S2M-2132 Carolyn Leckie: Iraq—That the Parliament notes with grave concern that Iraqi civilians have reported the use of napalm and/or phosphorous cluster bombs by US forces in their attack on the city of Fallujah, that the use of such weapons is banned by United Nations international treaty to which the United Kingdom is a signatory and therefore utterly condemns any failure of the United States to abide by international treaties and the use of such weapons of mass destruction; notes the International Committee of the Red Cross's recent call to both parties to the conflict in Iraq which stated that it is prohibited to torture participants or to subject them to any form of inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment and that both sides must do everything possible to help civilians caught up in the fighting obtain the basics of survival such as food, water and health care, notes that there were reliable reports of US forces cutting off water supplies to Fallujah prior to the assault and therefore, along with the Red Cross, believes that "for the parties to this conflict, complying with international humanitarian law is an obligation, not an option"; believes that the war in Iraq was based on deceit and lies and that far from ending terrorism "American actions have instead elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims" and that most Muslims think that "the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering", as stated by the Defence Science Board, notes that the war has resulted in a humanitarian disaster with as many as 100,000 Iraqis having lost their lives and malnutrition amongst Iraqi children having almost doubled and that British and US troops are seen by most Iraqis as occupiers rather than liberators and therefore believes that it is in the best interests of all for all troops to be brought home for Christmas.
Supported by: Frances Curran*, Ms Rosemary Byrne*, Colin Fox*, Rosie Kane*, Tommy Sheridan*
Frances Curran (West of Scotland) (SSP): This debate is long overdue, as we are facing a humanitarian disaster in Iraq. We have witnessed the destruction of the infrastructure of an entire country. Its food supply and water supply have been affected and we are now seeing an increase in the incidence of malnutrition, especially among children. Parts of Iraq have been bombed out and reduced to rubble. The Lancet reports that in excess of 100,000 civilians—mainly women and children— have been killed in violent deaths. On March 13 2003, we, as MSPs—or, rather, you, as MSPs—had the opportunity to register the Parliament's opposition to that action. You had a chance to put down your opposition and say "Not in my name."
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): Some of us did that.
Frances Curran: Okay; some MSPs did, and I am coming to that. MSPs had the chance to register their opposition by supporting a motion in the name of John Swinney. However, 62 members decided not to take that view and backed the action that we have seen over the past 19 months. Ignorance is absolutely no defence. Many voices across the world—including that of the Scottish Socialist Party— warned about the situation that we would find ourselves in. For us, where we are today in Iraq is absolutely no surprise. Millions took to the streets across the world and across Europe, yet there are MSPs in this building who took absolutely no heed. They slavishly put up their hands in support of the warmongers, Bush and Blair. Now we know that those who supported the war did so on the basis of lies and deceit—that is the basis of the occupation of Iraq. There are no weapons of mass destruction and there are no links with al- Qa'ida—or, at least, there were not before the invasion. The only line that people can cling to is the fig leaf of regime change. I presume that the regime-change argument expects us to believe that the invasion by United States and United Kingdom troops was doing the Iraqi people a favour. Well, I wonder how the children of Baghdad—the ones who were playing in the parks and playgrounds—see it. We saw those children days before the bombs dropped, in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11". Did we do them a favour? Did we do civilians a favour? Did we do the people of Fallujah a favour? Is what we did a favour in the name of regime change?
Let us make no bones about it: those who supported the war—those who put up their hands in Parliament—voted to drop bombs on the playgrounds, schools and homes of those children. Ignorance is not an excuse. How could they use napalm? Given all that we know about Vietnam, how could you support the use of napalm? Now that the US has admitted that it used napalm last year and now that the information is coming out about Fallujah, what are people trying to do? They are trying to cover it up and pretend that it did not happen. That is exactly what the amendments from Labour, the Liberals and the Tories do—they take out every reference in the motion to the use of napalm. That is an absolute disgrace, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. In this debate, I would like to hear some defence of that. If members do not think that napalm should have been used, they should condemn it openly. They should support our motion and not the amendments that attempt to take those references out. Let me make it clear: US and UK troops are not liberators; they are an occupying army in a sovereign country. They broke international law by invading Iraq, so we should not be surprised that, throughout the 19-month occupation, they have continued to breach international law on human rights in prisons and in relation to utilities. They now stand condemned by the International Committee of the Red Cross of further breaches of human rights.
The incidence of malnutrition among children in Iraq has increased dramatically. One of the main reasons for that is the lack of clean water in which to cook food, yet in Fallujah, Samarra and Tell Afar— those are only the places that we know about; journalists are not allowed into large parts of Iraq—750,000 people have had their water supply cut by occupying forces as a means of war. The civilian population has to pay for what is a complete breach of the Geneva convention, which specifically forbids the denial of water to civilians during conflict. That will really win hearts and minds. It will have a dramatic effect on the people of Iraq.
This week, we have heard that the battle for hearts and minds has been lost and is being lost for good. We have read in the papers this week quotes from the report of the Defense Science Board—one of the top security advisory bodies in the US—which states: "in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering." Has the occupation made the world a safer place? Is that what direct intervention in the Muslim world has achieved? The report makes the point:
"American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States".
That is no surprise to those of us who were on the anti-war campaign and spoke at meetings up and down the country. It was always clear— even Douglas Hurd made the point—that an American and British invasion force would never be seen as liberators and would always be seen as an occupying army. The Defense Science Board's report continues:
"American efforts have not only failed ... they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended."
The conclusion that we must draw is that the world is a less safe place. After so much money has been spent on the war, after the civilian tragedy and the humanitarian disaster, nobody has benefited and the world is not a safer place. Those are not my words; they are the words of the advisers to Donald Rumsfeld. The report concludes that the actions of the US in Iraq have played right into the hands of al-Qa'ida.
Given the amendments from the Liberals, the Tories and Labour, I want to pose a question. They are all cheering on the sidelines for elections, and they probably hope that the elections will come along in January and save us from the quagmire.
Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD): We have heard many minutes of Frances Curran's speech. When is she going to come to the main point of the motion, on withdrawing troops by Christmas? How on earth will that help the situation and the suffering in Iraq?
Frances Curran: First of all, there are three main parts to the motion, and we are about to address all of them.
Mr Raffan: Will she address that point?
Frances Curran: I am about to do that, if Mr Raffan will have a little bit of patience.
The key issue now is the elections, which Mr Raffan's party hopes will bolster support for the war, but how on earth are we going to see free and fair elections in Iraq next month? Such is the lack of stability that the US is having to pour in more troops to try to hold the position in order to attempt elections. There will be the largest number of troops in Iraq since the invasion. Fifteen Sunni political parties and two Kurdish parties have banded together and said that the elections should be postponed. How can voter registration in Fallujah be carried out when 200,000 people have been displaced and are living in camps on the edge of civilisation, with temperatures going below zero and without proper food, water or sanitation? Where do we set up the ballot boxes?
The Association of Muslim Scholars, Iraq's highest Sunni religious authority, has demanded that all Sunnis boycott the electoral process. If that happens, the elections can in no way be seen as viable, fair or representative, no matter how much public relations effort is thrown at them—and the Americans and Blair will try to do that. There is no way that that can happen. If the Sunni population does not take part, nobody—unless they think that they are in the Ukraine—will be able to claim that the elections are democratic and representative.
The truth of the matter is that it is a mess, a disaster and a quagmire, and it is of Bush and Blair's making. All the time that the situation continues, civilian and military casualties are increasing. More than 25,000 troops have now been injured. The death rate in November was 140. That is the highest increase in the death rate among US or British troops since the invasion began 19 months ago, and it is set to escalate. As we go in deeper and deeper and throw more and more troops into Iraq, higher and higher casualties are what is in prospect for the invasion.
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Continuing on the point that Keith Raffan made, I ask Frances Curran to tell us how her proposal that all troops be withdrawn in two weeks' time would help the people of Iraq.
Frances Curran: I am coming to that. The only option now is to withdraw British and US troops. The reason is that the existence of those troops is causing more and more damage. They are contributing more and more to the break-up of the country. They are causing greater problems, creating a bigger opposition movement and taking the country further towards civil war. They will not be able to deliver peace. We will be in there for a long time and nobody on Mr Rumbles's side of the argument has a clue about how to get out. The only solution—for which there are historical parallels—is to withdraw the troops as soon as possible. There are many sections of the troops who are demoralised, but it is not our arguments that are demoralising the troops in Iraq. What is demoralising them is the fact that they are there to fight a war based on lies and deceit. They are bombing and killing innocent civilians. They are involved in abuse of human rights and cutting off water. They were promised that they would be liberators, welcomed with flags in the streets, but they have been treated as an army of occupation and as a hostile force. The longer we keep them there, the bigger the mess is going to get, and it will be much more difficult to withdraw in the long term. This was never about democracy. It was never about the people of Iraq. It was always about oil. Some people have benefited, but the world is not a safer place. We were right in our analysis of the invasion and, 19 months later, we will be right in our analysis that there will be a quagmire of civil war and the break-up of Iraq if we do not withdraw the troops now. We will also give massive support to al-Qa'ida and to the Islamic revolution. That is where Mr Rumbles and his colleagues have got us. At least they support us getting out of there now, but they should put up their hands and admit that they are ashamed of themselves for voting for the invasion in the first place.
Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): It is, to say the least, unfortunate that our Scottish Parliament does not have the power to respect the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If the Parliament had those powers, we would surely have listened to the people long ago and voted to have no part in the Blair-Bush project. We do not have that power, and therefore we have been dragged into a bloody, evil and illegal massacre. The war and occupation are a massacre. The picture in Iraq today is extremely bleak. Some members have painted Iraq as some kind of wonderland, with books, schools and many other things. I do not know in which parallel universe that vision exists, but it is not my understanding—or that of many millions of people—of what is really happening in Iraq.
Frances Curran and other members mentioned the report in The Lancet that estimated that there have been 100,000 excess deaths due to the war and occupation. That figure is bad enough, but it would have been greater if Fallujah had been included in the sample. However, it was not, so there are many more than that. About 17,000 of those deaths are Iraqi civilians who were killed as a direct result of bombing and shooting. Of course, those include children, who are the most innocent—so much for smart bombs. The remaining numbers of dead are attributed to disruption caused by war, including disease, starvation and an inability to access care, all of which we are a part of. The United Nations Children's Fund reports that malnutrition among Iraqi children has doubled since the invasion. It is not the SSP that reports that, but UNICEF. Do we want to be part of that? Do we want to be part of the breaches of the Geneva convention, such as wounded Iraqis being executed rather than taken prisoner, or the routine shelling and bombing of civilians? I say to Karen Gillon that civilians on both sides are being bombed. We do not condone suicide bombing, but it must be said that Bush and Blair have been the biggest recruiters imaginable for al-Qa'ida, which was not in Iraq previous to the invasion. [Interruption.]
The Deputy Presiding Officer: Excuse me; it is not appropriate for those in the public gallery to applaud.
Rosie Kane: I thank them anyway.
I ask Karen Gillon to bear in mind what I said. I have said it many times; I have said it on television and I have now said it in the Parliament.
Little or no distinction is made between civilians and insurgents. Frances Curran mentioned napalm, and we must concern ourselves with that. The Pentagon says that it has destroyed its stocks of napalm. Perhaps that is another lie, but it will admit to using MK-77 bombs, which are firebombs that include kerosene. The Pentagon says that the MK-77 is environmental friendly, but it is napalm by another name. It is a body-melting bomb, and there are melted bodies on the streets of Iraq. They have been seen and pictured; it is a fact. Do we really want to be a part of that?
Human rights abuses are there for all to see. In fact, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which does not normally publish reports on human rights abuses but chooses instead to deal directly with Governments in order to remain neutral, has felt compelled to release the fact that it has concerns about breaches of the Geneva convention in Iraq. Water and medical attention have been denied, and ambulances have been shot at in Fallujah. Who said that there is nothing wrong in Fallujah? Doctors have been killed and arrested there. Civilian areas are being bombed, and 50 of those bombings were approved by Donald Rumsfeld himself. Do we really want to be part of that?
The SSP is worried about Iraq and about our troops. Troops out! Too right, troops out. Those troops have been forced into an illegal and brutal war. We have heard about the losses of coalition troops. I believe that there were 140 losses during November and 1,100 wounded in that same period.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have one minute.
Rosie Kane: To date, 73 soldiers from Britain have died; Gordon Gentle was one of them. Some folk might say that soldiers step into a uniform and know what they are getting into, but they do not. Our young people are scooped up in training centres, schools and job centres and promised training, driving licences, a future and a wage, but they end up on the streets of Basra and end up dead. Those who joined the Army with the intention of fighting are now in an illegal and brutal war into which they have been dragged by so-called leaders. The Scottish Socialist Party is calling for the troops to come home. We want them to come home in planes, helicopters and ships; we want them home in anything other than body bags.
The war is about greed and resources, and the main winners are Halliburton, which will get contracts worth $6 billion to rebuild Iraq after its ex-chief executive ordered the country's destruction; the Bechtel corporation, which has been awarded contracts worth $680 million; DynCorp International, which has been awarded contracts worth $50 million; and Lockheed Martin, which has been awarded contracts worth uncountable millions. The same goes for Boeing and Raytheon, which supply the weapons of mass destruction. The list goes on. To any member who says that the socialists are not using their time to attack poverty, I say: oh yes, we are. We are attacking poverty of humanity, of justice and of decency. If we were not involved in a mega-expensive illegal war, we could use that money to address poverty in Scotland.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: You must finish now.
Rosie Kane: I say to Duncan McNeil: what are you on about, mate? I finish on that. [Interruption.]
The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will not tell the public gallery again: it is inappropriate to applaud. If people applaud again, I will have to ask for them to be removed.
Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP): I am glad to see that two Executive ministers have turned up, albeit belatedly.
I start with the attempts by the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats to remove reality from our motion. They deny the use of napalm and phosphorous weapons of mass destruction, which were the only weapons of mass destruction that were used in Iraq. They deny the sight of melted bodies on the streets of Fallujah but they forget that the United States of America admitted in August 2003 that it used napalm and phosphorous bombs in the blitz of Baghdad, so the idea that it used them in Fallujah is not too far to travel. ITN briefly reported that napalm had been used in Fallujah but the story was quickly removed. I wonder whether a defence advisory notice was issued to avoid that uncomfortable fact. Do the Executive parties have absolutely nothing to say? Will they not condemn the use of napalm and phosphorous bombs?
Normally, the International Committee of the Red Cross does not state its concerns publicly. When it does so, that means that it has evidence that the Geneva convention and other international humanitarian treaties have been breached. We should remind ourselves of those treaties, which three parties in the chamber wish to delete from history.
The Lancet estimates that there have been more than 100,000 civilian deaths, most of which are attributed to bombing. No wonder General Tommy Franks says, "We don't do civilian body counts." Actually, he is lying. The Pentagon collects and collates that information but it keeps it secret. However, it cannot hide everything. The truth has a habit of getting out. Children burned, bombed and torn apart limb from limb—that is the reality that the Executive parties want to delete from the public record. Children have been bombed and butchered in our name, and members of the Executive parties voted for that—that is the reality.
Mr Raffan: Never.
Carolyn Leckie: The member is supporting the continuation. The photos that I have here are from last week, not last year.
There have been further breaches, with water supplies to civilian populations being cut off, wounded insurgents being executed, hospitals being occupied and bombed and aid agencies being denied access to Fallujah. I would have more respect for the Executive parties' arguments if they were prepared to base them on an acknowledgment of the truth and the facts, but instead they seek to remove the truth from the motion. Their amendments even remove the quotes from the Pentagon report, which acknowledges that the occupation has lost the battle for hearts and minds and has acted as a recruitment campaign for terrorists and extreme fundamentalist organisations.
The Executive parties do exactly what the report concludes needs to be done: they cover the truth with more effective propaganda. According to the Pentagon, the invasion and occupation have made Iraq and the world more dangerous, but the answer is to increase the amount of propaganda. The Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems accepted the Pentagon's orders and are acting as its propagandists by seeking to remove the truth from the motion.
I will deal with the ruse of the Labour amendment. Labour members delude themselves that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has aided, or will aid, the cause of the Palestinians, but the Palestinian road map to peace is a fiction. It is a fig leaf that President Bush cast to Tony Blair so that Labour representatives can cover themselves and support the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The truth is that the Iraq war has been a disaster for the Palestinians. The Israelis used the cover of the Iraq war to build an apartheid wall and annex yet more land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. Perhaps we can excuse Labour members for having been duped 18 months ago but now there is absolutely no excuse.
The arguments that were made today against the withdrawal of troops have been made before to justify imperialist adventures in retrospect. They were made in relation to Vietnam and to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but history shows that they are wrong. Some Labour members argued that although the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was wrong, troops should remain in Iraq to avoid descent into barbarism, but that is exactly what happened in Afghanistan: the Soviet invasion led to the Taliban and to barbarism. That might be Iraq's fate because of the actions of the USA and Britain—but of no other country.
The United States is sustaining more and more casualties. November alone cost the US 10 per cent of its total losses in a war that was supposed to have been won on 1 May 2003. In November, the coalition lost double the average monthly number of casualties. Since the invasion, terrorism has increased in Iraq and around the world. The number of deaths due to war has increased, not decreased, and so have starvation, homelessness and insecurity. Some 200,000 refugees were created by the bombardment of Fallujah and there are melted bodies on the streets. The occupation is the cause of the chaos and the increased risk of civil war. Troops are part of the problem—they are not part of the solution. The idea that invaders can be the salvation of the invaded is ignorance and delusion beyond comprehension. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I got into trouble earlier and I would like a bit of consistency.
The idea that invaders can be the salvation of the invaded is ignorance and delusion beyond comprehension—I repeat that in case members did not hear it the first time. The invaders are having to pile more and more forces into a war that they are not winning. Bush promised that they would be home by last Christmas. Would the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems advise a failing business to borrow more and more money to prop up a venture that is clearly failing? Would they advise a gambler who has lost a month's wages in a casino to pile more and more chips on the roulette table? No, they would not, yet they support the piling in of more troops and the piling up of more bodies.
The war was wrong, illegal and unjust. It should not have started, and it should stop. The waste of lives and the hanging on to the coat tails of the neo-Cons in the White House must stop. The waging of a war that is based on lies must stop. Not another drop of blood should be spilled for George W Bush. Saddam Hussein has been removed, but are members clear that they have argued that the capture of one guilty man is worth 100,000 civilian lives? If all the dictators in the world who have been propped up and supplied and supported with arms by the US and Britain were removed at the same cost, there would be millions of corpses throughout the world. Members talk about Saddam Hussein, but what about Pinochet, Suharto or Ariel Sharon? Not a bloody word. [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): Order.
Carolyn Leckie: The occupation was never about the Iraqi people and it is not about them now. It is about Halliburton's profits—Rosie Kane referred to the millions and billions of pounds that it has gained and benefited from because of the war. It is that company that has won, not the Iraqi people.
Keith Raffan mentioned the brotherhood of man—I notice that he left out women and children, but that is no surprise. Are bombing, starving and burning his idea of solidarity? We should make no mistake: the Liberal Democrats are the phoney anti-war party. [Interruption.] They are fakes.
Is the SNP serious about the recruitment of troops from Arab nations? Iraqis are being blown up in queues to join security forces. Is the SNP suggesting that recruits from Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Iran would be safe while queueing up to volunteer?
I am sure that the refugees outside Fallujah—all 200,000 of them—will be grateful for a ballot paper. We did not cause this mess. Elections do not create democracy—democracy creates elections. It is time to stop the patronising piffle and time to stop the bombing and the human rights abuses. That is what members should be talking about. It is time to pile in aid and money but bring the troops out now. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis and the future of Iraq is up to them. The troops must come home now for their sake as well as that of the Iraqis.
As Jack McConnell is now in the chamber, I say to him that the blood of Iraqi children is on his hands. I challenge him to look at the document that I am holding because if the children can suffer what they suffer, he should be able to look them in the eye. He is not prepared to do that because he does not have the courage to face up to the photographs, to face up to his complicity or to face up to George W Bush in the White House. Jack McConnell is prepared to murder and cause mayhem on his behalf.
The Presiding Officer: I think that that is over the top.
