[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4896-4897]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             WAR WITH IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 2003

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I commend this speech by the leader of 
the liberal party in the House of Lords.

       Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the 
     Deputy Leader of the House for the very forceful, although 
     not at all untypical, way in which she addressed the House. 
     We on these Benches share completely the objective of the 
     disarmament of Iraq. There is no question about that.
       I want to remind the noble Baroness of the second part of 
     Resolution 1441. It states that Iraq should have, ``a final 
     opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under 
     relevant resolutions of the Council'', and that it has been 
     accordingly decided, ``to set up an enhanced inspection 
     regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified 
     completion the disarmament process''.
       The difference between these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord 
     Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is 
     straightforwardly that we believe that the present draft 
     resolutions pre-empt that process, that it is not yet 
     completed, and that there is still an opportunity to avoid 
     war. Let me say very clearly, in case there is any 
     misunderstanding, that we believe that we, as powerfully as 
     any other part of this House, have an obligation to our 
     troops to make absolutely certain that men and women are not 
     put into war, risking their lives, unless it can be shown to 
     be absolutely necessary to do so. It is to that that I intend 
     to address my remarks. The first question is whether we are 
     convinced that Iraq is an imminent and present threat. There 
     is no question but that it could be a potential threat, 
     although I must dispute briefly with the noble Lord, Lord 
     Howell of Guildford. Not only the CIA in the United States 
     but Ministers in this House have on more than one recent 
     occasion admitted that there is no clear evidence to link 
     Al'Qaeda to the Government of Iraq, much as we might find 
     things easier if that were so. That must be stated very 
     explicitly, because repeating a misconception over and again 
     does not turn that misconception into a truth. Therefore, I 
     doubt whether we can show that Iraq is an imminent threat.
       If we are seeking imminent threat, I need only quote from a 
     very senior colleague of mine who is the head of the security 
     unit in the Belfer Center at Harvard University. Ash Carter 
     is a former National Security Agency assistant secretary. He 
     said: ``News reports late last week indicated that . . . 
     North Korea is trucking the fuel rods away where they can 
     neither be inspected nor entombed by an airstrike . . . as 
     this loose nukes disaster unfolds and the options for dealing 
     with it narrow, the world does nothing''.
       That is a much more imminent threat.
       Secondly, we are not convinced that containment has failed. 
     I can quote from an authoritative source. These are the words 
     of the Prime Minister himself in November 2000: ``We believe 
     that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam 
     Hussein in the last 10 years. During this time he has not 
     attacked his neighbours, nor used chemical weapons against 
     his own people''.--[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/00; col. 
     511 W.]
       Nor has he done either in the past three years--since that 
     statement.
       Another authoritative source said: ``Through a process of 
     inspection and verified destruction, the UNSCOM inspectors 
     have demolished more weapons capability than was destroyed by 
     the allied forces during the Gulf war''.--[Official Report, 
     Commons, 17/2/98; col. 900.]
       Those are the words of Robin Cook, then the Foreign 
     Secretary. Even much more recently, it has been restated more 
     than once that containment has proved more effective in 
     destroying weapons of mass destruction than any war at any 
     time in the past few years. The third issue is whether we 
     believe that the peaceful options have been exhausted. Again, 
     I quote from two unimpeachable sources. The first is the 
     Congressional Research Service of the United States Congress, 
     which said: ``In meetings with Blix and ElBaradei in Baghdad 
     on February 8 and 9, 2003, Iraqi officials handed over 
     documents on anthrax, VX, and missile programs . . . On 
     February 10, Iraq notified the UN that it

[[Page 4897]]

     would permit overflights of American U-2, French Mirage, and 
     Russian Antonov aircraft''.
       Let us add to that the report in the Independent today, 
     which said: ``Mr. Blix said the details of the weapons''--
       I have described when they were handed over to the 
     inspectors--``were `positive steps which need to be explored 
     further'. Asked if there was any indication by the Iraqis of 
     `substantive progress or proactive co-operation''', which are 
     exactly the requirements mentioned by the noble Baroness, 
     Lady Symons, Mr Blix, a man of few words, replied, ``Yes''. 
     That was only yesterday. We on these Benches are not 
     persuaded that all peaceful options have been exhausted. We 
     point, not to illusions or statements by Members on these 
     Benches, but to clear and unimpeachable sources such as the 
     Congressional Research Service and the chief inspector, Mr 
     Blix himself. None of this would matter so much if the 
     consequences of war were less serious than they are. I wish 
     to say a few words about them. First, the Financial Times 
     states: ``The coalition of the willing, sounds ever more like 
     a coalition of the reluctant''.
       Huge pressures are being brought to bear, not least on 
     moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and 
     others, to subscribe to being part of an alliance to destroy 
     the Iraqi regime. Those countries have protested over and 
     over again that they do not wish to be involved in the war.
       Let me give two examples. There was a great deal of 
     controversy over Turkey because it was argued that it had 
     been refused Patriot missiles as a result of a disagreeable 
     coalition between France and Germany. It later emerged that 
     Turkey had never asked for Patriot missiles or for any of the 
     other equipment that was sent to it. Turkey had asked for 
     consultation under Article 4 of the NATO treaty. It had not 
     invoked Article 5, which is the article concerning mutual 
     defense. Even now, Turkey is driving a colossally hard 
     bargain. Members of the House will have seen that one part of 
     the bargain is that Turkey should be allowed to bring 55,000 
     troops into northern Iraq--the Kurdish area, much of which is 
     protected by a no-fly-zone--a situation which, at the very 
     least, is likely to foment great anger and, at worst, could 
     lead to civil war and the disintegration of Iraq. It has 
     also--incidentally, almost--helped to destroy the real 
     prospect of a united Cyprus entering the European Union some 
     time in the next seven or eight years.
       The International Crisis Group--I declare an interest as a 
     board member--has discovered that there is tremendous public 
     concern about the possibility of a war against Iraq in the 
     Middle East. In its report, it states: ``ICG interviews 
     throughout the region, in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, 
     Jordan, Egypt and Algeria, indicate that there exists wide 
     and deep scepticism about US motives''. That may be unfair, 
     but it is a fact that we have to take into account when 
     deciding whether the price of war is too high. It also 
     emphasizes the importance of pursuing every other possible 
     alternative.
       I need not add the special complication of the wretched 
     situation in the Middle East, referred to in another place 
     yesterday by that distinguished and brave Member of 
     Parliament, Gerald Kaufman, as the daily almost casual 
     slaughter of Palestinians by the IDF and the daily almost 
     casual slaughter of Israelis by terrorists from the West Bank 
     and Gaza. We cannot pretend that this is not a desperately 
     serious complication. With great respect to the noble 
     Baroness, Lady Symons, she and I both know that the reason 
     why the UN resolutions are mandatory on Iraq, and not 
     mandatory on Israel, which has also broken many of them, is 
     because the United States refuses to agree to their being 
     made mandatory on Israel.
       I have the greatest respect for the Prime Minister. He has 
     virtually ripped himself into pieces trying to hold the 
     Administration in the United States to the UN process. He is 
     the reason why George Bush went to the United Nations: I pay 
     the Prime Minister great credit for that. But the distinction 
     I have just drawn between Israel and Iraq shows all too 
     clearly that it is not the Prime Minister who is in the 
     driving seat. It is concern about who is in the driving seat 
     that underlies much of the scepticism.
       I do not need to mention at length the possible 
     humanitarian consequences of a war. That has been done 
     effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. But 
     they are extreme. One has only to consider the desperate 
     plight with regard to food. According to a leaked UN 
     document, 30 per cent of children under five will be at risk 
     of death from malnutrition if the war lasts more than a week 
     or so. There are also warnings about cholera and many other 
     extreme diseases. The warnings come from a United Nations 
     leaked document, called the ``Humanitarian Consequences of 
     the War''.
       Before I come to my conclusion, I shall say in the words of 
     a famous politician whom many Labour Members of this House 
     will remember, ``You don't need to look at the crystal if you 
     can read the book''.
       What is the book? The book concerns Afghanistan. I shall 
     quote again from two sources, the first of which is The Times 
     of 13 February, which states that ``large parts of the 
     country are once more on the verge of anarchy''.
       An article by the senior fellow at the American Council on 
     Foreign Relations--I declare an interest as a member of its 
     international advisory council--states: ``Basic security and 
     stability have still not been achieved''. Worst of all, when 
     the President drew up his budget for 2004, he forgot to put 
     even a penny for the reconstruction of Afghanistan into it. 
     Paul Krugman, of the New York Times, states: ``The Bush team 
     forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had 
     to write in $300 million to cover the lapse''.
       So much for Afghanistan, already largely forgotten, coming 
     back to anarchy, and neglected by the international 
     community.
       I conclude with two thoughts. First, there is clear 
     evidence that the obsession with Iraq is drawing us away from 
     what should be our first priority, which is to attack 
     international terrorism. For that we need the widest possible 
     support. I shall not go on quoting, but it was President 
     Jimmy Carter who said a few days ago that the obsession with 
     Iraq had essentially diverted the American Administration 
     from concern about terrorism. There is more evidence that we 
     are beginning to neglect the remnants--not dead remnants, but 
     live ones--of Al'Qaeda in many other parts of the world. 
     Finally, there is a fundamental thought, to which my 
     colleague Lord Wallace of Saltaire will address himself. 
     There is undoubtedly among European opinion, including the 
     United Kingdom, more than 80 per cent opposition to a war 
     without UN support and considerable opposition to a war even 
     with UN support. That does not reflect anti-Americanism, 
     except perhaps among a small minority. Many of us regard 
     America as one of the most enterprising, imaginative, 
     democratic and open societies in the world. What it reflects 
     is concern with an Administration propelled to some extent by 
     what I can only describe as a fundamentalist Christian and 
     fundamentalist Jewish drive that is almost as powerful as 
     fundamentalist Islam itself. The Administration has set aside 
     the structures of the multilateral community by removing 
     themselves from treaties and conventions, by refusing to sign 
     the Kyoto agreement or agreeing to the biological weapons 
     convention being resumed, and now by embarking on nuclear 
     plans that threaten even the nuclear proliferation treaty. It 
     is who is in the driving seat that frightens many of us; 
     certainly not that great country the United States.

                          ____________________