respectfully say that phrases such as "This is necessary", or even "This is legitimate", are dangerous. All the things that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have done to hedge us in, limit us, and say, "This isn't going to be an occupation" are fantastic, but they are only the beginning.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the risks is that it might be said on the Arab street that we would not be interested if it were not for the oil in Libya?
Rory Stewart: That is a very important danger. The fact that Libya is not just an Arab country, but a country with oil, has to be borne in mind. The kind of legitimacy that we may have had in Kosovo will be more difficult to come by in Libya for that reason.
The biggest dangers-the dangers that we take away from Afghanistan-are threefold. The Prime Minister will have to stick hard to his commitment, because it is easy for us to say today, "So far and no further," but all the lessons of Afghanistan are that if we dip our toes in, we are very soon up to our neck. That is because of the structure of that kind of rhetoric, and the ways in which we develop four kinds of fear, two kinds of moral obligation, and an entire institutional pressure behind reinvestment. That is why the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), is correct to sound his cautions.
What are the four fears? We can hear them already. First, people are saying, "We have to be terrified of Gaddafi. He is an existential threat to global security." That is the fear of the rogue state.
The second fear is the fear of the failed state. Gaddafi is making that argument himself: "If I collapse, al-Qaeda will come roaring into Libya."
The third fear that people are beginning to express is a fear of neighbours. They are already beginning to say, "If this collapses, refugees will pour across the borders into other countries."
The fourth fear is fear for ourselves: fear for our credibility, and fear that we might look ridiculous if, in response to our imprecations or threats, Gaddafi remains.
We have seen the same fears in Vietnam, where people talked about the domino theory. We have seen the same fears in Iraq when people talked about weapons of mass destruction. We have seen the same fears in Afghanistan, where people worried that, if Afghanistan were to topple, Pakistan would topple and mad mullahs would get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Those are all the same fears, and the same sense of moral obligation. We do not need to be able to name two cities in Libya to be able to talk about two kinds of moral obligation: our moral obligation to the Libyan people, and our moral obligation because we sold arms to the Libyans in the past. This is very dangerous, and we must get away from that kind of language and into the kind of language that is humble, that accepts our limits, and allows us to accept that we have a moral obligation to the Libyan people but that it is a limited one because we have a moral obligation to many other people in the world, particularly to our own people in this country.
Of course we have a national security interest in Libya, but we have such an interest in 40 or 50 countries around the world, and we must match our resources to our priorities.
The real lesson from all these conflicts is not, as we imagine, that we must act. The real lesson is not just our failure, but our failure to acknowledge our failure, and our desire to dig ever deeper. It is our inability to acknowledge that, in the middle east, many people will put a very sinister interpretation on our actions. It is also our failure to acknowledge that "ought" implies "can". We do not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do. We have to consider our resources rather than our desires.
What does that mean? This is easy for someone on the Back Bench to say, and much more difficult for a Prime Minister or other leader to say. How do we set a passionately moderate rhetoric? How do we speak to people to support something that is important? How do we acknowledge the moral obligation and the national security questions, but set the limits so that we do not get in too deep? I suggest that we need to state this in the most realistic, limited terms.
First, we need to say that our objective is primarily humanitarian: it is to decrease the likelihood of massacre, ethnic cleansing and civil war, and to increase the likelihood of a peaceful political settlement. Secondly, we will try, in so far as it is within our power to do so, to contain and manage any threat from Libya. Finally, we will deliver development and humanitarian assistance. In the end, however, the real message that we are passing on through limited rhetoric is not to the people of Britain but to the people of the middle east over the next 30 years.
Mr Stewart spoke for six minutes and as the Foreign Secretary commented in bringing the debate to the vote, he looked forward to hearing the sixty minute version. In my judgement a new, unique and important voice has joined the House of Commons.
Mr Stewart whose family come from Crieff in Perthshire, Scotland, was born in Hong Kong, raised in Malaysia and Scotland and educated at the Dragon School, Eton College and Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied modern history and politics, philosophy and economics (PPE). While a student at Oxford, he was a summer tutor to Prince William and Prince Harry. He has an honorary doctorate from the University of Stirling As a teenager, he was a member of the Labour Party.
After a brief period as an officer in the British Army on a gap year commission (to the Black Watch), Mr Stewart joined the Foreign Office. He served in the British Embassy in Indonesia from 1997 to 1999, working on issues related to East Timor independence, and as the British Representative to Montenegro in the wake of the Kosovo campaign. From 2000 to 2002 he walked across Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal, a journey of 6000 miles, during which time he stayed in five hundred different village houses.
After the coalition invasion of Iraq, he was appointed the Coalition Provisional Authority Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator in Maysan and Deputy Governorate Co-coordinator/Senior Advisor in Dhi Qar, two provinces in southern Iraq. His responsibilities included holding elections, resolving tribal disputes and implementing development projects. He faced an incipient civil war and growing civil unrest from his base in a Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) compound in Al Amarah, and in May 2004 was in command of his compound in Nasiriyah when it was besieged by Sadrist militia. He was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service in Iraq at the age of 31. While Mr Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake.
Mark Lancaster Milton Keynes Con added to the list of former soldiers contributing
“It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I have yet to meet a soldier who has been to war who would rush to another one. It is difficult to experience the horrors of war first hand and ever be the same again. Having been to three on behalf of the previous Government, I am a firm believer that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but I accept that the time for jaw-jaw sometimes comes to an end and we must act.
I join other Members in commending the Prime Minister for his speedy action to ensure that we have the United Nations resolution, but I am slightly concerned that there are many who breathe a sigh of relief and believe that, because we have the resolution and find ourselves in a very different position from that which the House was in when debating Iraq, Kosovo and Bosnia, somehow that is all we need to secure a successful resolution in Libya. I fear that it is not.
One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was never to go into a room without knowing where the exit is. I fear that we have no clear exit at the moment in Libya. That is understandable; anyone who stood up in this House with a clear idea of exactly how we will exit the situation would be at best naive. That is no reason not to go into the room, but I fear that we will need further UN resolutions before we see the end to the situation. To be honest, I think that what we have before us will probably at best get us to a stalemate. We will achieve much by preventing conflict and unnecessary deaths in Libya, and the House should be proud of this country's contribution to securing the resolution, but it will not be enough. I would like the Government to continue to play their part in ensuring that we have the grounds on which we can ultimately get the appropriate resolution in the United Nations to secure that exit strategy. It is absolutely clear that we must have greater involvement from Arab nations, because without that we will lack the general support required. I know that the Prime Minister will continue to do his bit to ensure that that is the case.
We often talk about learning lessons from the past. It is of course easy to point to the Iraq conflict and say that one of the biggest mistakes we made was to have no great plan for reconstruction and stabilisation-I must declare an interest as a member of the military stabilisation and support group within our armed forces-but the problem we face now is very different from that which we faced in Iraq, because in Iraq we were able to deploy boots on the ground to assist that stabilisation. We cannot currently do that under the United Nations resolution. We can learn the lessons from the past, from Iraq, and say that we need to have greater reconstruction, but how are we going to deliver that on the ground in Libya?
The cross-departmental stabilisation unit, which the previous Government set up, involving the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, is fabulous but under-utilised. Rather like three strands of a rope, it does come together and the effect that the three Departments produce by working together is much greater, but I believe very strongly that the unit must plan now, working concurrently with existing military operations, to ensure that we have in place such reconstruction and stabilisation. Otherwise, the window of opportunity that we missed in Iraq could well be missed in Libya.
I also seek from the Foreign Secretary, when he winds up the debate, reassurances that we are working very closely with the United Nations to ensure that any work the Government can do after this period of military action, to help to reconstruct and stabilise Libya, is done under the United Nations umbrella. It cannot be delivered solely by Western powers; otherwise I fear that we will lose the consent we have, as we did in the past with Iraq.
Looking forward, I am delighted that we are where we are today. We have secured the UN resolution, with much thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, but we must not take our eye off the ball. We must look beyond our current operations to ensure that we have in place the bedrock on which we can deliver, far more effectively than we have in the past, the reconstruction and stabilisation of Libya after the event.”
It was another Member, also a Conservative and also a former soldier who made another of the telling speeches of the day. He was first commissioned in 1969, taking an in service degree which he passed with first class honours and then when a Captain was made a guard of Rudolf Hess in Spandau Prison, Berlin. He served in Northern Ireland from 1977 to 1981 and then became the first British Commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia discovering the Ahmici massacre of 103 people. Before retiring from the army in 1996 he was Chief of Policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
Before speaking to the House reference was made to Colonel Robert Stewart DSO by the immediately previous speaker Thomas Docherty of Hamilton and West Fife, a Labour Party member, who said:
“ I came into politics because 20 years ago this summer the west stood by and took no action when Yugoslavia tore itself apart. We saw footage from Srebrenica, Sarajevo and other places of the massacre of men and boys, women and children, and the west did nothing to stop that. I cannot possibly imagine what it must have been like to live in that country during those times. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government have stepped up and provided some leadership in this action. The Secretary of State will know that Opposition Members stand willing to provide support to the Government in pursuing that course.
I was very lucky to make my maiden speech on the same day as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I have found inspiring over the past 10 months, both as a colleague on the Defence Committee and as a speaker in the House. I hope, if he will pardon my saying so, that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time we do not have a situation where there are more Members like him who will have had to go in after the west did not take action to pick up the pieces of its indecisiveness. I will support the motion, with some reservations about casualties, but pleased that the west is taking action. “
Mr Docherty was one of several contributors who called on the Government to reconsider some of decision being made as a result of the recent Defence Review.
In his contribution Colonel Stewart said :
“Colonel Gaddafi does not do peaceful. Benghazi may be relatively safe for the moment, but what about elsewhere in Libya? That really worries me.
As my-dare I say, with some trepidation, The Hon Member and my Friend, the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggests, I have had experience in this respect. I remember very well that when I was the military commander in Bosnia in 1993, a little girl of six years old was brought to my house by a delegate from the International Committee of the Red Cross. She had been in a prison camp for 10 days. The Red Cross delegate said to me, "This girl needs shelter." I said, "I'm the military commander." She said, "You've got plenty of room in your house, and you've got two soldiers who look after you." The soldiers turned to me and said, "We'll look after her, sir." They took her away, put her in a bath and washed her, and cared for her. They put a bed for her between their two cots. Three days later, that girl did not want to leave.
I am worried that what happened to her might be happening to people in Tripoli tonight. She was dragged out of her bed at 5 o'clock in the morning, with her mother, father and brother, told to get downstairs and made to lie on the grass by brutes with rifles. As she told it, her mother, father and brother lay down and did not get up again.
This weekend, I spoke to members of the opposition in Tripoli, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Gaddafi will be sending his thugs searching around there tonight.
What can we do to help? We cannot invade, we cannot assassinate-it is up to the Libyans to decide what we do. I have seen people with pitchforks try to take out tanks. How are those people going to be protected?
They need help. Perhaps the Arab League could help a little more in that respect. Perhaps it could go forward. We cannot do it.
Nobody knows the end game-we all realise that. If we were God, perhaps we would, but we do not. We live in hope. We do not have the end game plotted out carefully.
We acted morally on the highest authority in the world-the Security Council of the United Nations. Thank goodness we did, because last Friday Colonel Gaddafi suggested he was going to go through houses in Benghazi and butcher everyone who opposed him. That did not happen. We have, by our actions, saved life. Politics can sort things out hereafter, but one thing is quite clear: there will be a lot more people around to watch what happens from now on than there would have been if we had done nothing last Friday. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Thank you very much, Foreign Secretary. Thank you very much, the Opposition, for your full support. It is deeply appreciated by all of us.
Let us hope that someone has the brains of Methuselah and that we find out what the end game is in due course. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has the brains of Methuselah. “ (Colonel Stewart and the remaining speakers were required to reduce their planned comments from six to four minutes).
The Leader of the Opposition, Edward Miliband also included a personal family reference in his important and powerful speech for which the Prime Minister thanked him at Question Time on Wednesday.
Mr Miliband said :
Let me end on this point. Today's debate is conducted in the shadow of history of past conflicts. For me, it is conducted in the shadow of my family's history as well: two Jewish parents whose lives were changed forever by the darkness of the holocaust, yet who found security in Britain. This is a story of the hope offered by Britain to my family, but many of my parents' relatives were out of the reach of the international community and perished as a result. In my maiden speech in the House, I said that I would reflect
"the humanity and solidarity shown to my family more than 60 years ago".-[ Official Report, 23 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 489.]
These are the kind of things we say in maiden speeches, but if they are to be meaningful, we need to follow them through in deeds, not just words. That is why I will be voting for the motion tonight, and why I urge the whole House to vote for it.”
Sir Malcolm Rifkind Kensington Cons, opened his contribution by mentioning the very eloquent and moving speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I am also agree with Jim Dowd Lewisham West and Penge Lab who in his contribution mentioned that the late Member Eric Forth had said that when there was unanimity between the Front Benches it is almost axiomatic that they are wrong. He said this was an exception and I agree with him. He also finished his contribution in a great way saying:
“We have a difficult choice. I will support the Government in their motion to support resolution 1973, because I believe that is less bad than the alternative of doing nothing. It is also consistent with the type of nation that I believe the majority of the British people make up. We are not the kind of people who pass by on the
other side of the road. Sometimes we have to put up or shut up. On this occasion I shall certainly now shut up, but I believe we should put up.”
I also liked the way Ben Wallace Wyre and Preston North Con referred to experience of someone who had recently worked for him:
“We should remember that authority in the middle east has changed. It has moved away from the Ministers of Arab countries to whom we used to look for reassurances and towards the Arab street. Some Arab Ministers are not in as strong a position as they would like. We should not forget that the Arab street is becoming ever more emboldened throughout the region.
We should be consistent in our criticism. Bahrain is currently setting out on a course of sectarian violence and oppression against its 70% Shi'a majority. Indeed, a lady who worked for me recently and left Bahrain for Dubai was asked at every checkpoint whether she was Shi'a or Sunni. The Shi'as were taken out of the car and beaten and the Sunnis were allowed to progress.”
Jack Straw Blackburn Lab said that he had recently re-watched Hotel Rwanda : “the chilling film portrayal of the massacres of the defenceless civilians who were hacked to pieces by the so-called forces of law and order because they had the misfortune to belong to the wrong ethnic group. In July 2005, when the UK had the EU presidency, I went to Srebrenica in Bosnia for the 10th anniversary commemoration of the day in 1995 when 10,000 unarmed civilians were brutally murdered by the forces of law and order because, in that case, they had had the misfortune to belong to the wrong religious group.
In Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN solemnly considered what it should do. In both theatres, there were already blue-hatted UN troops on the ground, but they stood by as the massacres took place in front of them. Those troops were there as peacekeepers, but there was no peace to keep-rather, peace urgently needed to be made.
Doing nothing in the face of evil is as much a decision with consequences as doing something. This resolution is historically significant not just on its own terms, but because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, this is first occasion on which the Security Council has acted decisively upon the words relating to the responsibility to protect, which were agreed in the UN General Assembly in 2005, and in Security Council resolution 1674 2006.”
He was one of many who commended the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary for their work.
Another Conservative Member Paul Uppal of Wolverhampton South West also spoke with great feeling and a sense of personal and relevant history. He said that
We all have a personal history and personal experiences that form our political opinions. Just last Wednesday, I came to the end of a very long political journey when I took a group of sixth formers from my constituency to Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was a cathartic day and a very personal experience, which I think will stay with me for the rest of my life. On reflection, there were many lessons to learn about that journey but one thing was more pertinent than anything else in my discussions with those sixth formers-they wondered how we had let that tyranny and oppression come to fruition.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the holocaust in his speech, and I realise that some hon. Members might think it too much of a stretch to relate that situation to this one, so let me give another example. My maternal grandfather gave me many things, including a love of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, a mischievous sense of humour and a very personal story that strongly resonates with me to this day. At a time of partition in northern India, he stood against a mob who were determined to burn out their Muslim neighbours. They said, "We will go from house to house and there will be no mercy." Those words have rung very loud in my ears over the past few days because they bring home what is right and what is wrong. To my pride, my maternal grandfather stood against the mob and said, "If anyone attacks this house, it will be an attack on my household," and to this day that Muslim family is still in that village.
I have referred specifically to some personal issues and other right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted how difficult this issue is. I know that there might be charges of hypocrisy and that people are asking why we are choosing Libya and not Bahrain, why we are not addressing the situation in Yemen and why we are choosing to act in this specific situation, but we can only deal with the situation as it is presented to us. Colonel Gaddafi has shown that he is prepared to use his own people as human shields. He is prepared to go from door to door and show no mercy. I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is absolutely necessary to do the right thing.
The choice is simple and stark and has been laid out eloquently both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The choice, as in the terms of this motion, is to do something or to do nothing and I for one think that we do the right thing by acting. “
This is the point made time and time again in debate and appropriate moment to cover the words of the Prime Minister who formally moved the motion that
That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces.
The Prime Minister explained that the purpose of allied bombardment was to create a no Fly zone and to protect civilians from immediate attack by the regime and that in both instances the action had been initially successful.
The Prime Minister reminded that the terms of the United Nations resolution, and which he, together with the President’s of the United States and France had advised Gaddafi and his regime were not negotiable, was an immediate ceasefire which the regime had said they had implemented twice while continuing to behave to the contrary; that regime forces (troops, mercenaries and armed civilians with heavy weaponry) should stop attacking the city of Benghazi, and this objective had been met in greater part, and thirdly “ he should pull his forces back from the Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah. He had to establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas, and he had to allow humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Libya.”
It is in relation to third objective that in my assessment is that the greatest difficulty arises without either the use of ground troops or the enhancement of the fighting ability of those Libyans who appreciate that without their action a sustainable outcome is unlikely as the continuing evidence is that attacks are continuing causing the deaths of civilians as well as armed individuals defending.
The Prime Minister attempted to give many Members the opportunity to ask questions with him directly thereby covering most of the issues raised in the rest of the debate with the first intervention was by Angus Robertson (Moray SNP) who prefaced his question by saying, as did a succession of Members that his difficulty in supporting previous International Operations was the failure to secure the mandate of the United Nations, while others mentioned the Legal aspect, and many the important of the request and ongoing support of the Arab League of Nations and that because of this there was need to stick closely to the terms of the United Nations resolution and avoid any expansion of the mission. Confirming with Tony Lloyd that any action was limited by the terms of resolution and legal advice on its meaning. In his Speech Bob Ainsworth, Coventry East Labour said he only supported because of the United Nations resolution and international involvement. Sir Menzies Campbell North East Fife Ld explained in his speech that he supported the action where he had not that in Iraq because of the UN resolution
This however also raises the issue of the meaning of the resolution, especially the phrase, “in the taking of all necessary measures “and that there would be no military occupation; It could be argued that these words do not exclude the use of servicemen to recover members of the airforce if their planes are shot down or get it into mechanical difficulties, a question posed by Dan Byles (North Warwickshire Con) which the Prime Minister evaded but not the Government Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde who confirmed this was possible in response to an intervention from Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon.
Some Members and the media demanded to know who is in charge, who gives orders and identifies targets etc, especially when the United States gives up its present organising role. David Lammy Tottenham Labour asked if it would be NATO knowing full well that that there is dissent within NATO about doing this from Germany and Turkey. I think the approach of Turkey has hopefully undermined their prospects of becoming a full member of the EC. I would like to see a new grouping of countries covering Turkey and other Muslim countries on Europe’s borders which developed commercial relationships but excluded rights to live and work.
There are other circumstances when I believe select forces could be used on the ground which it is perhaps not appropriate to discuss and I noted that the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Minister have been careful not to discuss. Concerns about this issues was expressed by Ronnie Campbell.
Arising from apparent confusion earlier in the day between various statements about whether it is legitimate to attempt to remove Gaddafi by use of the coalition force and the question of regime change, the Prime Minister, as has the USA President subsequently, emphasised that while his removal and the replacement of the regime was desirable and the sooner the better, it was not the purpose of the UN resolution. He affirmed this in answer to a question from Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford on Avon Cons) However Toby Perkins Chesterfield Labour expressed the view of the majority that without the removal of Gaddafi, his sons and others it was difficult to foresee that the safety of civilians will be secured long term.
This was a point which struck me when viewing those picture of women and children camping down for the night within the central compound. Given the risks of malfunctioning ordinance and misdirected ordinance, it is the heights of irresponsibility not to take all reasonable measures to remove civilians from proximity to targets and should provide visual evidence for the International Criminal Court Trials when they occur. He therefore agreed with Bob Russell (Colchester LD) that those who carried out the attacks on civilians could and would find themselves in front of the International Criminal Court and he urged that they put down their weapons, walked away from their tanks and stopped obeying orders from the regime. Matthew Offord Hendon Cons also raised the issue fo the use of human shields by Gaddafi with the Opposition Leader.
Barry Gardiner Brent North Lab also reminded that Gaddafi’s infamy had along history when he said
“Few dictators have committed so many acts of psychopathic wickedness over such a long period of time. Many hon. Members will know of his atrocity at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, where he marched 1,270 prisoners into a compound, locked the gate and instructed his soldiers to open fire from the courtyard rooftops. The gunfire and grenades rained down for more than two hours until all 1,270 people were dead. But that was in the dying days of John Major's Government in June 1996, and Britain took no action
There is a similar concern about the position of Journalists who accepted the invitation to visit Tripoli and who are the subject of threats and harassment and their potential use as human shields, a point raised by Mark Prichard, Wrekin Con, and which drew praise for their courage by the Prime Minister. Concern about Gaddafi’s use of mustard gas was expressed by Robert Halfon Harlow Cons. Mr Cameron shared this concern
An issues which several members raised in the debate was how far the coalition could and should assist the rebels in getting rid of the regime. Mr Baron wanted to know the view of the Opposition Leader if after all the work of the coalition Mr Gaddafi remained in place. Mr Miliband made the point that concerns about what several Members referred to as the end game had also been raised in the debate led by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in relation to the intervention in relation to Kosovo in 1999. The answer is that we had to do the right thing and respond to circumstances as they developed. Sir Menzies Campbell North East Fife LD paid tribute to the lead taken by Tony Blair who in 1999 first raised the doctrine of the duty to protect in a speech made in Chicago.
The opposition leader was also cautious when Nadim Zahawi, Stratford upon Avon Con raised the issue of recognising the rebel regime (although at the time of writing what has been described as an interim government has been formed with a Prime Minister and which may make recognition easier. Later still this was changed again to an Interim Council because of the wish to avoid suggestions of a divided Libya and the need to have one country with Libya its capital.
The Euro sceptic Bill Cash asked Opposition Leader Edward Miliband if the UN Resolution enabled arms to be provided the insurgents and he responded as had the Prime Minister in a previous exchange that we had to be cautious and stick closely to the UN mandate, especially as we are helping to enforce the restrictions imposed upon the Gaddafi regime. This led to the only party political intervention of the six hour debate by Robert Halfon who raised the relationship which had developed between the Labour Government and the regime after the Tony Blair initiative on behalf of the Western and other interests to successfully secure his move from obtaining weapons of destruction. There was also a follow up to the issue of the extent and nature of the intervention possible raised by John Redwood Wokingham Cons, to which the Opposition Leader said the nature of the regime and the wording of the resolution enabled appropriate and proportionate intervention, Sir Malcolm Rifkind was more specific in his six minutes contribution and wanted arms to be provided the what is now the Interim Government in order to get rid of the Gaddafi regime. He also emphasised that it was up to the Libyans to determine their future once the Gaddafi regime ended.
The Prime Minister continued that the UK was part of a coalition with wide support and that it was essential this support was maintained. He advised that Spain was involved with the use of four fighters, a tanker aircraft, a surveillance aircraft and an F100 Frigate; Canada was committing six air defence aircraft and a naval vessel; Norway and Demark were committing a total of ten aircraft; Belgium had offered air Defence aircraft; Italy has opened bases one of which is being used by the UK and Greece has also offered bases.
He agreed with Joan Ruddock, (Lewisham Deptford Labour) and who before coming to Westminster was a chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, that the Arab League would remain an important part of decision making. ( she also raised with Mr Miliband the language that had been used in the headlines of some newspapers, a subject dealt with eloquently and thoughtfully in the speech by Rory Stewart.
While a strongly endorsing the action and supporting the framework provided by the Government, in his important speech The Opposition Leader, Mr Miliband also pressed the Prime Minister to ensure the ongoing support of the Arab League. Clive Efford Labour Eltham agreed with the Opposition on the importance of a collective approach internationally. At Prime Minister’s Question time the Prime Minister thanked the Opposition Leader for his contribution to the debate and support for the action being taken. Graham Stuart Beverley and Holderness Con suggested that in future action taken to protect would have to be first sanctioned by the UN Mr Miliband said that while International agreement was important decisions by individual government would need to be taken on a case by case basis.
An issue which has dominated much of the media since the action commenced is how will success be determined and at what point will it be possible to withdraw from intervention. This issues was raised by Emily Thornbury. The Prime Minister, understandably in my view, could not confirm that as a consequence of the initial success todate of the aerial bombardment it would immediately end or when it would end because of the need to meet the requirements of the UN in response to an intervention from (Elfyn Llwyd -Dwyfor Meironethnydd PC). Mr Denis Skinner of Bolsover who I call opposition man in that whatever any government does irrespective of party he can do not other that voice criticism and dissent, asked when will we know it is over, to which I shouted out at the screen when it is and while others then said this in the debate, the point he made is valid.
Andrew George asked the Opposition Leader how he would define successful outcome to which he also drew attention to the wording of the UN resolution and to the role of the British government. I liked the contribution from Jeffrey M Donaldson Lagan Valley DUP when he referred to the film the King’s Speech and said “When Chamberlain announced that Britain was at war with Germany, it struck me that it was a recognition that appeasement had not worked, but no one at that time knew the outcome of the decision to go to war. Very often, that is the case with war: one simply does not know what the outcome will be.”
The need for a clarity of purpose was made by Bernard Jenkins who I once enjoyed a social services seminar when he was a Shadow Minister several decades ago. The Member for Harwich and North Essex Con reminded of the words of Karl von Clausewitz
“Brevity demands bluntness, for which I hope the Government will forgive me. I support the motion, but I think that we need to be honest about the consequences of what we are taking on. First, we have crossed a threshold, and by approving this motion, the House is crossing it with our political leaders. Hon. Members
should have no illusions: there is no such thing as limited war, in all its bloody terror and dirt. Secondly, I remind the House that
"no one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so-without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."
We have a duty to be clear. Either the removal of Gaddafi is the legitimate military aim, or I put it to the Foreign Secretary that we must drop it from our public statements and focus our words on the more limited task we are setting our military. We cannot do both. Clausewitz again:
"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes."
I was also interested by the contribution from Jo Swinson East Dumbartonshire LD because she was one of several members expected to opposed the action who did not. She mentioned that
“Eight years ago, this House discussed intervention in Iraq. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. Instead, I was marching on the streets of Glasgow to protest against that war, along with more than 1 million other people across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret not only the UK's role in Iraq but the legacy that it has left for UK foreign policy. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) so eloquently pointed out, it has undoubtedly made the role of our diplomats much harder in their negotiations with other countries around the world. It has undermined much of what they do. It has also, understandably, made the Government and the British public more sensitive about any UK military action, even when it has United Nations support. “
She went onto say
Not acting is not a neutral position, as there are huge risks in inaction, too, not least the bloodbath in Benghazi. Indeed, in Gaddafi's own words, we have heard exactly what would happen. He said that he would show no mercy, and that he would track the fighters down
"and search for them, alley by alley, road by road",
And house by house. In making that broadcast on Libyan media, he made it clear that his aim was to terrorise his own people and make them cower in submission. As I said last week in Prime Minister's questions, we must consider the risk of the message that we would send other oppressive regimes around the world-that they could do whatever they liked, and that under no circumstances would the international community act. In what other circumstances would we act? In this situation, there is regional consensus, there is public demand for action, and there is a clear legal position. If we did not act in this circumstance, in what circumstance would we act? “
Another who could have expected to have opposed the intervention was the Labour critic of Blair and his intervention in Iraq, the former late night sofa commentator with Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil, Ms Diane Abbot Hackney North and Stole Newington Lab said
“I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight, partly because I genuinely believe that only swift action at the weekend avoided a bloodbath in Benghazi, and partly because I am convinced that we have a solid legal basis for the military action. That has not always been the case.
However, the Government would be wrong to take this evening's vote as some sort of blank cheque. I point to the unsettling lack of real Arab involvement in the deployment so far. We know that the Arab League countries have plenty of military kit because we sold them most of it. Why is it not being deployed? Why are not senior Arab military people involved in the deployment? “
She also said
“Let me remind the House of Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State who tried to argue against Iraq with his colleagues Bush and Cheney. He reminded them of the Pottery Barn rule. Pottery Barn is a chain in America that sells china. The rule is, "You break it, you own it". If we intervene with a massive military deployment in north Africa, we will inevitably own the development of the story from here.”
Another Labour Member Andy Slaughter Hammersmith brought his recent experience of visiting Egypt. He said
“I returned last night from a visit to Egypt, where I had the privilege of seeing Egyptian democracy in action. On Saturday, that country voted in a referendum on the amendment to its constitution. From visiting polling stations, I can say that what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech is quite correct. It is a fine example of a new democracy, from the enthusiastic queues to the independent scrutiny by the judiciary of the polling process.
I also had the opportunity to talk to people at all levels about the wider implications of the Egyptian revolution for the middle east, including Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya. I talked not only to the interim Government and to Amr Moussa, but to the opposition forces, from the youth coalition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Not one person or group to whom I spoke was opposed to the letter of the UN resolution, which is perhaps unsurprising given the empathy of the people in Tahrir square for the people of Benghazi.”
Before coming to the House today, I met Arab Muslim community leaders to take their views. They, too, were broadly in favour, but they expressed views that ranged from, "We should do anything necessary to get rid of Gaddafi"-one can understand why Libyans living in Britain take that view-to, "We are already exceeding the limits of the resolution," in the sentiments that Amr Moussa has expressed.
In the brief time available, I should like to develop those caveats. First, the basic picture shows western planes bombing a Muslim Arab country and killing people, including civilians. That is why it is so important to get the support of the wider Muslim and Arab community. I hope we have done that through the Arab League resolutions.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North Labour) who had attempted to get an amending motion debated drew attention to the decision of the Chinese government to convene a special meeting of the UN security Council and that India and others were questioning the action taken and wanted to know what was the continuing objective in this changed situation. In response The Prime Minister made the point that China, India and Russia had chosen to abstain and not use their veto and in response to amendment which had been tabled and a point of Order intervention of David Winnick (Walsall North Lab) as to why the vote was taking place after UK involvement and nor before that it was the urgency of the situation that had enable the UN resolution to be passed and the need for coordination action between the coalition and UK mission implementation on the Saturday, prevented the immediate holding of the voting debated. I suspect an important factor was the disclosed position of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Government Coalition Partner which enabled the undertaking of action prior to the voting debate. He agreed with Graham Stringer, Blackley and Broughton Lab that the situation should be reported on a regular basis to the House. This issues was also raised with the Opposition Leader who agreed as did the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary from their sedentary positions.
In response to John Baron, Basildon and Billericay Mr Cameron explained that only the USA, France and the UK possessed the operational ability to immediately intervene in accord with the UN Resolution and that the others mentioned including the Arab states would take time before being ready or help in other ways including logistics and funding.
Because of the situations their countries, I believe it is right for neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt not to have a direct military involvement given their role in taking refugees from Libya, the likelihood that Gaddafi would have used his available weaponry on the closest coalition allies if given the opportunity, and the potential role of these two countries and others to provide UN Peace keepers and help in the reconstruction of the country if requested by whatever regime comes to replace that of Gaddafi.
Mr Cameron was able to give a categorical assurance to the other author of the amendment John McDonnell that the government did not use weapons which involved depleted uranium and would not use them. And in response to Dal Havard Merthyr Tydfil LD the Prime Minister emphasised the including of the arms embargo and that a number of countries were assisting in the inspection of ships arriving in Libya to prevent the arrival of any weaponry.
It was in response to the question from Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion Green) that the Prime Minister gave what I regard as the most important commitment about translating words about the future into position action in that he emphasised that the decision had already been taken to immediate review government policy on approving licences to export military equipment. This subject was also raised with Mr Miliband by Jeremy Corbyn referring to Saudi Arabia, the Congo and the Ivory Coast as well as the Yemen and Bahrain. And supported what the Prime Minister had already said on the issue. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and Brighton Pavilion also reminded of recent political and commercial dealings with Gaddafi and other regimes in the region. She said
“In considering whether our action is truly principled, we surely have to say why we think it appropriate to continue to sell arms to the region. I do not apologise for returning to that issue, because the Colonel Gaddafi who has been rightly described today as a murderous dictator has not suddenly become one. He was already a murderous dictator a few months, or weeks, ago, when we were happy to sell him tear gas, crowd control equipment, ammunition for wall and door-breaching projectile launchers, and plenty of other military equipment as well. In the nine months leading up to September last year, the United Kingdom issued millions of pounds' worth of arms export licences for Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point. We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate. As recently as last month, Ministers attended the IDEX-international defence exhibition-arms fairs in Abu Dhabi, and in less than six months the United Kingdom will host its own arms fair in London, where, no doubt, regimes that abuse their own people will once again seek to buy the tools of their repression. I hope very much that the commitment that we are hearing today-the commitment to upholding human rights in the middle east-will extend to our policies on arms exports, so that we can finally not just review but end the policy of selling arms to repressive regimes“
Also reminding of recent and previous dealings was David Lammy Tottenham Lab
Clearly, all war is evil, and we should remember that when we talk about the business of war. But some evil is necessary. In reflecting on the vote tonight, we should bear that in mind. Some of the language in our media over the past few days has left me cold. It is indicative of a country that has not experienced bombing for well over 60 years, but for those who are poor and who see bombs raining on their country from up above, with necessary supplies disrupted and real fear in their heart, the urgency and seriousness of what we are talking about is very great indeed.
In reflecting on how to vote, I think of how this all began on 17 December 2010 with one man, Mohammed Bouazizi, who burned himself to death because of the oppression he saw and experienced in Tunisia. That set off a wave of activity across the middle east. In supporting this, we line up with him and with the young people of the region--the 29% of the population aged between 15 and 29 who have had enough. They are educated, too often unemployed, and concerned about an ossifying political system that does not seem to relate to their experience. They want to do something about the dictators and the lack of democracy across the region. That is the test. Those are the people we support, despite the UN resolution that is the subject of today's motion. In doing so, we should recognise the changed circumstances in which we have such a debate and the kind of scrutiny that is expected of us.
Any action taken must clearly be proportionate. We must be mindful of the fact that the British public at large do not expect there to be large-scale civilian death as a result of our action. Any action must be proportionate and multilateral. This generation is mindful of the imperial past of our country and those countries that are part of the allied effort. That is important. That is why the multilateral approach is the right one. Against that backdrop, it is concerning that the Arab League, although it is prayed in aid, seems neither present, nor wholly behind what is happening. It is concerning that the African Union, too, clearly wants to disassociate itself from the bombing of Libya. How are we to present a multilateral force if those two major players are not part of it?
The generation of young people on the streets in the middle east, who are in communication with their generation in this country, ask two other major questions. First, what are the criteria by which we intervene? Why not Darfur or Zimbabwe? What is our position on Yemen and Bahrain? Is there consistency when we intervene? They are entitled to some answers on the new and changed circumstances t particularly in the context in which we are talking not about being invaded ourselves, but about intervention that is perhaps necessary in this new age. Secondly, that generation also asks for some consistency, integrity and principles in the UK's position on arms. Just as we have taken noble positions on nuclear proliferation, the time has come not just for another review, but for statutory implementation on arms. We must ask ourselves why in the last year for which figures are available Europe spent €343 million arming Libya, involving companies from the UK, Italy, Germany and France. It was unacceptable when my party was in government, and it is unacceptable now. “
Conservative Geoffrey Clinton- Brown representing the Cotswolds asked about reconstruction after the conflict was brought to an end and the importance of involving the Arab League. The Prime Minister said that the International Development Minister was leading cross government preparations for any humanitarian matters arising in the context of action taken by the UN and the EU. Sam Gyimah, East Surrey Cons wanted assurance that any form of humanitarian disaster could be met, Mr Cameron said the priority was to minimise civilian casualties.
There were several interventions during the debate about the need to review the Defence budget in the light of cost of the British involvement and the need to deploy ships and planes. The Prime Minister attempted to forestall the issue by drawing attention that even after the recent review and it implementation the British Defence budget will remain the fourth largest in the world. Dr Julian Lew New Forest Con, asked Mr Miliband about the costs of involvement and in his Budget Speech two days later the Chancellor confirmed the any costs would come from the government reserve.
As I have already indicated by highlighting the contribution of the important aspect of British and United Nations Development is the implications for future relationships with the Muslim and Arab worlds and the issue of why Libya and why not Yemen or Bahrain. Andrew George, St Ives LD, asked about the Yemen. David Winnick also asked about the Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia
The Prime Minister hoped dictators would take note of the UN intervention in response to a question from Angus Brendan MacNeil, Na h-Elleanan an Iar SNP. Keith Vaz Leicester East Lab asked the Opposition Leader if consideration was being given to intervention in the Yemen. Mr Miliband agreed with the Prime Minister that because we did not intervene in every instance this did not mean should never intervene. Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton said he would be happy if criteria for intervention could be agreed in advance. Mr Miliband agreed saying it was a matter for the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.
Mr Brendan MacNell suggested to Mr Miliband that we had reached a watershed moment and he replied that it was too early to judge but he hoped it would be an important step collective action
One Member hoped for outcome of any regime change is closing the case of the death of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher and the provision of ordinance to the IRA in Northern Ireland, a point raised by Daniel Kawczynski Shrewsbury and Atcham Cons and where the Prime Minister agreed.
Yvonne Fletcher was also mentioned by David Morris of Morecombe and Lumsdale Con, who also told the story of a friend
“Let me tell the House a story of which I have personal knowledge. A good friend of mine who was a radio officer on a ship jumped off it into the ocean when he saw a British destroyer come past. The military on the ship from which he jumped threw grenades at him, one of which hit him but bounced off and, thankfully, did not explode. He swam for his life, and our boys pulled him out of the sea. He came to this country, and was thankful for that. He has been here for nearly 30 years. Just think of that. Let me tell the House something else. When the students were bombing Manchester in the 1980s, that man lied to everyone that he was Italian, because he was in fear of his life. That is the kind of regime that we are discussing today, and the kind of regime that we want to sort out once and for all. “
My summary would be unfairly biased without including additional references to those who had made up their minds against the action before the debate and were not to be influenced by it. Jeremy Corbin did raise several concerns which I share
However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy, our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north Africa and the middle east.
When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16 jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the Palestinian people because many Palestinian Diaspora, living out their lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt-all over the region-want the right to return home. They see the double standards of the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to support the Palestinian people.
We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity. Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.
We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.
Stephen Gilbert St Austell and Newquay LD who shared the analysis of Mr Corbyn reached a different conclusion
There is no such thing as a good war, but there could be such a thing as a just war. My grandfather fought Nazism in the very desert over which our planes are now flying, and he was right to do so. In standing up to this brutal warlord using our capabilities to protect civilians, we are doing the right thing today.
There are, however, lessons to learn. For too long, it has been common to assume that people in north Africa and the middle east live under dictatorships and repressive regimes because they in some way choose to do so. Over the last few months, we have seen the end of the myth of Arab exceptionalism and an unprecedented grasp for freedom by people who no longer want to live under tyranny and in fear.
This is not the end of regimes in Libya and elsewhere that cling to power without the consent of their people, but it is doubtless the beginning of the end for them. Thousands of brave souls have been prepared to stand up and to lose their lives for things that we take for granted, such as the right to speak our minds, to meet with whom we choose and to vote for a political party of our choice. It is therefore right to stand with those people in their struggle.”
While many speakers referred to our historical legacy and that in Iraq and Afghanistan the positive aspect of British involvement should not be neglected. Dr Phillip Lee Bracknell Con ended his contribution thus
“ I want to share with the House a short anecdote. I was in Syria two or three weeks ago as part of a delegation. I went to the British Council and met some students who had had the opportunity provided by the British Council to learn English. My colleagues and I asked a series of questions about Egypt and Libya. Initially cautious, the students began to open up. At the end of the meeting, one of the students said, in answer to how he viewed the British Council, "It is my bubble of oxygen. It is my opportunity to express myself." That stays with me. It is why I am happy to support the motion. But if we are to be consistent and coherent and to have the respect of the middle east, we need to start looking at our dependence upon oil and gas. Unless we do so, we will be having these debates over and over again.”
As I approach the end of this marathon consideration of the debate the contribution of David Winnick revealed the motivation of the Prime Minister David Winnick, the only Member of the House of Commons with whom I had contact when forty years ago when I was the Parliamentary officer for the Association of Child Care officers and he was the Member for Croydon where I was born, and where he is also the holder of a Diploma in Public and Social Administration, in his instance from the LSE. He has remained a strong a advocate of human rights and although a man of peace by nature he also supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to bring about regime change. He also expressed his horror at the Member’s expenses scandal and was involved the departure of Speaker Michael Martin. It is therefore not surprising that the Prime Minister not only listened to his contribution but took the unprecedented step of intervening in the speech and in doing so provide insight into what has motivated him on this matter. Mr Winnick had said
“ Let us look at the situation from the Arab point of view. In Yemen, the regime slaughtered 45 people last week. They were protesting. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia there is repression, and of course Saudi Arabia actually took military action to intervene in Bahrain. Has anyone suggested that we should intervene against Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Even if repression grew in Saudi Arabia itself, or in Bahrain, one thing would be absolutely certain: the British Government would not draft a resolution with the United States to put before the Security Council of the United Nations. We know that.
It is interesting that every time we go to intervene somewhere there is a reference to the occupied territories: "We are going to do what we can for the Palestinians." Yet the position of the Palestinians remains the same: more than 40 years of occupation, humiliating conditions, the wall, the deprivation of liberty, and the rest. Has there been any change as far as the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories goes? Not at all, but Prime Ministers-not just this one-always refer to it. I do not doubt their sincerity, but it is interesting as far as the occupied territories and the United States' support for this current military action are concerned.
Only a few weeks ago, a resolution-
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Winnick: Yes, indeed.
Only a few weeks ago, a resolution passed by the United Nations, including the British Government, was vetoed by the United States. A moderate resolution, protesting against the illegal settlements, was vetoed.
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Winnick: Of course. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister:
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I am listening to very carefully. He asks us to see the situation from an Arab point of view, but does he accept something that was put very forcefully to me at a public meeting in Qatar; namely,
"You intervened in Iraq because it was about your security. Don't you see that in Libya this is about our aspiration, our democracy, our freedom? Isn't it time that actually you paid some attention to those things?"?
Was not that the Arab street speaking, and not just Arab Governments? Is not that something we should listen to?
Mr Winnick: Yes. I take the point the Prime Minister makes, but at the same time what about the lack of freedom-the repression-in the other countries that I have mentioned? It is not just Libya. Yes, I concede the point-I have said so-that Gaddafi's regime is so tyrannical, so bloody against its own people, and there was the arming of the IRA, Lockerbie and the rest of it. Gaddafi was up to his neck in Lockerbie, as well as in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I have no illusions on that score; all I am saying is that, from the Arab point of view, they do not quite see the situation as we and, to some extent, I do as a citizen of the United Kingdom.
I have many reservations. I must confess that I am debating with myself. I do not often do so, but I do not see any reason why I should not. [ Interruption. ] I do not recommend it. I may be somewhat introverted as a personality, but I do not recommend debating with oneself. The debate I am having is whether I should vote against the motion, because I cannot vote with the
Government. I will make up my mind, not because it is the Government's motion but because of the reservations I have expressed. Having expressed those reservations, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to vote for the motion, if there is a vote tonight-there may not be. If there is a vote, I am debating whether I should abstain or vote against the motion, and I will make up my mind.
I simply say this in conclusion: the action has been taken and we are in, but I hope it is going to be very short. Reference was made to mission creep. I hope we are not going to get involved in the same way as we did in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We are out of Iraq, most people want to see the end of British military involvement in Afghanistan and they certainly do not want a new, long war. That is why I hope so very much that it will be very short indeed. The sooner it ends, the better, because I do not believe, at the end of the day, that it is in the interests of Libya or the United Kingdom.”
Before the vote at 10pm Mr Douglas Alexander Paisley and Reffrewshire Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister ended the debate for the Opposition. He began by saying
I believe that this debate has done justice to the seriousness of the motion before the House this evening. The House has benefited from speeches reflecting the huge experience, knowledge and concern that hon. Members bring to this debate and this decision. We heard cogent cases made by former Defence Secretaries on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke with wisdom and authority in expressing his reluctance to put British forces in harm's way once again. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke with his characteristic clarity and insight on the importance of the United Nations. His insight was matched by one of his old sparring partners, the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who rightly urged that consideration be given now to issues of reconstruction.”
Giving recognition to the concerns of several members he also said
“I believe that it is the duty of the Government to act on what they judge to be the national interest, and that it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they agree in that judgment. Concerned voices in this House-such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)-are not only appropriate to this place;
they are appropriate to this debate. Let me therefore acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Opposition recognise the heavy responsibility that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have to bear in these difficult days. “
He then touched on why it was desirable as well as necessary to intervene.
“We will support the Government tonight not simply because it was vital to avoid what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife warned would be the "slaughterhouse of Benghazi". The impact of that decision-the decision we take tonight-will be felt not only in Tripoli but in other capitals across the region and across the world. I believe that for the United Nations, this now represents a test of faith as well as of strength. In the face of the global challenges we face, we need strong and effective multilateral institutions, so the United Nations should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action.
The lasting shame of Rwanda, Somalia, Srebrenica and East Timor cannot, of course, be removed in one Security Council resolution, but this resolution can give new life to the doctrine that developed in response to those failures-the responsibility to protect. That should not hide the fact that military action almost always leads to the loss of life, but it should give us courage that the motion tabled today reflects the broadest consensus of international views, approved by the highest multilateral body. If we believe in a responsibility to protect, if we believe that multilateral institutions should be used for the protection of civilian life, discussion should be followed by decision and by action.
Many Members from both sides of the House have mentioned the situations in Bahrain and in Yemen, which are both deeply concerning and deteriorating. Notwithstanding its historical ties, Britain must be unequivocal in its condemnation of the violence, and must make it clear to both the Bahraini and the Yemeni Governments that a security response cannot be an alternative to political reform. “
He concluded
The commencement of military action should not be a signal that the time for diplomacy is over. This crisis will test not just our military strength, but our diplomatic skill and stamina. It is vital that the diplomatic work continues to hold together this precious coalition. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement
of regular political- level meetings of the coalition, and I would welcome a clear and continuing role for the Arab League.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to update the House on the work that is being done to sustain support in the region, to increase pressure on the countries that have allowed their citizens to become mercenaries in Libya, and to sustain non-military pressure on the regime. Our commitment to Libya's future, through our membership of the European Union, must be serious and long-term. The whole House will wish to know what work is under way on contingency planning for post-conflict reconstruction. What are the structures equal to this immense task, who will lead the work, and how will the House be assured that this vital work is being done? We should also bear in mind that Britain needs to be working, now, on a trade, aid and civil society response in case the Libyan people choose a new future.
The House has the privilege of discussion, but it also has the responsibility of decision. All of us who will support and stand with the Government tonight must have the humility to acknowledge that, at this moment of decision, we cannot say for certain what lies ahead. Intervention, even in support of humanitarian ends, brings with it unforeseen and uncertain consequences, but by our decision tonight we will be supporting action that has already prevented the foreseeable and certain killing of many Libyan citizens. We will also be supporting action that has broad support in the region and is underpinned by a Security Council resolution that authorises the necessary force required to protect the Libyan people.
We have a legal, political and moral mandate to act to protect civilian life. That is the international community's responsibility, that should be Britain's choice, and so that must be the House's decision. I urge all Members to support the motion.
It was then left to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague to make the final appeal to the House to vote for the Government motion. Given recent criticism in sections fo the media, including comments that he appeared to have lost appetite for his position he gave a bravura performance and which understandably made no attempt to refer to all the members who contributed.
“We have heard 50 speeches tonight, and I have listened to the vast majority of them. Every single one has raised proper questions and issues. It will, of course, be impossible to respond to all of them in the 16 minutes that remain, but I will do my best to respond to the general themes and to some of the specific questions “
He referred to recent developments in the region
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), for instance, referred to the dramatic changes that have taken place throughout the region: changes that may already constitute the most important event of the early 21st century-even more important than 9/11 or the 2008 financial crisis-in terms of their possible consequences.
If many of the countries of the middle east turn into stable democracies and more open economies, the gains for our security and prosperity will be enormous. If they do not, the potential breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism will prosper. That is why it is so much in our national interest to address these issues, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have argued that the response of the whole of Europe must be as bold, as ambitious and as historic in its intentions as these events are in their nature. We should be holding out to the countries of the middle east the prospect of free trade, areas of customs union and a new economic area with the European Union. We should be providing it with incentives and acting as a magnet for positive change in that region.
We can be optimistic about the prospects for positive change in many of those countries. In Egypt, the Egyptian army's decision to protect the people kept the spotlight firmly where it was supposed to be-on a Government who had to listen to people's aspirations. In Tunisia, too, after deplorable violence against unarmed protestors, the Government crumbled, accepting the will of the people and beginning a transformation of the political system. The situation in Libya is completely different. In the past three weeks we have heard reports of soldiers being burned alive for refusing to obey orders to crush the protests. We have seen the use of mercenaries to slaughter civilians, the cutting off of food, electricity and medical supplies to population centres and the broadcast of televised threats to purge whole cities and to hunt down people in their homes. Just today, after the announcement of a second ceasefire by the Gaddafi regime, Reuters has reported that Gaddafi's forces fired on a crowd of unarmed people late today in the centre of the city of Misrata. In Ajdabiya, there have been reports of body thefts, with military casualties being made to look like civilian casualties. Al-Jazeera reports that Gaddafi's forces continue to shell the town of Zintan heavily and that they have given residents two hours to surrender or face total execution. That is what passes for a ceasefire according to the Gaddafi regime.
It is against that background that the House has today weighed carefully the arguments that we have presented for and against our military actions. There has been nothing gleeful or gung-ho about the atmosphere in the House and there is nothing gung-ho about the atmosphere in and decisions of the Government. The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken today have spoken in support of the Government's actions and the motion, and many explained that they did so with reluctance or regret. The Government have approached this issue with the same sense of gravity.
He referred to the contribution of Rory Stewart who he said
“made a memorable and powerful speech, and I would love to hear the 60-minute version, not the six-minute version. He reminded us that our mission is to protect human beings, and that the temptation to dig ever deeper in all such situations must be resisted. We are conscious of that in the Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, we are seeking to implement the United Nations resolution so that the people of Libya can determine their own future. We will make every effort to maintain and consult our broad coalition, closely consulting the Arab League and working with our NATO partners, including Turkey, as several hon. Members have asked us to do.
Some Members asked what the Arab League intended to say. I spoke to Mr Amr Moussa yesterday afternoon-the Prime Minister spoke to him today-and he made it clear to me that he did not mean to criticise the mission, and he supports the UN resolution and its enforcement. Others have asked if our approach is part of a wider approach to the region and a commitment to the middle east peace process; it certainly is. They asked whether we will make conflict prevention central to our policy; yes, of course we do, as we have shown recently in Sudan. They asked whether we will plan for different scenarios, including humanitarian assistance when it is necessary; yes, we certainly are doing so.
He ended
With our allies and partners, we have carried through the United Nations Security Council a resolution that is clear, unequivocal and comprehensive, and that leaves the legality of what we are now doing not in the slightest doubt. We have acted at the behest of the Arab League, and are joined by Arab nations. We have taken every care to ensure that doubts about lawfulness and regional support, such as those that have dogged earlier decisions, do not apply in this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) said, we are right to act but right not to act alone.
This is not the west imposing its views on Libya; it is the world saying that the people of Libya should be allowed to express their views without their Government setting out to slaughter them. We are not trying to choose the future Government of Libya. That is a matter for Libyans, who must find their own solution to the mis-government that they have been subjected to, but this resolution, and our enforcement of it, gives them their only chance of being allowed to do so. This is not a legal fudge or a questionable interpretation of international law; it is the rigorous application of international law. Our actions are all the stronger for the breadth and determination of the international coalition, but they are also stronger for the breadth and determination of this House, which we have seen today.
The brave members of our armed forces who have patrolled the skies above Benghazi today or flown through the night to destroy the air defences of a regime that used air power against its own citizens can know that they do so armed not only with the weaponry that they are so well trained to deploy but with every advantage of knowing that what they do is legally warranted, morally necessary, internationally supported and, I hope, democratically agreed through a vote of this House of Commons. They can have the satisfaction of knowing that, in precipitating the retreat of Gaddafi's forces from Benghazi, they have already averted a catastrophe and a new outpouring of human misery. In pressing our case at the United Nations, in insisting that what we do must be legal, in taking extreme care to protect civilians and in acting with a speed and precision that few armed forces on Earth can rival, this country is doing what it said it would do, doing what it absolutely right and joining in giving a lead to the world, and it should enjoy the united support of the House tonight.
21 Mar 2011 : Column 802
Question put .
The House divided: Ayes 557, Noes 13.
Division No. 235]
But the last words should go to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, The Cotswolds Con, or more accurately Edmund Burke
I end with a quotation that has been used by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), but which is apposite. As a former Member of this House, Edmund Burke, said to his electors in Bristol, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It would be very wrong for us to do nothing in this case.
Mr Donaldson who I have already quoted said
“It is often said that for evil to flourish all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing, but doing nothing was not an option for the Government and the international community in this case. “
Earlier on the Saturday, at a meeting hosted by the President of France in Paris, and attend by British Prime Minister David Cameron, and US Sectary of State of State, Hilary Clinton, together with the United Nations General Secretary and other leaders and representatives of the Arab world in North Africa and the Persian Gulf, from NATO and elsewhere, it was agreed that the USA should take on the role of organising the first phase of action to prevent the massacre of citizens of Libya by representatives of their government and to require the government of Libya to cease all hostilities against their people and to pull back from those places where representatives of the government had and were continuing use violence, and in particular to stop the use and movement of military aircraft, rockets and artillery.
It will have been evident to all the Members of the United Nations Security Council and to the Arab League of Nations before resolution 1973 was passed without a veto, but with important abstentions, that in order to achieve this objective there would be need to use rocket missiles and bombs to eliminate command, control and intelligence centres and defence systems and destroy any Libyan military resources, doing so by all available means to protect civilian life.
Although the USA, France and the UK possess weaponry which can destroy targets to within a metre, the possibility of malfunctioning ordinance and the use lf human shields by the Gaddafi regime was a strong possibility, despite whatever local intelligence was available to the United Nations action force. It was therefore no surprise that immediately after the first bombardment there were claims of civilian casualties, although none have been produced for visiting journalists to see, except soldiers dressed in civilian clothing. There was some apparent wobbling of position on the part of the Secretary fo the Arab league, a man who is in contention to become the next president of Egypt under a new constitution and Russia, China and India who had abstained misguidedly rushed in to make their position clear to the rest of Muslim world.
This was the setting for what I regard as the most important debate and vote in the House of Commons since the period for the Second World War. I agree with Mr Hague, British Foreign Secretary that the situation is potentially more significant than 9/11 or the recent banking and financial crisis.
It was also evident what the Official Opposition and back bench contributed, that they also saw the implementation of the UN Resolution as having profound implications for the future foreign policy and relations between Muslim countries and the rest of the world, and that, albeit on a case by case basis, standing by as genocide was committed with the slaughtering in their hundreds, their thousands, and their hundreds of thousands of non combatant men, women and children was not something which civilise countries could not longer accept. This by implications also meant a fundamental review of future arms exports and the nature of diplomatic and commercial trading relationships in countries practicing gross violations of basic human rights.
By coincidence I have been working on a list of all the wars and acts of genocide together with natural disasters and pandemics of human illness() since the birth of my father in 1880 and which accumulatively amount to over one thousand million deaths, providing the perspective to what I believe may prove a new era, breaking with what has gone on before, although as many, including the British Prime Minister, drew attention, that while the UK with others had been given the opportunity to achieve a change for the better, there remained the possibility that our collective failure in the instance of Libya could lead to an escalation in conflict and in civilian deaths. In my writing on wars and pandemics I make the point that it is impossible to comprehend or cope with knowledge of civilian deaths in the thousands and hundred of thousands and that I, and I suggests others, can only be influenced by the experience of those who individually survive or witness the reality of these events, and yesterday there were several voices echoing this viewpoint.
The most powerful of these was made by Kris Hopkins, the Member for Keithley, and other Members who have served in the military over recent times and who have only recently been elected to Parliament
Mr Hopkins said this
“Having watched these debates and diplomacy since the Falklands war, and having observed the battles on CNN and sanitised movie footage of jets taking off, troops returning fire and Union Jacks attached to aerials and advancing tanks, I find it a daunting thought to be in the House debating and contemplating our responsibility for the deployment of people whose principal purpose is to kill other people on our behalf. During my basic training in the Army, I realised that a sergeant shouting at me to stab and scream and stab again a bale of hay with a fixed bayonet was teaching me how to rip somebody apart. A few years later, I saw the remains of an IRA terrorist unit that had been ambushed by a Special Air Service unit. The remains had been shredded by the hundred of bullets that had gone through their bodies.
Following the first Gulf war, a friend of mine showed me some pictures that he had taken of the convoy attempting to escape back up to Iraq. One of the pictures was of the charred, black head and a desperate hand-black and maimed-of someone trying to leave their vehicle. There is nothing glorious or romantic about war. To those in the media who have portrayed what is happening now-or what has happened in previous wars-as some form of entertainment, I say that that is just not right. I am afraid that human beings need to commit brutal, savage attacks on each other to win wars.
I have spoken in the House before about our lack of political capital following the illegal war in Iraq and what I believe is a folly in Afghanistan. There may be moral reasons to fight again, but I will be honest: we are struggling to find the moral high ground from which to project that morality. As people have said, Gaddafi is the man who brought down the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, the man who shipped the weapons that killed some of my colleagues and the man who killed WPC Fletcher. However, I feel uncomfortable about going to war. It is not a simple choice; it is a really difficult choice to contemplate.
This morning when I was coming to work, I listened to a phone-in from BBC television about whether we should kill Gaddafi. It was almost gladiatorial, as though people were phoning in so that we could see whether the populace was giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I have to say that I was fairly disgusted that the killing of another human being, however disgusting he is, could become a form of entertainment.
While we pontificate about morality and our obligations, brave men and women are putting their lives at risk at our request. This is not a debate about student fees, the Scotland Bill or the double summer time Bill; this is about the business of war. We do not take this decision lightly. While we wage war on our enemy, Muslim brothers and Arab leaders-with a few exceptions-remain silent. It is more convenient for the infidel to kill their Muslim brothers and gesture disapproval than it is to stand up to a tyrant. To the new leaders of the emerging democracies out there in the middle east, I say this: "The next time a murderer comes to the end of his road, you gather in your House, like we are today, and think about how you're going to take your share of the responsibility and what you're going to contribute."
I said that this was a decision that I do not take lightly, and I do not think this nation takes it lightly either, but I will support the Government. The Prime Minister was right to secure a UN mandate. His leadership stands in stark contrast to the leadership that has gone before in this nation. Let us hope that the positive responses from the United Nations are a sign of something to come because, fundamentally, it is the weakness of United Nations members that has created so many international disasters in the past.”
Mr Hopkins was born in 1963 and saw service in Northern Ireland as a Member of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment. Before entering The Commons in 2010, he was deputy Leader and then Leader of Bradford City Council.
This was an emotional speech which I believe will have a profound impact on all who listen and those who now read, but the contribution which I believe will have the greater impact on the future policy of all the main political parties in the United Kingdom was made by a second member of the Conservative Party, Mr Rory Stewart of Penrith and the Borders, who said:
This is not something that began in Libya, and it will not end in Libya. It came out of a regional situation. It is a response primarily to Egypt and Tunisia. We should be celebrating, but with immense caution, what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have supported because of that broader regional context. We are talking about not one country and one month, but a series of countries and 30 years. We have to keep our eyes on that, or we will find ourselves in a very dangerous and difficult situation.
The situation in Libya and the no-fly zone are driven, of course, as everybody in the House has said, by our humanitarian obligation to the Libyan people. It is driven by our concerns for national security and, probably most of all-this is not something that we should minimise-by the kind of message that we are trying to pass to people in Egypt or Tunisia. If we had stood back at this moment and done nothing-if we had allowed Gaddafi simply to hammer Benghazi - people in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria would have concluded that we were on the side of oil-rich regimes against their people. We would have no progressive narrative with which we could engage with that region over the next three decades.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly significant that both the Arab League and countries in the area such as Qatar support the engagement and the UN resolution?
Rory Stewart: I agree very strongly. That is immensely significant, but the meaning of that needs to be clear. The limits that the Prime Minister has set are so important to all of us exactly because of that point. The reason we need the Arab League and the UN on side, the reason we need a limited resolution, and the reason all the comments from around the House warning that the situation should not become another Iraq are so important is that we are talking about 30 years, not just the next few months.
Respectfully, I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell); the most important thing for us now is to be careful with our language and rhetoric, and careful about the kinds of expectations that we raise. I would respectfully say that phrases such as "This is necessary", or even "This is legitimate", are dangerous. All the things that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have done to hedge us in, limit us, and say, "This isn't going to be an occupation" are fantastic, but they are only the beginning.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the risks is that it might be said on the Arab street that we would not be interested if it were not for the oil in Libya?
Rory Stewart: That is a very important danger. The fact that Libya is not just an Arab country, but a country with oil, has to be borne in mind. The kind of legitimacy that we may have had in Kosovo will be more difficult to come by in Libya for that reason.
The biggest dangers-the dangers that we take away from Afghanistan-are threefold. The Prime Minister will have to stick hard to his commitment, because it is easy for us to say today, "So far and no further," but all the lessons of Afghanistan are that if we dip our toes in, we are very soon up to our neck. That is because of the structure of that kind of rhetoric, and the ways in which we develop four kinds of fear, two kinds of moral obligation, and an entire institutional pressure behind reinvestment. That is why the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), is correct to sound his cautions.
What are the four fears? We can hear them already. First, people are saying, "We have to be terrified of Gaddafi. He is an existential threat to global security." That is the fear of the rogue state.
The second fear is the fear of the failed state. Gaddafi is making that argument himself: "If I collapse, al-Qaeda will come roaring into Libya."
The third fear that people are beginning to express is a fear of neighbours. They are already beginning to say, "If this collapses, refugees will pour across the borders into other countries."
The fourth fear is fear for ourselves: fear for our credibility, and fear that we might look ridiculous if, in response to our imprecations or threats, Gaddafi remains.
We have seen the same fears in Vietnam, where people talked about the domino theory. We have seen the same fears in Iraq when people talked about weapons of mass destruction. We have seen the same fears in Afghanistan, where people worried that, if Afghanistan were to topple, Pakistan would topple and mad mullahs would get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Those are all the same fears, and the same sense of moral obligation. We do not need to be able to name two cities in Libya to be able to talk about two kinds of moral obligation: our moral obligation to the Libyan people, and our moral obligation because we sold arms to the Libyans in the past. This is very dangerous, and we must get away from that kind of language and into the kind of language that is humble, that accepts our limits, and allows us to accept that we have a moral obligation to the Libyan people but that it is a limited one because we have a moral obligation to many other people in the world, particularly to our own people in this country.
Of course we have a national security interest in Libya, but we have such an interest in 40 or 50 countries around the world, and we must match our resources to our priorities.
The real lesson from all these conflicts is not, as we imagine, that we must act. The real lesson is not just our failure, but our failure to acknowledge our failure, and our desire to dig ever deeper. It is our inability to acknowledge that, in the middle east, many people will put a very sinister interpretation on our actions. It is also our failure to acknowledge that "ought" implies "can". We do not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do. We have to consider our resources rather than our desires.
What does that mean? This is easy for someone on the Back Bench to say, and much more difficult for a Prime Minister or other leader to say. How do we set a passionately moderate rhetoric? How do we speak to people to support something that is important? How do we acknowledge the moral obligation and the national security questions, but set the limits so that we do not get in too deep? I suggest that we need to state this in the most realistic, limited terms.
First, we need to say that our objective is primarily humanitarian: it is to decrease the likelihood of massacre, ethnic cleansing and civil war, and to increase the likelihood of a peaceful political settlement. Secondly, we will try, in so far as it is within our power to do so, to contain and manage any threat from Libya. Finally, we will deliver development and humanitarian assistance. In the end, however, the real message that we are passing on through limited rhetoric is not to the people of Britain but to the people of the middle east over the next 30 years.
Mr Stewart spoke for six minutes and as the Foreign Secretary commented in bringing the debate to the vote, he looked forward to hearing the sixty minute version. In my judgement a new, unique and important voice has joined the House of Commons.
Mr Stewart whose family come from Crieff in Perthshire, Scotland, was born in Hong Kong, raised in Malaysia and Scotland and educated at the Dragon School, Eton College and Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied modern history and politics, philosophy and economics (PPE). While a student at Oxford, he was a summer tutor to Prince William and Prince Harry. He has an honorary doctorate from the University of Stirling As a teenager, he was a member of the Labour Party.
After a brief period as an officer in the British Army on a gap year commission (to the Black Watch), Mr Stewart joined the Foreign Office. He served in the British Embassy in Indonesia from 1997 to 1999, working on issues related to East Timor independence, and as the British Representative to Montenegro in the wake of the Kosovo campaign. From 2000 to 2002 he walked across Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal, a journey of 6000 miles, during which time he stayed in five hundred different village houses.
After the coalition invasion of Iraq, he was appointed the Coalition Provisional Authority Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator in Maysan and Deputy Governorate Co-coordinator/Senior Advisor in Dhi Qar, two provinces in southern Iraq. His responsibilities included holding elections, resolving tribal disputes and implementing development projects. He faced an incipient civil war and growing civil unrest from his base in a Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) compound in Al Amarah, and in May 2004 was in command of his compound in Nasiriyah when it was besieged by Sadrist militia. He was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service in Iraq at the age of 31. While Mr Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake.
Mark Lancaster Milton Keynes Con added to the list of former soldiers contributing
“It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I have yet to meet a soldier who has been to war who would rush to another one. It is difficult to experience the horrors of war first hand and ever be the same again. Having been to three on behalf of the previous Government, I am a firm believer that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but I accept that the time for jaw-jaw sometimes comes to an end and we must act.
I join other Members in commending the Prime Minister for his speedy action to ensure that we have the United Nations resolution, but I am slightly concerned that there are many who breathe a sigh of relief and believe that, because we have the resolution and find ourselves in a very different position from that which the House was in when debating Iraq, Kosovo and Bosnia, somehow that is all we need to secure a successful resolution in Libya. I fear that it is not.
One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was never to go into a room without knowing where the exit is. I fear that we have no clear exit at the moment in Libya. That is understandable; anyone who stood up in this House with a clear idea of exactly how we will exit the situation would be at best naive. That is no reason not to go into the room, but I fear that we will need further UN resolutions before we see the end to the situation. To be honest, I think that what we have before us will probably at best get us to a stalemate. We will achieve much by preventing conflict and unnecessary deaths in Libya, and the House should be proud of this country's contribution to securing the resolution, but it will not be enough. I would like the Government to continue to play their part in ensuring that we have the grounds on which we can ultimately get the appropriate resolution in the United Nations to secure that exit strategy. It is absolutely clear that we must have greater involvement from Arab nations, because without that we will lack the general support required. I know that the Prime Minister will continue to do his bit to ensure that that is the case.
We often talk about learning lessons from the past. It is of course easy to point to the Iraq conflict and say that one of the biggest mistakes we made was to have no great plan for reconstruction and stabilisation-I must declare an interest as a member of the military stabilisation and support group within our armed forces-but the problem we face now is very different from that which we faced in Iraq, because in Iraq we were able to deploy boots on the ground to assist that stabilisation. We cannot currently do that under the United Nations resolution. We can learn the lessons from the past, from Iraq, and say that we need to have greater reconstruction, but how are we going to deliver that on the ground in Libya?
The cross-departmental stabilisation unit, which the previous Government set up, involving the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, is fabulous but under-utilised. Rather like three strands of a rope, it does come together and the effect that the three Departments produce by working together is much greater, but I believe very strongly that the unit must plan now, working concurrently with existing military operations, to ensure that we have in place such reconstruction and stabilisation. Otherwise, the window of opportunity that we missed in Iraq could well be missed in Libya.
I also seek from the Foreign Secretary, when he winds up the debate, reassurances that we are working very closely with the United Nations to ensure that any work the Government can do after this period of military action, to help to reconstruct and stabilise Libya, is done under the United Nations umbrella. It cannot be delivered solely by Western powers; otherwise I fear that we will lose the consent we have, as we did in the past with Iraq.
Looking forward, I am delighted that we are where we are today. We have secured the UN resolution, with much thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, but we must not take our eye off the ball. We must look beyond our current operations to ensure that we have in place the bedrock on which we can deliver, far more effectively than we have in the past, the reconstruction and stabilisation of Libya after the event.”
It was another Member, also a Conservative and also a former soldier who made another of the telling speeches of the day. He was first commissioned in 1969, taking an in service degree which he passed with first class honours and then when a Captain was made a guard of Rudolf Hess in Spandau Prison, Berlin. He served in Northern Ireland from 1977 to 1981 and then became the first British Commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia discovering the Ahmici massacre of 103 people. Before retiring from the army in 1996 he was Chief of Policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
Before speaking to the House reference was made to Colonel Robert Stewart DSO by the immediately previous speaker Thomas Docherty of Hamilton and West Fife, a Labour Party member, who said:
“ I came into politics because 20 years ago this summer the west stood by and took no action when Yugoslavia tore itself apart. We saw footage from Srebrenica, Sarajevo and other places of the massacre of men and boys, women and children, and the west did nothing to stop that. I cannot possibly imagine what it must have been like to live in that country during those times. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government have stepped up and provided some leadership in this action. The Secretary of State will know that Opposition Members stand willing to provide support to the Government in pursuing that course.
I was very lucky to make my maiden speech on the same day as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I have found inspiring over the past 10 months, both as a colleague on the Defence Committee and as a speaker in the House. I hope, if he will pardon my saying so, that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time we do not have a situation where there are more Members like him who will have had to go in after the west did not take action to pick up the pieces of its indecisiveness. I will support the motion, with some reservations about casualties, but pleased that the west is taking action. “
Mr Docherty was one of several contributors who called on the Government to reconsider some of decision being made as a result of the recent Defence Review.
In his contribution Colonel Stewart said :
“Colonel Gaddafi does not do peaceful. Benghazi may be relatively safe for the moment, but what about elsewhere in Libya? That really worries me.
As my-dare I say, with some trepidation, The Hon Member and my Friend, the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggests, I have had experience in this respect. I remember very well that when I was the military commander in Bosnia in 1993, a little girl of six years old was brought to my house by a delegate from the International Committee of the Red Cross. She had been in a prison camp for 10 days. The Red Cross delegate said to me, "This girl needs shelter." I said, "I'm the military commander." She said, "You've got plenty of room in your house, and you've got two soldiers who look after you." The soldiers turned to me and said, "We'll look after her, sir." They took her away, put her in a bath and washed her, and cared for her. They put a bed for her between their two cots. Three days later, that girl did not want to leave.
I am worried that what happened to her might be happening to people in Tripoli tonight. She was dragged out of her bed at 5 o'clock in the morning, with her mother, father and brother, told to get downstairs and made to lie on the grass by brutes with rifles. As she told it, her mother, father and brother lay down and did not get up again.
This weekend, I spoke to members of the opposition in Tripoli, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Gaddafi will be sending his thugs searching around there tonight.
What can we do to help? We cannot invade, we cannot assassinate-it is up to the Libyans to decide what we do. I have seen people with pitchforks try to take out tanks. How are those people going to be protected?
They need help. Perhaps the Arab League could help a little more in that respect. Perhaps it could go forward. We cannot do it.
Nobody knows the end game-we all realise that. If we were God, perhaps we would, but we do not. We live in hope. We do not have the end game plotted out carefully.
We acted morally on the highest authority in the world-the Security Council of the United Nations. Thank goodness we did, because last Friday Colonel Gaddafi suggested he was going to go through houses in Benghazi and butcher everyone who opposed him. That did not happen. We have, by our actions, saved life. Politics can sort things out hereafter, but one thing is quite clear: there will be a lot more people around to watch what happens from now on than there would have been if we had done nothing last Friday. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Thank you very much, Foreign Secretary. Thank you very much, the Opposition, for your full support. It is deeply appreciated by all of us.
Let us hope that someone has the brains of Methuselah and that we find out what the end game is in due course. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has the brains of Methuselah. “ (Colonel Stewart and the remaining speakers were required to reduce their planned comments from six to four minutes).
The Leader of the Opposition, Edward Miliband also included a personal family reference in his important and powerful speech for which the Prime Minister thanked him at Question Time on Wednesday.
Mr Miliband said :
Let me end on this point. Today's debate is conducted in the shadow of history of past conflicts. For me, it is conducted in the shadow of my family's history as well: two Jewish parents whose lives were changed forever by the darkness of the holocaust, yet who found security in Britain. This is a story of the hope offered by Britain to my family, but many of my parents' relatives were out of the reach of the international community and perished as a result. In my maiden speech in the House, I said that I would reflect
"the humanity and solidarity shown to my family more than 60 years ago".-[ Official Report, 23 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 489.]
These are the kind of things we say in maiden speeches, but if they are to be meaningful, we need to follow them through in deeds, not just words. That is why I will be voting for the motion tonight, and why I urge the whole House to vote for it.”
Sir Malcolm Rifkind Kensington Cons, opened his contribution by mentioning the very eloquent and moving speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I am also agree with Jim Dowd Lewisham West and Penge Lab who in his contribution mentioned that the late Member Eric Forth had said that when there was unanimity between the Front Benches it is almost axiomatic that they are wrong. He said this was an exception and I agree with him. He also finished his contribution in a great way saying:
“We have a difficult choice. I will support the Government in their motion to support resolution 1973, because I believe that is less bad than the alternative of doing nothing. It is also consistent with the type of nation that I believe the majority of the British people make up. We are not the kind of people who pass by on the
other side of the road. Sometimes we have to put up or shut up. On this occasion I shall certainly now shut up, but I believe we should put up.”
I also liked the way Ben Wallace Wyre and Preston North Con referred to experience of someone who had recently worked for him:
“We should remember that authority in the middle east has changed. It has moved away from the Ministers of Arab countries to whom we used to look for reassurances and towards the Arab street. Some Arab Ministers are not in as strong a position as they would like. We should not forget that the Arab street is becoming ever more emboldened throughout the region.
We should be consistent in our criticism. Bahrain is currently setting out on a course of sectarian violence and oppression against its 70% Shi'a majority. Indeed, a lady who worked for me recently and left Bahrain for Dubai was asked at every checkpoint whether she was Shi'a or Sunni. The Shi'as were taken out of the car and beaten and the Sunnis were allowed to progress.”
Jack Straw Blackburn Lab said that he had recently re-watched Hotel Rwanda : “the chilling film portrayal of the massacres of the defenceless civilians who were hacked to pieces by the so-called forces of law and order because they had the misfortune to belong to the wrong ethnic group. In July 2005, when the UK had the EU presidency, I went to Srebrenica in Bosnia for the 10th anniversary commemoration of the day in 1995 when 10,000 unarmed civilians were brutally murdered by the forces of law and order because, in that case, they had had the misfortune to belong to the wrong religious group.
In Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN solemnly considered what it should do. In both theatres, there were already blue-hatted UN troops on the ground, but they stood by as the massacres took place in front of them. Those troops were there as peacekeepers, but there was no peace to keep-rather, peace urgently needed to be made.
Doing nothing in the face of evil is as much a decision with consequences as doing something. This resolution is historically significant not just on its own terms, but because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, this is first occasion on which the Security Council has acted decisively upon the words relating to the responsibility to protect, which were agreed in the UN General Assembly in 2005, and in Security Council resolution 1674 2006.”
He was one of many who commended the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary for their work.
Another Conservative Member Paul Uppal of Wolverhampton South West also spoke with great feeling and a sense of personal and relevant history. He said that
We all have a personal history and personal experiences that form our political opinions. Just last Wednesday, I came to the end of a very long political journey when I took a group of sixth formers from my constituency to Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was a cathartic day and a very personal experience, which I think will stay with me for the rest of my life. On reflection, there were many lessons to learn about that journey but one thing was more pertinent than anything else in my discussions with those sixth formers-they wondered how we had let that tyranny and oppression come to fruition.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the holocaust in his speech, and I realise that some hon. Members might think it too much of a stretch to relate that situation to this one, so let me give another example. My maternal grandfather gave me many things, including a love of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, a mischievous sense of humour and a very personal story that strongly resonates with me to this day. At a time of partition in northern India, he stood against a mob who were determined to burn out their Muslim neighbours. They said, "We will go from house to house and there will be no mercy." Those words have rung very loud in my ears over the past few days because they bring home what is right and what is wrong. To my pride, my maternal grandfather stood against the mob and said, "If anyone attacks this house, it will be an attack on my household," and to this day that Muslim family is still in that village.
I have referred specifically to some personal issues and other right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted how difficult this issue is. I know that there might be charges of hypocrisy and that people are asking why we are choosing Libya and not Bahrain, why we are not addressing the situation in Yemen and why we are choosing to act in this specific situation, but we can only deal with the situation as it is presented to us. Colonel Gaddafi has shown that he is prepared to use his own people as human shields. He is prepared to go from door to door and show no mercy. I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is absolutely necessary to do the right thing.
The choice is simple and stark and has been laid out eloquently both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The choice, as in the terms of this motion, is to do something or to do nothing and I for one think that we do the right thing by acting. “
This is the point made time and time again in debate and appropriate moment to cover the words of the Prime Minister who formally moved the motion that
That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces.
The Prime Minister explained that the purpose of allied bombardment was to create a no Fly zone and to protect civilians from immediate attack by the regime and that in both instances the action had been initially successful.
The Prime Minister reminded that the terms of the United Nations resolution, and which he, together with the President’s of the United States and France had advised Gaddafi and his regime were not negotiable, was an immediate ceasefire which the regime had said they had implemented twice while continuing to behave to the contrary; that regime forces (troops, mercenaries and armed civilians with heavy weaponry) should stop attacking the city of Benghazi, and this objective had been met in greater part, and thirdly “ he should pull his forces back from the Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah. He had to establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas, and he had to allow humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Libya.”
It is in relation to third objective that in my assessment is that the greatest difficulty arises without either the use of ground troops or the enhancement of the fighting ability of those Libyans who appreciate that without their action a sustainable outcome is unlikely as the continuing evidence is that attacks are continuing causing the deaths of civilians as well as armed individuals defending.
The Prime Minister attempted to give many Members the opportunity to ask questions with him directly thereby covering most of the issues raised in the rest of the debate with the first intervention was by Angus Robertson (Moray SNP) who prefaced his question by saying, as did a succession of Members that his difficulty in supporting previous International Operations was the failure to secure the mandate of the United Nations, while others mentioned the Legal aspect, and many the important of the request and ongoing support of the Arab League of Nations and that because of this there was need to stick closely to the terms of the United Nations resolution and avoid any expansion of the mission. Confirming with Tony Lloyd that any action was limited by the terms of resolution and legal advice on its meaning. In his Speech Bob Ainsworth, Coventry East Labour said he only supported because of the United Nations resolution and international involvement. Sir Menzies Campbell North East Fife Ld explained in his speech that he supported the action where he had not that in Iraq because of the UN resolution
This however also raises the issue of the meaning of the resolution, especially the phrase, “in the taking of all necessary measures “and that there would be no military occupation; It could be argued that these words do not exclude the use of servicemen to recover members of the airforce if their planes are shot down or get it into mechanical difficulties, a question posed by Dan Byles (North Warwickshire Con) which the Prime Minister evaded but not the Government Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde who confirmed this was possible in response to an intervention from Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon.
Some Members and the media demanded to know who is in charge, who gives orders and identifies targets etc, especially when the United States gives up its present organising role. David Lammy Tottenham Labour asked if it would be NATO knowing full well that that there is dissent within NATO about doing this from Germany and Turkey. I think the approach of Turkey has hopefully undermined their prospects of becoming a full member of the EC. I would like to see a new grouping of countries covering Turkey and other Muslim countries on Europe’s borders which developed commercial relationships but excluded rights to live and work.
There are other circumstances when I believe select forces could be used on the ground which it is perhaps not appropriate to discuss and I noted that the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Minister have been careful not to discuss. Concerns about this issues was expressed by Ronnie Campbell.
Arising from apparent confusion earlier in the day between various statements about whether it is legitimate to attempt to remove Gaddafi by use of the coalition force and the question of regime change, the Prime Minister, as has the USA President subsequently, emphasised that while his removal and the replacement of the regime was desirable and the sooner the better, it was not the purpose of the UN resolution. He affirmed this in answer to a question from Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford on Avon Cons) However Toby Perkins Chesterfield Labour expressed the view of the majority that without the removal of Gaddafi, his sons and others it was difficult to foresee that the safety of civilians will be secured long term.
This was a point which struck me when viewing those picture of women and children camping down for the night within the central compound. Given the risks of malfunctioning ordinance and misdirected ordinance, it is the heights of irresponsibility not to take all reasonable measures to remove civilians from proximity to targets and should provide visual evidence for the International Criminal Court Trials when they occur. He therefore agreed with Bob Russell (Colchester LD) that those who carried out the attacks on civilians could and would find themselves in front of the International Criminal Court and he urged that they put down their weapons, walked away from their tanks and stopped obeying orders from the regime. Matthew Offord Hendon Cons also raised the issue fo the use of human shields by Gaddafi with the Opposition Leader.
Barry Gardiner Brent North Lab also reminded that Gaddafi’s infamy had along history when he said
“Few dictators have committed so many acts of psychopathic wickedness over such a long period of time. Many hon. Members will know of his atrocity at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, where he marched 1,270 prisoners into a compound, locked the gate and instructed his soldiers to open fire from the courtyard rooftops. The gunfire and grenades rained down for more than two hours until all 1,270 people were dead. But that was in the dying days of John Major's Government in June 1996, and Britain took no action
There is a similar concern about the position of Journalists who accepted the invitation to visit Tripoli and who are the subject of threats and harassment and their potential use as human shields, a point raised by Mark Prichard, Wrekin Con, and which drew praise for their courage by the Prime Minister. Concern about Gaddafi’s use of mustard gas was expressed by Robert Halfon Harlow Cons. Mr Cameron shared this concern
An issues which several members raised in the debate was how far the coalition could and should assist the rebels in getting rid of the regime. Mr Baron wanted to know the view of the Opposition Leader if after all the work of the coalition Mr Gaddafi remained in place. Mr Miliband made the point that concerns about what several Members referred to as the end game had also been raised in the debate led by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in relation to the intervention in relation to Kosovo in 1999. The answer is that we had to do the right thing and respond to circumstances as they developed. Sir Menzies Campbell North East Fife LD paid tribute to the lead taken by Tony Blair who in 1999 first raised the doctrine of the duty to protect in a speech made in Chicago.
The opposition leader was also cautious when Nadim Zahawi, Stratford upon Avon Con raised the issue of recognising the rebel regime (although at the time of writing what has been described as an interim government has been formed with a Prime Minister and which may make recognition easier. Later still this was changed again to an Interim Council because of the wish to avoid suggestions of a divided Libya and the need to have one country with Libya its capital.
The Euro sceptic Bill Cash asked Opposition Leader Edward Miliband if the UN Resolution enabled arms to be provided the insurgents and he responded as had the Prime Minister in a previous exchange that we had to be cautious and stick closely to the UN mandate, especially as we are helping to enforce the restrictions imposed upon the Gaddafi regime. This led to the only party political intervention of the six hour debate by Robert Halfon who raised the relationship which had developed between the Labour Government and the regime after the Tony Blair initiative on behalf of the Western and other interests to successfully secure his move from obtaining weapons of destruction. There was also a follow up to the issue of the extent and nature of the intervention possible raised by John Redwood Wokingham Cons, to which the Opposition Leader said the nature of the regime and the wording of the resolution enabled appropriate and proportionate intervention, Sir Malcolm Rifkind was more specific in his six minutes contribution and wanted arms to be provided the what is now the Interim Government in order to get rid of the Gaddafi regime. He also emphasised that it was up to the Libyans to determine their future once the Gaddafi regime ended.
The Prime Minister continued that the UK was part of a coalition with wide support and that it was essential this support was maintained. He advised that Spain was involved with the use of four fighters, a tanker aircraft, a surveillance aircraft and an F100 Frigate; Canada was committing six air defence aircraft and a naval vessel; Norway and Demark were committing a total of ten aircraft; Belgium had offered air Defence aircraft; Italy has opened bases one of which is being used by the UK and Greece has also offered bases.
He agreed with Joan Ruddock, (Lewisham Deptford Labour) and who before coming to Westminster was a chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, that the Arab League would remain an important part of decision making. ( she also raised with Mr Miliband the language that had been used in the headlines of some newspapers, a subject dealt with eloquently and thoughtfully in the speech by Rory Stewart.
While a strongly endorsing the action and supporting the framework provided by the Government, in his important speech The Opposition Leader, Mr Miliband also pressed the Prime Minister to ensure the ongoing support of the Arab League. Clive Efford Labour Eltham agreed with the Opposition on the importance of a collective approach internationally. At Prime Minister’s Question time the Prime Minister thanked the Opposition Leader for his contribution to the debate and support for the action being taken. Graham Stuart Beverley and Holderness Con suggested that in future action taken to protect would have to be first sanctioned by the UN Mr Miliband said that while International agreement was important decisions by individual government would need to be taken on a case by case basis.
An issue which has dominated much of the media since the action commenced is how will success be determined and at what point will it be possible to withdraw from intervention. This issues was raised by Emily Thornbury. The Prime Minister, understandably in my view, could not confirm that as a consequence of the initial success todate of the aerial bombardment it would immediately end or when it would end because of the need to meet the requirements of the UN in response to an intervention from (Elfyn Llwyd -Dwyfor Meironethnydd PC). Mr Denis Skinner of Bolsover who I call opposition man in that whatever any government does irrespective of party he can do not other that voice criticism and dissent, asked when will we know it is over, to which I shouted out at the screen when it is and while others then said this in the debate, the point he made is valid.
Andrew George asked the Opposition Leader how he would define successful outcome to which he also drew attention to the wording of the UN resolution and to the role of the British government. I liked the contribution from Jeffrey M Donaldson Lagan Valley DUP when he referred to the film the King’s Speech and said “When Chamberlain announced that Britain was at war with Germany, it struck me that it was a recognition that appeasement had not worked, but no one at that time knew the outcome of the decision to go to war. Very often, that is the case with war: one simply does not know what the outcome will be.”
The need for a clarity of purpose was made by Bernard Jenkins who I once enjoyed a social services seminar when he was a Shadow Minister several decades ago. The Member for Harwich and North Essex Con reminded of the words of Karl von Clausewitz
“Brevity demands bluntness, for which I hope the Government will forgive me. I support the motion, but I think that we need to be honest about the consequences of what we are taking on. First, we have crossed a threshold, and by approving this motion, the House is crossing it with our political leaders. Hon. Members
should have no illusions: there is no such thing as limited war, in all its bloody terror and dirt. Secondly, I remind the House that
"no one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so-without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."
We have a duty to be clear. Either the removal of Gaddafi is the legitimate military aim, or I put it to the Foreign Secretary that we must drop it from our public statements and focus our words on the more limited task we are setting our military. We cannot do both. Clausewitz again:
"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes."
I was also interested by the contribution from Jo Swinson East Dumbartonshire LD because she was one of several members expected to opposed the action who did not. She mentioned that
“Eight years ago, this House discussed intervention in Iraq. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. Instead, I was marching on the streets of Glasgow to protest against that war, along with more than 1 million other people across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret not only the UK's role in Iraq but the legacy that it has left for UK foreign policy. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) so eloquently pointed out, it has undoubtedly made the role of our diplomats much harder in their negotiations with other countries around the world. It has undermined much of what they do. It has also, understandably, made the Government and the British public more sensitive about any UK military action, even when it has United Nations support. “
She went onto say
Not acting is not a neutral position, as there are huge risks in inaction, too, not least the bloodbath in Benghazi. Indeed, in Gaddafi's own words, we have heard exactly what would happen. He said that he would show no mercy, and that he would track the fighters down
"and search for them, alley by alley, road by road",
And house by house. In making that broadcast on Libyan media, he made it clear that his aim was to terrorise his own people and make them cower in submission. As I said last week in Prime Minister's questions, we must consider the risk of the message that we would send other oppressive regimes around the world-that they could do whatever they liked, and that under no circumstances would the international community act. In what other circumstances would we act? In this situation, there is regional consensus, there is public demand for action, and there is a clear legal position. If we did not act in this circumstance, in what circumstance would we act? “
Another who could have expected to have opposed the intervention was the Labour critic of Blair and his intervention in Iraq, the former late night sofa commentator with Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil, Ms Diane Abbot Hackney North and Stole Newington Lab said
“I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight, partly because I genuinely believe that only swift action at the weekend avoided a bloodbath in Benghazi, and partly because I am convinced that we have a solid legal basis for the military action. That has not always been the case.
However, the Government would be wrong to take this evening's vote as some sort of blank cheque. I point to the unsettling lack of real Arab involvement in the deployment so far. We know that the Arab League countries have plenty of military kit because we sold them most of it. Why is it not being deployed? Why are not senior Arab military people involved in the deployment? “
She also said
“Let me remind the House of Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State who tried to argue against Iraq with his colleagues Bush and Cheney. He reminded them of the Pottery Barn rule. Pottery Barn is a chain in America that sells china. The rule is, "You break it, you own it". If we intervene with a massive military deployment in north Africa, we will inevitably own the development of the story from here.”
Another Labour Member Andy Slaughter Hammersmith brought his recent experience of visiting Egypt. He said
“I returned last night from a visit to Egypt, where I had the privilege of seeing Egyptian democracy in action. On Saturday, that country voted in a referendum on the amendment to its constitution. From visiting polling stations, I can say that what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech is quite correct. It is a fine example of a new democracy, from the enthusiastic queues to the independent scrutiny by the judiciary of the polling process.
I also had the opportunity to talk to people at all levels about the wider implications of the Egyptian revolution for the middle east, including Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya. I talked not only to the interim Government and to Amr Moussa, but to the opposition forces, from the youth coalition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Not one person or group to whom I spoke was opposed to the letter of the UN resolution, which is perhaps unsurprising given the empathy of the people in Tahrir square for the people of Benghazi.”
Before coming to the House today, I met Arab Muslim community leaders to take their views. They, too, were broadly in favour, but they expressed views that ranged from, "We should do anything necessary to get rid of Gaddafi"-one can understand why Libyans living in Britain take that view-to, "We are already exceeding the limits of the resolution," in the sentiments that Amr Moussa has expressed.
In the brief time available, I should like to develop those caveats. First, the basic picture shows western planes bombing a Muslim Arab country and killing people, including civilians. That is why it is so important to get the support of the wider Muslim and Arab community. I hope we have done that through the Arab League resolutions.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North Labour) who had attempted to get an amending motion debated drew attention to the decision of the Chinese government to convene a special meeting of the UN security Council and that India and others were questioning the action taken and wanted to know what was the continuing objective in this changed situation. In response The Prime Minister made the point that China, India and Russia had chosen to abstain and not use their veto and in response to amendment which had been tabled and a point of Order intervention of David Winnick (Walsall North Lab) as to why the vote was taking place after UK involvement and nor before that it was the urgency of the situation that had enable the UN resolution to be passed and the need for coordination action between the coalition and UK mission implementation on the Saturday, prevented the immediate holding of the voting debated. I suspect an important factor was the disclosed position of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Government Coalition Partner which enabled the undertaking of action prior to the voting debate. He agreed with Graham Stringer, Blackley and Broughton Lab that the situation should be reported on a regular basis to the House. This issues was also raised with the Opposition Leader who agreed as did the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary from their sedentary positions.
In response to John Baron, Basildon and Billericay Mr Cameron explained that only the USA, France and the UK possessed the operational ability to immediately intervene in accord with the UN Resolution and that the others mentioned including the Arab states would take time before being ready or help in other ways including logistics and funding.
Because of the situations their countries, I believe it is right for neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt not to have a direct military involvement given their role in taking refugees from Libya, the likelihood that Gaddafi would have used his available weaponry on the closest coalition allies if given the opportunity, and the potential role of these two countries and others to provide UN Peace keepers and help in the reconstruction of the country if requested by whatever regime comes to replace that of Gaddafi.
Mr Cameron was able to give a categorical assurance to the other author of the amendment John McDonnell that the government did not use weapons which involved depleted uranium and would not use them. And in response to Dal Havard Merthyr Tydfil LD the Prime Minister emphasised the including of the arms embargo and that a number of countries were assisting in the inspection of ships arriving in Libya to prevent the arrival of any weaponry.
It was in response to the question from Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion Green) that the Prime Minister gave what I regard as the most important commitment about translating words about the future into position action in that he emphasised that the decision had already been taken to immediate review government policy on approving licences to export military equipment. This subject was also raised with Mr Miliband by Jeremy Corbyn referring to Saudi Arabia, the Congo and the Ivory Coast as well as the Yemen and Bahrain. And supported what the Prime Minister had already said on the issue. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and Brighton Pavilion also reminded of recent political and commercial dealings with Gaddafi and other regimes in the region. She said
“In considering whether our action is truly principled, we surely have to say why we think it appropriate to continue to sell arms to the region. I do not apologise for returning to that issue, because the Colonel Gaddafi who has been rightly described today as a murderous dictator has not suddenly become one. He was already a murderous dictator a few months, or weeks, ago, when we were happy to sell him tear gas, crowd control equipment, ammunition for wall and door-breaching projectile launchers, and plenty of other military equipment as well. In the nine months leading up to September last year, the United Kingdom issued millions of pounds' worth of arms export licences for Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point. We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate. As recently as last month, Ministers attended the IDEX-international defence exhibition-arms fairs in Abu Dhabi, and in less than six months the United Kingdom will host its own arms fair in London, where, no doubt, regimes that abuse their own people will once again seek to buy the tools of their repression. I hope very much that the commitment that we are hearing today-the commitment to upholding human rights in the middle east-will extend to our policies on arms exports, so that we can finally not just review but end the policy of selling arms to repressive regimes“
Also reminding of recent and previous dealings was David Lammy Tottenham Lab
Clearly, all war is evil, and we should remember that when we talk about the business of war. But some evil is necessary. In reflecting on the vote tonight, we should bear that in mind. Some of the language in our media over the past few days has left me cold. It is indicative of a country that has not experienced bombing for well over 60 years, but for those who are poor and who see bombs raining on their country from up above, with necessary supplies disrupted and real fear in their heart, the urgency and seriousness of what we are talking about is very great indeed.
In reflecting on how to vote, I think of how this all began on 17 December 2010 with one man, Mohammed Bouazizi, who burned himself to death because of the oppression he saw and experienced in Tunisia. That set off a wave of activity across the middle east. In supporting this, we line up with him and with the young people of the region--the 29% of the population aged between 15 and 29 who have had enough. They are educated, too often unemployed, and concerned about an ossifying political system that does not seem to relate to their experience. They want to do something about the dictators and the lack of democracy across the region. That is the test. Those are the people we support, despite the UN resolution that is the subject of today's motion. In doing so, we should recognise the changed circumstances in which we have such a debate and the kind of scrutiny that is expected of us.
Any action taken must clearly be proportionate. We must be mindful of the fact that the British public at large do not expect there to be large-scale civilian death as a result of our action. Any action must be proportionate and multilateral. This generation is mindful of the imperial past of our country and those countries that are part of the allied effort. That is important. That is why the multilateral approach is the right one. Against that backdrop, it is concerning that the Arab League, although it is prayed in aid, seems neither present, nor wholly behind what is happening. It is concerning that the African Union, too, clearly wants to disassociate itself from the bombing of Libya. How are we to present a multilateral force if those two major players are not part of it?
The generation of young people on the streets in the middle east, who are in communication with their generation in this country, ask two other major questions. First, what are the criteria by which we intervene? Why not Darfur or Zimbabwe? What is our position on Yemen and Bahrain? Is there consistency when we intervene? They are entitled to some answers on the new and changed circumstances t particularly in the context in which we are talking not about being invaded ourselves, but about intervention that is perhaps necessary in this new age. Secondly, that generation also asks for some consistency, integrity and principles in the UK's position on arms. Just as we have taken noble positions on nuclear proliferation, the time has come not just for another review, but for statutory implementation on arms. We must ask ourselves why in the last year for which figures are available Europe spent €343 million arming Libya, involving companies from the UK, Italy, Germany and France. It was unacceptable when my party was in government, and it is unacceptable now. “
Conservative Geoffrey Clinton- Brown representing the Cotswolds asked about reconstruction after the conflict was brought to an end and the importance of involving the Arab League. The Prime Minister said that the International Development Minister was leading cross government preparations for any humanitarian matters arising in the context of action taken by the UN and the EU. Sam Gyimah, East Surrey Cons wanted assurance that any form of humanitarian disaster could be met, Mr Cameron said the priority was to minimise civilian casualties.
There were several interventions during the debate about the need to review the Defence budget in the light of cost of the British involvement and the need to deploy ships and planes. The Prime Minister attempted to forestall the issue by drawing attention that even after the recent review and it implementation the British Defence budget will remain the fourth largest in the world. Dr Julian Lew New Forest Con, asked Mr Miliband about the costs of involvement and in his Budget Speech two days later the Chancellor confirmed the any costs would come from the government reserve.
As I have already indicated by highlighting the contribution of the important aspect of British and United Nations Development is the implications for future relationships with the Muslim and Arab worlds and the issue of why Libya and why not Yemen or Bahrain. Andrew George, St Ives LD, asked about the Yemen. David Winnick also asked about the Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia
The Prime Minister hoped dictators would take note of the UN intervention in response to a question from Angus Brendan MacNeil, Na h-Elleanan an Iar SNP. Keith Vaz Leicester East Lab asked the Opposition Leader if consideration was being given to intervention in the Yemen. Mr Miliband agreed with the Prime Minister that because we did not intervene in every instance this did not mean should never intervene. Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton said he would be happy if criteria for intervention could be agreed in advance. Mr Miliband agreed saying it was a matter for the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.
Mr Brendan MacNell suggested to Mr Miliband that we had reached a watershed moment and he replied that it was too early to judge but he hoped it would be an important step collective action
One Member hoped for outcome of any regime change is closing the case of the death of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher and the provision of ordinance to the IRA in Northern Ireland, a point raised by Daniel Kawczynski Shrewsbury and Atcham Cons and where the Prime Minister agreed.
Yvonne Fletcher was also mentioned by David Morris of Morecombe and Lumsdale Con, who also told the story of a friend
“Let me tell the House a story of which I have personal knowledge. A good friend of mine who was a radio officer on a ship jumped off it into the ocean when he saw a British destroyer come past. The military on the ship from which he jumped threw grenades at him, one of which hit him but bounced off and, thankfully, did not explode. He swam for his life, and our boys pulled him out of the sea. He came to this country, and was thankful for that. He has been here for nearly 30 years. Just think of that. Let me tell the House something else. When the students were bombing Manchester in the 1980s, that man lied to everyone that he was Italian, because he was in fear of his life. That is the kind of regime that we are discussing today, and the kind of regime that we want to sort out once and for all. “
My summary would be unfairly biased without including additional references to those who had made up their minds against the action before the debate and were not to be influenced by it. Jeremy Corbin did raise several concerns which I share
However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy, our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north Africa and the middle east.
When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16 jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the Palestinian people because many Palestinian Diaspora, living out their lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt-all over the region-want the right to return home. They see the double standards of the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to support the Palestinian people.
We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity. Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.
We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.
Stephen Gilbert St Austell and Newquay LD who shared the analysis of Mr Corbyn reached a different conclusion
There is no such thing as a good war, but there could be such a thing as a just war. My grandfather fought Nazism in the very desert over which our planes are now flying, and he was right to do so. In standing up to this brutal warlord using our capabilities to protect civilians, we are doing the right thing today.
There are, however, lessons to learn. For too long, it has been common to assume that people in north Africa and the middle east live under dictatorships and repressive regimes because they in some way choose to do so. Over the last few months, we have seen the end of the myth of Arab exceptionalism and an unprecedented grasp for freedom by people who no longer want to live under tyranny and in fear.
This is not the end of regimes in Libya and elsewhere that cling to power without the consent of their people, but it is doubtless the beginning of the end for them. Thousands of brave souls have been prepared to stand up and to lose their lives for things that we take for granted, such as the right to speak our minds, to meet with whom we choose and to vote for a political party of our choice. It is therefore right to stand with those people in their struggle.”
While many speakers referred to our historical legacy and that in Iraq and Afghanistan the positive aspect of British involvement should not be neglected. Dr Phillip Lee Bracknell Con ended his contribution thus
“ I want to share with the House a short anecdote. I was in Syria two or three weeks ago as part of a delegation. I went to the British Council and met some students who had had the opportunity provided by the British Council to learn English. My colleagues and I asked a series of questions about Egypt and Libya. Initially cautious, the students began to open up. At the end of the meeting, one of the students said, in answer to how he viewed the British Council, "It is my bubble of oxygen. It is my opportunity to express myself." That stays with me. It is why I am happy to support the motion. But if we are to be consistent and coherent and to have the respect of the middle east, we need to start looking at our dependence upon oil and gas. Unless we do so, we will be having these debates over and over again.”
As I approach the end of this marathon consideration of the debate the contribution of David Winnick revealed the motivation of the Prime Minister David Winnick, the only Member of the House of Commons with whom I had contact when forty years ago when I was the Parliamentary officer for the Association of Child Care officers and he was the Member for Croydon where I was born, and where he is also the holder of a Diploma in Public and Social Administration, in his instance from the LSE. He has remained a strong a advocate of human rights and although a man of peace by nature he also supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to bring about regime change. He also expressed his horror at the Member’s expenses scandal and was involved the departure of Speaker Michael Martin. It is therefore not surprising that the Prime Minister not only listened to his contribution but took the unprecedented step of intervening in the speech and in doing so provide insight into what has motivated him on this matter. Mr Winnick had said
“ Let us look at the situation from the Arab point of view. In Yemen, the regime slaughtered 45 people last week. They were protesting. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia there is repression, and of course Saudi Arabia actually took military action to intervene in Bahrain. Has anyone suggested that we should intervene against Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Even if repression grew in Saudi Arabia itself, or in Bahrain, one thing would be absolutely certain: the British Government would not draft a resolution with the United States to put before the Security Council of the United Nations. We know that.
It is interesting that every time we go to intervene somewhere there is a reference to the occupied territories: "We are going to do what we can for the Palestinians." Yet the position of the Palestinians remains the same: more than 40 years of occupation, humiliating conditions, the wall, the deprivation of liberty, and the rest. Has there been any change as far as the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories goes? Not at all, but Prime Ministers-not just this one-always refer to it. I do not doubt their sincerity, but it is interesting as far as the occupied territories and the United States' support for this current military action are concerned.
Only a few weeks ago, a resolution-
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Winnick: Yes, indeed.
Only a few weeks ago, a resolution passed by the United Nations, including the British Government, was vetoed by the United States. A moderate resolution, protesting against the illegal settlements, was vetoed.
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Winnick: Of course. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister:
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I am listening to very carefully. He asks us to see the situation from an Arab point of view, but does he accept something that was put very forcefully to me at a public meeting in Qatar; namely,
"You intervened in Iraq because it was about your security. Don't you see that in Libya this is about our aspiration, our democracy, our freedom? Isn't it time that actually you paid some attention to those things?"?
Was not that the Arab street speaking, and not just Arab Governments? Is not that something we should listen to?
Mr Winnick: Yes. I take the point the Prime Minister makes, but at the same time what about the lack of freedom-the repression-in the other countries that I have mentioned? It is not just Libya. Yes, I concede the point-I have said so-that Gaddafi's regime is so tyrannical, so bloody against its own people, and there was the arming of the IRA, Lockerbie and the rest of it. Gaddafi was up to his neck in Lockerbie, as well as in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I have no illusions on that score; all I am saying is that, from the Arab point of view, they do not quite see the situation as we and, to some extent, I do as a citizen of the United Kingdom.
I have many reservations. I must confess that I am debating with myself. I do not often do so, but I do not see any reason why I should not. [ Interruption. ] I do not recommend it. I may be somewhat introverted as a personality, but I do not recommend debating with oneself. The debate I am having is whether I should vote against the motion, because I cannot vote with the
Government. I will make up my mind, not because it is the Government's motion but because of the reservations I have expressed. Having expressed those reservations, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to vote for the motion, if there is a vote tonight-there may not be. If there is a vote, I am debating whether I should abstain or vote against the motion, and I will make up my mind.
I simply say this in conclusion: the action has been taken and we are in, but I hope it is going to be very short. Reference was made to mission creep. I hope we are not going to get involved in the same way as we did in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We are out of Iraq, most people want to see the end of British military involvement in Afghanistan and they certainly do not want a new, long war. That is why I hope so very much that it will be very short indeed. The sooner it ends, the better, because I do not believe, at the end of the day, that it is in the interests of Libya or the United Kingdom.”
Before the vote at 10pm Mr Douglas Alexander Paisley and Reffrewshire Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister ended the debate for the Opposition. He began by saying
I believe that this debate has done justice to the seriousness of the motion before the House this evening. The House has benefited from speeches reflecting the huge experience, knowledge and concern that hon. Members bring to this debate and this decision. We heard cogent cases made by former Defence Secretaries on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke with wisdom and authority in expressing his reluctance to put British forces in harm's way once again. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke with his characteristic clarity and insight on the importance of the United Nations. His insight was matched by one of his old sparring partners, the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who rightly urged that consideration be given now to issues of reconstruction.”
Giving recognition to the concerns of several members he also said
“I believe that it is the duty of the Government to act on what they judge to be the national interest, and that it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they agree in that judgment. Concerned voices in this House-such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)-are not only appropriate to this place;
they are appropriate to this debate. Let me therefore acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Opposition recognise the heavy responsibility that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have to bear in these difficult days. “
He then touched on why it was desirable as well as necessary to intervene.
“We will support the Government tonight not simply because it was vital to avoid what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife warned would be the "slaughterhouse of Benghazi". The impact of that decision-the decision we take tonight-will be felt not only in Tripoli but in other capitals across the region and across the world. I believe that for the United Nations, this now represents a test of faith as well as of strength. In the face of the global challenges we face, we need strong and effective multilateral institutions, so the United Nations should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action.
The lasting shame of Rwanda, Somalia, Srebrenica and East Timor cannot, of course, be removed in one Security Council resolution, but this resolution can give new life to the doctrine that developed in response to those failures-the responsibility to protect. That should not hide the fact that military action almost always leads to the loss of life, but it should give us courage that the motion tabled today reflects the broadest consensus of international views, approved by the highest multilateral body. If we believe in a responsibility to protect, if we believe that multilateral institutions should be used for the protection of civilian life, discussion should be followed by decision and by action.
Many Members from both sides of the House have mentioned the situations in Bahrain and in Yemen, which are both deeply concerning and deteriorating. Notwithstanding its historical ties, Britain must be unequivocal in its condemnation of the violence, and must make it clear to both the Bahraini and the Yemeni Governments that a security response cannot be an alternative to political reform. “
He concluded
The commencement of military action should not be a signal that the time for diplomacy is over. This crisis will test not just our military strength, but our diplomatic skill and stamina. It is vital that the diplomatic work continues to hold together this precious coalition. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement
of regular political- level meetings of the coalition, and I would welcome a clear and continuing role for the Arab League.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to update the House on the work that is being done to sustain support in the region, to increase pressure on the countries that have allowed their citizens to become mercenaries in Libya, and to sustain non-military pressure on the regime. Our commitment to Libya's future, through our membership of the European Union, must be serious and long-term. The whole House will wish to know what work is under way on contingency planning for post-conflict reconstruction. What are the structures equal to this immense task, who will lead the work, and how will the House be assured that this vital work is being done? We should also bear in mind that Britain needs to be working, now, on a trade, aid and civil society response in case the Libyan people choose a new future.
The House has the privilege of discussion, but it also has the responsibility of decision. All of us who will support and stand with the Government tonight must have the humility to acknowledge that, at this moment of decision, we cannot say for certain what lies ahead. Intervention, even in support of humanitarian ends, brings with it unforeseen and uncertain consequences, but by our decision tonight we will be supporting action that has already prevented the foreseeable and certain killing of many Libyan citizens. We will also be supporting action that has broad support in the region and is underpinned by a Security Council resolution that authorises the necessary force required to protect the Libyan people.
We have a legal, political and moral mandate to act to protect civilian life. That is the international community's responsibility, that should be Britain's choice, and so that must be the House's decision. I urge all Members to support the motion.
It was then left to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague to make the final appeal to the House to vote for the Government motion. Given recent criticism in sections fo the media, including comments that he appeared to have lost appetite for his position he gave a bravura performance and which understandably made no attempt to refer to all the members who contributed.
“We have heard 50 speeches tonight, and I have listened to the vast majority of them. Every single one has raised proper questions and issues. It will, of course, be impossible to respond to all of them in the 16 minutes that remain, but I will do my best to respond to the general themes and to some of the specific questions “
He referred to recent developments in the region
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), for instance, referred to the dramatic changes that have taken place throughout the region: changes that may already constitute the most important event of the early 21st century-even more important than 9/11 or the 2008 financial crisis-in terms of their possible consequences.
If many of the countries of the middle east turn into stable democracies and more open economies, the gains for our security and prosperity will be enormous. If they do not, the potential breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism will prosper. That is why it is so much in our national interest to address these issues, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have argued that the response of the whole of Europe must be as bold, as ambitious and as historic in its intentions as these events are in their nature. We should be holding out to the countries of the middle east the prospect of free trade, areas of customs union and a new economic area with the European Union. We should be providing it with incentives and acting as a magnet for positive change in that region.
We can be optimistic about the prospects for positive change in many of those countries. In Egypt, the Egyptian army's decision to protect the people kept the spotlight firmly where it was supposed to be-on a Government who had to listen to people's aspirations. In Tunisia, too, after deplorable violence against unarmed protestors, the Government crumbled, accepting the will of the people and beginning a transformation of the political system. The situation in Libya is completely different. In the past three weeks we have heard reports of soldiers being burned alive for refusing to obey orders to crush the protests. We have seen the use of mercenaries to slaughter civilians, the cutting off of food, electricity and medical supplies to population centres and the broadcast of televised threats to purge whole cities and to hunt down people in their homes. Just today, after the announcement of a second ceasefire by the Gaddafi regime, Reuters has reported that Gaddafi's forces fired on a crowd of unarmed people late today in the centre of the city of Misrata. In Ajdabiya, there have been reports of body thefts, with military casualties being made to look like civilian casualties. Al-Jazeera reports that Gaddafi's forces continue to shell the town of Zintan heavily and that they have given residents two hours to surrender or face total execution. That is what passes for a ceasefire according to the Gaddafi regime.
It is against that background that the House has today weighed carefully the arguments that we have presented for and against our military actions. There has been nothing gleeful or gung-ho about the atmosphere in the House and there is nothing gung-ho about the atmosphere in and decisions of the Government. The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken today have spoken in support of the Government's actions and the motion, and many explained that they did so with reluctance or regret. The Government have approached this issue with the same sense of gravity.
He referred to the contribution of Rory Stewart who he said
“made a memorable and powerful speech, and I would love to hear the 60-minute version, not the six-minute version. He reminded us that our mission is to protect human beings, and that the temptation to dig ever deeper in all such situations must be resisted. We are conscious of that in the Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, we are seeking to implement the United Nations resolution so that the people of Libya can determine their own future. We will make every effort to maintain and consult our broad coalition, closely consulting the Arab League and working with our NATO partners, including Turkey, as several hon. Members have asked us to do.
Some Members asked what the Arab League intended to say. I spoke to Mr Amr Moussa yesterday afternoon-the Prime Minister spoke to him today-and he made it clear to me that he did not mean to criticise the mission, and he supports the UN resolution and its enforcement. Others have asked if our approach is part of a wider approach to the region and a commitment to the middle east peace process; it certainly is. They asked whether we will make conflict prevention central to our policy; yes, of course we do, as we have shown recently in Sudan. They asked whether we will plan for different scenarios, including humanitarian assistance when it is necessary; yes, we certainly are doing so.
He ended
With our allies and partners, we have carried through the United Nations Security Council a resolution that is clear, unequivocal and comprehensive, and that leaves the legality of what we are now doing not in the slightest doubt. We have acted at the behest of the Arab League, and are joined by Arab nations. We have taken every care to ensure that doubts about lawfulness and regional support, such as those that have dogged earlier decisions, do not apply in this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) said, we are right to act but right not to act alone.
This is not the west imposing its views on Libya; it is the world saying that the people of Libya should be allowed to express their views without their Government setting out to slaughter them. We are not trying to choose the future Government of Libya. That is a matter for Libyans, who must find their own solution to the mis-government that they have been subjected to, but this resolution, and our enforcement of it, gives them their only chance of being allowed to do so. This is not a legal fudge or a questionable interpretation of international law; it is the rigorous application of international law. Our actions are all the stronger for the breadth and determination of the international coalition, but they are also stronger for the breadth and determination of this House, which we have seen today.
The brave members of our armed forces who have patrolled the skies above Benghazi today or flown through the night to destroy the air defences of a regime that used air power against its own citizens can know that they do so armed not only with the weaponry that they are so well trained to deploy but with every advantage of knowing that what they do is legally warranted, morally necessary, internationally supported and, I hope, democratically agreed through a vote of this House of Commons. They can have the satisfaction of knowing that, in precipitating the retreat of Gaddafi's forces from Benghazi, they have already averted a catastrophe and a new outpouring of human misery. In pressing our case at the United Nations, in insisting that what we do must be legal, in taking extreme care to protect civilians and in acting with a speed and precision that few armed forces on Earth can rival, this country is doing what it said it would do, doing what it absolutely right and joining in giving a lead to the world, and it should enjoy the united support of the House tonight.
21 Mar 2011 : Column 802
Question put .
The House divided: Ayes 557, Noes 13.
Division No. 235]
But the last words should go to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, The Cotswolds Con, or more accurately Edmund Burke
I end with a quotation that has been used by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), but which is apposite. As a former Member of this House, Edmund Burke, said to his electors in Bristol, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It would be very wrong for us to do nothing in this case.
Mr Donaldson who I have already quoted said
“It is often said that for evil to flourish all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing, but doing nothing was not an option for the Government and the international community in this case. “
No comments:
Post a Comment