Global Policy Forum

By Robin Cook

Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, says that we must stand up to a dictator who threatens his neighbours
and deprives his own people of medicine.

The Government's strategy on Iraq has three aims: first, to protect the world from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; second, to protect his neighbours from his aggression; and third, to protect the people of Iraq, who have suffered most of all from his brutality.

That is why our pilots patrol the no-fly zones - to protect the Iraqi people. It is the Government's duty to ensure that our Servicemen can protect themselves while protecting others. The latest air strikes were a limited operation to that end.

As a supporter of the United Nations, a defender of human rights and an opponent of aggression, this government is not prepared to appease a dictator with Saddam's record. Too many commentators overlook the fact that Britain's robust approach has contained the threat that Saddam poses. Since the UN imposed the policy of containment, Iraq has not used chemical weapons against the Kurds of northern Iraq, or against Iran, and it has not invaded its neighbours - all of which it did before.

UN efforts, and our vigilance, since the Gulf war have ensured that Saddam does not have a long-range missile capacity. He has had to dismantle his programme and we actually carried out some destruction of facilities. As a result, there is no current high risk of his being able to attack us. This is not the result of Saddam's benign policies, but of our efforts to thwart his military ambitions. We remain vigilant. Only a few weeks ago, he reasserted his claim to Kuwait. If we allowed him to build up military capacity, Saddam would plunge the whole region back into war.

UN measures remain in place because of Saddam's determination to retain and rebuild his weapons of mass destruction and threaten the region. His use of chemical weapons against his own people and his neighbours makes him unique among modern dictators.

We believe that Saddam is still hiding these weapons in a range of locations in Iraq, and that Iraq is taking advantage of the absence of UN weapons inspectors to rebuild weapons of mass destruction. The international community cannot afford to ignore this. Saddam cynically exploits his people for propaganda purposes. We must not be deceived. He still threatens his neighbours. Unchecked, Iraq could redevelop offensive chemical and biological capabilities, and develop a crude nuclear device in about five years. Saddam alone is to blame for his people's suffering. It is a myth that UN policy prevents the delivery of food and medicines. To export most goods to Iraq - including food, medicines, agricultural and educational equipment, and water and sanitation goods - it is simply necessary to notify the UN.

Since we took Resolution 1284 through the UN Security Council, there has been no limit on the amount of oil Iraq can exchange for humanitarian goods - and Iraq showed last year that it can produce oil at pre-Gulf war levels, putting it among the world's top five exporters.

I have some questions for critics of our Iraq policy: why did Saddam order no medicines at all for six months at the end of last year? Is this not a cause of Iraqi suffering? Why is more than $11 billion lying unspent in the UN's oil-for-food accounts? Why is Saddam exporting food and medicine, including milk powder and asthma inhalers, to other countries while denying them to his own people?

Over the last year, the UN has made about $14 billion available to Iraq for buying such goods. That is much more than the government health and welfare budgets of Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Iran. If he chose to, Saddam could easily alleviate his people's suffering. Instead he prefers to play politics with their lives.

Abuses of human rights in Iraq are a matter of systematic public policy. UN Security Council Resolution 688 was introduced as a direct response to Saddam's grim crimes against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq and the Shia people in the south. It was to help us enforce Resolution 688 that Britain, America and France imposed the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq in 1991 and 1992. They are justified under international law as a proportionate response to a situation of overwhelming humanitarian necessity.

Ten years on, the no-fly zones still help contain the threat that Saddam poses to his own people. Without them, Saddam could move his troops around at will and repress people without mercy, as he did by using helicopter gunships in 1991 and 1992.

The northern no-fly zone provides vital protection for the Kurds. UN efforts there mean people have access to medicine. Infant mortality is on the decrease, in contrast to the areas which Saddam directly controls. The northern zone has allowed us to prevent Saddam from using air power to gas the Kurdish people with chemical weapons, as he did 10 years ago when 5,000 died at Halabja. He would do it again if the no-fly zone was not in force.

In the southern no-fly zone, we have limited Saddam's repression and bloodshed against the Shi'ite population and the Marsh Arabs by preventing aerial attacks. If Saddam allowed the people of the south a vote, they would vote to keep the no-fly zone.

They know the reality of Saddam's continued repression. It is only two years since his people assassinated a leading Shi'ite cleric. When the Shi'ite community demonstrated, Saddam's troops fired into the crowd, killing several hundred. Only a few weeks ago, Iraqi forces moved to surround a Kurdish town but were deterred by a combination of Allied air patrols and Kurdish forces.

Iraq remains the country with the world's highest number of reported disappearances. Most of the 16,500 cases reported to the UN Commission on Human Rights are Kurds. But reports of mass executions, forcible removals of families, torture, arbitrary arrests and detentions continue to reach us from all parts of the country.

This is the context in which our joint action with the United States over the weekend should be seen. I suspect that those who are most critical of the stance we are taking on Iraq would be most vociferous if we left Saddam's abuses unchecked. With the Americans, we are looking at ways of making our opposition to Saddam still more effective. We need to re-focus international opinion on the continuing threat that he poses. We will continue to stand firm against Saddam and his attempts to bring death and suffering on the people of Iraq and its neighbours. [PS]Features: [ES]