Iraq

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, this country has a long-standing tradition of support for the United Nations, which we helped to create in San Francisco in 1945. The only aberration was the Suez fiasco. Unfortunately, the founding fathers never contemplated that, because of the power of the veto, the charter could become unworkable. Article 2.4 prohibits the intentional use of force except for self-defence or with the authority of the UN Security Council. Self-defence is an elastic proposition, and we are told that the Attorney-General has given his opinion that the prohibition on the use of force by one state in the territory of another does not apply if the territorial state so requests or consents. That, in my view, is beyond argument.

Apart from the practical considerations of one country in the alliance carrying out attacks at the same time on another country—Syria, which has not consented—are there any limitations on the doctrine? How far do we go, and for how long? Is it to be the two or three years being contemplated by the Defence Secretary? Did the Attorney-General qualify his opinion at all? We have seen only a summary of his legal opinion. Given that so much is at stake, there is in my view a case for breaking with precedent and being taken into the Government’s confidence, particularly if the Attorney-General has indicated any limits to our actions.

In his article in the Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister wrote about sending our armies “to fight or occupy”. Perhaps I may say that they were not very well considered remarks, and neither was the reference to the use of all our resources, including “military prowess”, although he may well have rethought that one. I am glad that for now we are not considering Syria. The legal considerations might well be different. It would hardly be self-defence and would certainly not be an intervention at the invitation of a host country. It would more likely be intervention to avoid “an overwhelming humanitarian disaster”, or unless we obtain an appropriate UN Security Council resolution, which seems very unlikely.

At Attorney-General, I had the responsibility at the time of Kosovo to provide a legal basis for participation in bombing raids by NATO countries. For more than 60 days I ensured on a daily basis—or usually nightly—that on this country’s part we had to consider and agree that each raid was carried out in accordance with the Geneva conventions. I hope very much that, in this present matter of attacks in Iraq, the Attorney-General will play an equally important and constant role to ensure that the Geneva conventions are adhered to. For our actions in Kosovo, which were to avert what I believed, and what was generally agreed by the United Nations, to be an overwhelming humanitarian disaster, I set out particularly detailed considerations. I shall summarise them. First, there was convincing evidence of need. Secondly, there was no practical alternative. Thirdly, it was necessary and proportionate, which means that it was the minimum necessary.

In his opinion on Syria last year, Mr Dominic Grieve QC MP agreed word for word with my particular considerations, and I am grateful. However, we did not see the whole opinion, we saw only the summary, and I wonder whether he suggested to the Cabinet that this particular doctrine was still developing and capable of challenge. I was challenged. I was taken to the International Court of Justice along with nine other countries, and I led for the United Kingdom. At the time Yugoslavia, which was suing, fortunately failed for other reasons. All I am saying is that this particular route would not be without difficulties, and very different considerations would apply to what we are now considering as regards Iraq.