Enfield & The Barnets United Nations Association

Questiontime and Discussion on Iraq sponsored by Enfield United Nation's Association and Bush Hill Park United Reform Church.

---

Meeting & Questiontime with Andy Love MP and Malcolm Harper(Executive Director UNA UK) Chaired: Francis Sealey

UN Perspective: -- Malcolm Harper Issue is that if two things firstly, not of weapons of mass destruction but the control of it and secondly why has Iraq been picked out of all other nations to disarm?
My main criticisms are that it is just a double standard seen by the UN because the UN did not pass the 1998 evasion by America, and the UN is lukewarm about war in Iraq Iraqi civilians would suffer most.
However, Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1998 and then Iran. There should be an express of opinion to ensure a cease-fire because America doesn't have the right to go to war with Iraq until full approval from the UN Security Council. The British Government agrees to full inspection but UN's point is America is trying to undermine the UN Charter of which the Home Office should follow. UN is totally opposed to that.

QUESTION: Francis Sealey. What is the reason for the supposed Corridor and reason to keep such a Corridor?

ANSWER: Malcolm Harper. Simply to keep the Kurds above a certain parameter where no Iraqi planes could fly, they are mandated to shoot down or prevent any plane from flying into that zone. Britain and America have challenged the UN shown in resolution 684 April 91. We do not agree with it and our view is that it is illegal.

QUESTION: Roger Hallam
There seems to be a real possibility for war if the Security Council arrive at that decision. Is there any illegality for legal action?

ANSWER: Malcolm Harper It is not illegal for military action to be taken if the UN Security Council agrees to such, however the UN no longer retains control to the US - why? Only one organisation can take on an operation of this size and that is NATO and we that we must remember 80% of its ammunition is supplied by America.

QUESTION: Is this war against Iraq, Bin Laden or Oil? Why is America hell bent on bombing Iraq?

ANSWER: Malcolm Harper There is a process against war criminals for example Mr. Melosovic and that is the stance the Security Council will follow. There is an International Criminal Court which is being set up to deal with these atrocities and to deal with criminals of mass murder.
As to the point about oil, Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world and possibly America has found it difficult since Sadam has gone about and single minded disband America from their oil.

ANDY LOVE: There are three issues we must consider about Iraq
(i) British Government does see Sadam's Regimes to be different from all others and pose a serious threat to the world.
(ii) Will there be regime change or not? Well the question was not of regime change but simply to take away weapons of mass destruction.
(iii) There was a debate in the Commons, as whether they should have a second resolution - members did not want to gain say what the 15 members of the Security Council already said. Jack Straw however said they would agree to a second resolution.
My personal view is that I strongly hope weapons inspectors will be successful and Iraq give this their full support then if this is done America and Britain is satisfied there will be no war.

QUESTION: What about the bugged offices of previous weapons inspectors? Can we assure now a proper resolution will take place?

ANSWER: Andy Love We're sure now the leaders of delegation would ensure that no CIA or other special intelligence groups are present, I am sure good sense would prevail. Much more sophisticated and scientific equipment are being used to detect any such thing.

MALCOLM HARPER We have very few inspectors to cover 700 sites and agree with Andy statement of much more sophisticated equipment being used.

QUESTION: ELAINE Graham-Leigh Since we are not after regime change, can you give us any subsequent regime against Iraq?

ANSWER: Malcolm Harper We would not have had 8 weeks of resolutions, the other nations played an important role by opinionated agreement and there is no consensus what must be done to or how to structure it.

ANDY LOVE French played an important role in stating that the importance is not in getting rid of Sadam but in containing him. He argued that many in the West would not find it in their interest to have a democratic regime there as that might prove very anti Western. Andy Love also thought it was extremely unlikely that a democratic regime would result from Western intervention.

QUESTION: Can America go ahead and start a war?

ANSWER: Malcolm Harper America says they already have a mandate to do so. The Chaney / Powell difference of opinion seems to suggest some ambiguity. UN says if they do go to war they do so illegally, however. NO ONE can stop them.

ANDY LOVE It is unlikely the UN would fully fund military war against Iraq. America's public opinion is that quite a large majority is totally against war with Iraq.

QUESTION: The surrounding countries don't seem to be worried or afraid of Iraq? Should the Commons give steer to Parliament? We want a clear representative form the British Government.

ANSWER: Andy Love I have been to some of those surrounding countries myself and Iraq is a real threat to them e.g. past conflicts with Iran and Kuwait. The Arab league themselves have put pressure on Iraq as they are concerned about what would happen in the region.
Jack Straw said he is willing to come back to the Commons for another resolution should we go down that road again, but with difficulty for Government.

QUESTION: If such a war takes place, what might happen to Saudi / Iraqi relationship? What will happen with Al Queada, Oil prices around the world, Israeli / Palestine position and the Economic and Social implications for the rest of us. What about Security? Can we cope with a terrorist attack? Who would build back the Middle East after this war?

ANDY LOVE None of the 15 members of the Security Council moved on a resolution, some of its international law is ambiguous. The real concern is if a second resolution comes forward one or more countries can veto the resolution. If Sadam does not live up to the mandate of the Security Council's resolution or once a material breach had occurred the Security Council would support war. However, sadly, if Permanent members would veto America and Britain is still hell bent on going to war.
The British Government has thought about the aspect of war and the effects on us from Al Queada. Jack Straw said that since 1996 we have been assisting the Middle East with both Humanitarian aid, medical supplies and with security. It is not a question of oil, he sees Sadam has violated Human Rights issues when he evaded Kuwait and Iran, he says the British goal is to make the Middle East more safe and not to allow Sadam to continue.
In terms of who will repair the breach in the event of war, well Iraq has the were with all to fix up their own country if they so choose to do so. There is a very strong desire to help the best well of but Iraq is a very secular country.

MALCOLM HARPER: I agree with Andy position that Sadam does not care about the mass of the Iraqi ordinary people, Sadam would simply use sanctions as propaganda. Britain has definitely assisted Afghanistan however has just simply written out cheques and not signed them.

Closing comments: ANDY LOVE Surprised no one had mentioned about 9:11 - there was no such hurry to contain Iraq, what brought about this was 9:11
Tony Blair has agreed to war with America. Gordon Brown has also said we know we have problems with Iraq but, American and Britain are not doing well with consumer confidence, since over recent months various demonstrations has proven this point but they still want to go to war, then we will all face serious financial and social difficulties.

---