Archive for June, 2009
26th June 2009
The Ayatollah Khomeini’s Influence
Gelyn fy ngelyn yw fy nghyfaill, meddai’r hen ddihareb. Ond sioc a siom oedd clywed Arlywydd Venezuela, ac arweinydd pwysicaf a mwyaf carismataidd y Chwith yn ystod y chwarter canrif ddiwethaf, Hugo Chavez yn amddiffyn ei “gyfaill” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yr wythnos hon yn wyneb protestiadau torfol yn Iran a beirniadu byd-eang.
Mae’r berthynas rhyfedd yma rhwng y Marcsydd Lladin-Americanaidd a’r ceidwadwr Islamaidd wedi bloeduo ers rhai blynyddoedd. Siwr iawn mae yna dipyn o safleoli strategol tu ol i hyn: mae Iran yn gynghreiriad pwysig o fewn OPEC sydd wedi helpu Venezuela i yrru’r pris olew yn uwch – allweddol i raglenni cymdeithasol Chavez – y missiones – a’i bolisi o olew rhad i wledydd sosialaidd cyfagos fel Ciwba.
Ac eto pan welwch chi lluniau o fechgyn pymtheg mlwydd oed yn cael eu crogi am eu bod yn hoyw – mae’n anodd i faddau’r peth oherwydd realpolitik. Mae ceisio portreadu Ahmadinejad yn rhyw fath o arwr y tlodion gwledig hefyd yn gor-symleiddio’r sefyllfa. Mae pobl mewn ardaloedd gwledig yn fwyfwy dibynnol ar nawdd o’r canol – ond mae hynny gan fwyaf oherwydd polisiau economaidd trychinebus y llywodraeth.
Byddai fe yn gamgymeriad, wrth gwrs, i bortreadu Mor Hissein Mousavi fel radical yn nhermau gorllewinol. Fel cyn-brif weinidog mae yn ffyddlon i’r Weriniaeth Islamaidd ac mi oedd ei gyfnod e mewn grym ymhlith y mwayf waedlyd, gyda 30,000 o garcharorion gwleidyddol yn cael eu lladd – er bod ei gefnogwyr yn mentro mai’r Ayatollah Khomeini oedd tu ol i hyn.
Mae yn wir bod Mousavi yn gyn-sosialydd, ar adain chwith y Chwyldro Islamaidd. Mae ei wraig, Zahra Rahnavard, yn llawer mwy radical hyd yn oed na fe, yn gyn-ganghellor prifysgol, yr unig fenyw i ddal swydd tebyg ers y saithdegau ac o fewn y cyd-destun Iranaidd yn ymgyrchydd dros hawliau menywod. Yr hyn sydd yn ddiddorol amdani hi a’i gwr yw eu bod nhw yn ddilynwyr Ali Sharia’ati – un o feddylwyr pwysicaf Islam yn yr ugeinfed ganrif, sydd yn anadnabyddus yn y Gorllewin er iddo farw – o bob man – yn Southampton yn 1977. Fe geisiodd Sharia’ati cyfuno Islam a sosialaeth mewn rhyw fath o adlais Moslemaidd o ddiwyniddiaeth rhyddhad. O fewn ei ddiwylliant brodorol fe gyferbynodd e “Shia coch” a phwyslais ar gyfiawnder cymdeithasol a “Shia du” a’i bwyslais ar rym clerigol. Yn anffodus, o fewn y Weriniaeth Islamaidd ‘shia du’ yr Ayatollah Khomeini a ennillodd.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
My enemy’s enemy is my friend, goes the old saying. But it was a shock and disappointment to hear the President of Venezuela, and the Left’s most important and charismatic leader in the last quarter-century, Hugo Chavez, defending his ‘friend’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week in the face of mass protests in Iran and international criticism.
The strange relationship here between the Marxist Latin-American and the Islamic conservative has bloomed for several years. Certainly there’s a little of strategic positioning behind it: Iran is an important ally within OPEC which has helped Venezuela drive higher the price of oil – key to Chavez social programme – the missiones – and his policy of cheap oil to nearby socialist countries such as Cuba.
And yet when you see photographs of fifteen year old boys being hung for being gay, it’s difficult to justify this through realpolitik. Trying to portray Ahmadinejad as some sort of hero of the rural poor is also to over-simplify the situation. People in rural areas are more and more dependent upon support from the centre – but this is mostly because of the government’s disastrous economic policies.
It would be a mistake, of course, to portray Mor Hissein Mousavi as a radical in Western terms. As former prime minister he is faithful to the Islamic Republic and his term in power was amongst the most bloody, with 30,000 political prisoners being killed, although his supporters venture that the Ayahtolah Khomeini was behind this.
It’s true that Mousavi is a former socialist, on the left wing of the Islamic Revolution. His wife, Zahra Rahnavard, much more radical even than he is, is a former university chancellor – the only woman to hold this post since the seventies and, in the Iranian context, a campaigner for women’s rights. What is interesting about her and her husband is that they are followers of Ali Sharia’ati – one of Islam’s most important thinkers of the twentieth centuries, who was unknown in the West despite his death – in all places – in Southampton in 1977. Sharia’ati tried to merge Islam and socialism in some form of Moslem echo of theological freedom. In his native culture he opposed ‘Red Shia’ with the emphasis on social justice with ‘Black Shia’ with its emphasis on clerical power. Unfortunately, inside the Islamic Republic, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini’s ‘Shia Du’ which won.
BNP
Er gwaetha’r cynnydd yng nghefnogaeth y Blaid a’n llwyddiant yn ein cadarnleoedd, mae’r anfadwaith bod pleidiau cenedlaetholaidd Prydeining wedi gwneud bron cystal a’r Blaid Genedlaethol Gymreig yn yr Etholiadau Ewropeaidd yng Nghymru dal yn fy mhoeni. Gobiethio bod hyn yn pigo cydwybod pob gwladgarwr wnaeth aros gatre, ond mae’n gyfrifoldeb arna i ofyn beth a ellir gwneud yn well neu’n wahanol. Yn hen draddodiad y trioedd, dyma dair, taer awgrym.
Rhaid i ni beidio ymddiheuro am ein cenedlaetholdeb. Yn oes globaleiddio mae gwleidyddiaeth hunaniaeth a’r amgen am ail-wreiddio grym gwleidyddol mewn cymunedau lleol a chenedlaethol yn ganolog i’n cyfnod. Dyna yn rhannol sydd wrth wraidd twf y Dde Brydeinig; consyrn gwirioneddol am bwer anatebol, boed yn sefydliadau Ewropeaidd annemocrataidd neu gorfforaethau’n ecsploetio llafur rhad.
Ein cyfrifoldeb a’n cyfle fel cenedlatholwyr Cymreig yw dangos bod yna ddewis amgen i hunaniaeth Brydeinig, hiliol y BNP (fyddai yn hala Colin Jackson ‘adre’, ond nid y mewnfudwr i Faldwyn, Gauleiter Griffin) a gwrth-Gymreig UKIP (sydd am ddileu’r Cynulliad ynghyd ag unrhyw fesur o ddwyieithrwydd). Mae hyn yn golygu gwella’n gallu i gynhyrchu negeseuon syml, gafaelgar: mi oedd neges UKIP, a’r BNP, dim ots pa mor wyrdroedig, yn hawdd i’w cofio ac yn uniongyrchol. Rhaid i ni greu neges o genedligrwydd cynhwysol Gymreig sydd yr un mor rymus emosiynol.
Yn ail, mae rhaid i ni dargedu’r dosbarth gweithiol sydd wedi eu bradychu gan Lafur newydd ac sydd nawr yn chwilio am gartref gwleidyddol newydd. Ar wahan i’r Cymoedd, mae’r Blaid wedi bod yn blaid y dosbarth canol Cymraeg am gyfran helaeth o’i bodolaaeth. Pan ymunodd fy nheulu i a’r Blaid yn ystod Streic y Glowyr, roedd e’n dipyn o sioc ddiwylliant i’r Blaid yn lleol. O fewn rhai misoedd, mi holltodd y gangen yn ddau: un yn cwrdd yn Neuadd Les y Glowyr a’r llall yn hen dy rheolwr yr Ammanford Colliery Company a oedd bellach yn ‘country club’ y Wernoleu. Mae’r Blaid a Rhydaman wedi mynd ar siwrnai gwleidyddol ers y ddyddiau hynny – ond os ydym am wireddu ein potensial fel yr ydym yn Sir Gar ac yn hen ardaloedd y chwareli, rhaid i ni droi nid yn unig yn Blaid Cymru, ond plaid pobl cyffredin trwy Gymru gyfan.
Yn olaf, mae rhaid i ni ffurfio cynghreiriau. Hen alwad gen i erbyn hyn, ond mae’r canlyniadau diwedderaraf a llwyddiant y Dde yn arbennig yn profi’r angen am gydweithio ar y Chwith. Pe bae’r Gwyrddion yng Nghymru wedi cytuno i’n galwad ni am restr ar y cyd i’r Etholiadau yma mae’n siwr gen i y byddwn wedi dod yn gyntaf a, gyda phum mil ychwanegol o bleidleisiau, wedi llwyddo i guro UKIP gan roi i’r Gwyrddion Cymreig eu Haelod cyntaf yn Ewrop. Mae’r un peth yn wir am Mebyon Kernow a’r Gwyrddion yn Ne-Orllewin Lloegr fyddai wedi ennill sedd oddi wrth y Toriaid wrth sefyll ar y cyd. A’r Dde ar garlam, nawr yw’r amser i greu clymblaid enfys go iawn i ennill nid yn unig yn Ewrop ym 2014, ond yn bwysicach fyth, yng Nghymru 2011.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Despite the rise in Plaid’s support and our success in our strongholds, the villainy that British nationalist parties have done nearly as well as the Welsh National Party in the European elections still worries me. Hopefully this will prick the conscience every lover of our nation who stayed at home, but I have the responsibility of asking what can be done better or differently. In the old traditions of threes, here are three suggestions.
We must stop apologising for our nationalism. In a world of globalisation, identity politics and the alternative of re-rooting political power in local and national communities is central to our era. This, in part, is the root of the British Right’s growth: genuine concern about unaccountable power, in undemocratic European institutions or bodies exploiting cheap labour.
Our responsibility and our opportunity as Welsh nationalists is to show that there is alternative option to the British identifying, racist BNP (who would send Colin Jackson ‘home’, but not the Mongomeryshire immigrant, Gauleiter Griffin) and the anti-Welsh UKIP (who would abolish the Assembly as well as any level of bilingualism). This means improving our ability to produce simple, gripping messages: UKIP’s message, and the BNP’s, no matter how perverted, is easy to remember and direct. We have to create an inclusive Welsh nationalist message that has the same emotional force.
Secondly, we have to target the working classes who have been betrayed by New Labour and who are now looking for a new political home. Except for the Valleys, Plaid has been the party of middle-class Welsh speakers for a large part of its existence. When my family joined Plaid during the Miners’ Strike, it was a bit of a shock to the party’s local culture. Within a few months, the branch split in two: one meeting in the Miners’ Welfare Hall and the other in the old Ammanford Colliery Company manager’s house that was now the Wernoleu’s country club. Plaid and Ammanford have been on a political journey since those days – but if we are to achieve our potential as we are in Carmarthenshire and in the old quarry areas, we have to become not only a Party of Wales, but a party for all ordinary people across Wales.
Finally, we must form alliances. It’s an old call of mine by now, but recent results and the success of the Right especially prove the need for co-operation on the Left. If the Greens in Wales had agreed to our call for a joint list for these elections I’m sure we’d have come first and, with five thousand extra votes, succeeded in beating UKIP and given the Welsh Greens their first member in Europe. The same is true of Mebyon Kernow and the Greens in South-West England who would have won a seat from the Tories by standing together. With the Right on the rise, now is the time to create a real rainbow coalition to win not only in Europe in 2014, but more importantly, in Wales 2011.
Etholiadau Ewrop / European Elections
Do, ni chaethon ni’r ail sedd a fe ddaethon ni’n drydydd, ond mi oedd hon, serch hynny, yn ganlyniad da i Blaid Cymru. Daeth y Blaid o fewn 20,000 – neu 2.7% y cant yn unig o’r bleidlais – i ddod yn gyntaf. Mae hyn o fewn cyd-destun yr etholiad Ewropeaidd mwyaf Prydeinllyd erioed yn wyneb yr holl ffocws ar y sgandal treuliau. Does dim gwasg Gymreig a does gyda’r Blaid ddim yr adnoddau sydd gan y pleidiau eraill, y Ceidwadwyr yn arbennig. Er hynny fe aeth ein pleiadlais ni i fyny 1.1% a’r Toriaid 1.8% , sy’n ganlyniad credadwy iawn. Ac mae’r rhan fwyaf o sylwebyddion yn cydnabod taw’r Blaid – fel yn 2007 – a gafodd yr ymgyrch orau.
Penderfynon ni flwyddyn yn ol i ddefnyddio’r Etholiad Ewropeaidd yn bennaf fel cyfle i adeiladu tuag at yr Etholiad nesaf yn San Steffan Cafodd ein hadnoddau eu sianeli felly at saith sedd: Ynys Mon, Arfon, Conwy, Meirionnydd, Ceredigion, Dwyrain Caerfyrddin, a Llanelli. Fe gyrrhaeddon ni’r nod wrth ennill ym mhob un o’r saith sedd. Nid cyd-ddigwyddiad oedd hyn ond arwydd o Blaid sydd ag adnoddau cyfyngedig yn ymgyrchu yn effiethiol ac yn effeithlon. Mae hyn yn adlewyrchu talent y tim ifanc yn Nhy Gwynfor ond hefyd lefel uwch o weithgarwch gan actifyddion y Blaid na welwyd mewn ymgyrch Ewropeaidd ers ymdrech Dafydd Wigley ym 1994.
Hawdd fasai cymharu’r Blaid gyda’r SNP. Rhaid atgoffa’n hunain bob amser am y gwahaniaethau sylfaenol yn sefyllfa Cymru: y ffin a Lloegr yn un hir ac yn agos i ganolfannau poblogaeth Lloegr, lle bod un yr Alban yn gyfyng ac yn bell. Mae dylanwadau Seisnig – yn uniongyrchol ac anuniongyrchol, o symudiadau poblogaeth ac effaith teledu rhanbarthol yn Lloegr – ar ein gwleidyddiaeth yn amlwg. Mae’r ffaith bod UKIP yn cael dros ddwbl y bleidlais yn Nghymru maen nhw’n cael yn yr Alban yn rhannol yn arwydd o hyn.
Yn y Cymoedd, mae yna arwyddion addawol bod y Blaid unwaith eto ar gynnydd. Daethon ni o fewn 500 bron i ennill yng Nghaerffili ac yn ail ym mron bob man arall, gan gynnwys Merthyr, er enghraifft, lle nad oes gyda ni unrhyw beirianwaith a lle mae gan y Rhyddfrydwyr rhyw hanner dwswin o gynghorwyr. Mae’r Uned Ddatblygu newydd mae’r Blaid wedi cyhoeddi yn sgil y canlyniadau a’r nod o adeiladu ar y potensial hyn. Mae’r wobr o ddod yn gyntaf yn genedlaethol yno i ni hefyd os cydiwn yn y cyfle yn 2011.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – — -
Yes, we didn’t get the second seat and we came third, but, despite that, it was a good result for Plaid Cymru. Plaid came within 20,000 – or only 2.7% of the vote – of being first. This within the context of the most British European election ever, in the face of the entire focus on expenses scandals. There isn’t a Welsh press and Plaid doesn’t have the resources of the other parties, especially the Conservatives. Despite that, our vote went up by 1.1%, with the Tories up 1.8%, making a very credible result. And the majority of commentators admit that Plaid, as in 2007, had the best campaign.
We decided a year ago to use the European Elections mostly as an opportunity to build towards the next Westminster elections. Our resources were therefore channelled towards seven seats – Ynys Mon, Conwy, Meirionydd, Caernarfon, Ceredigion, Carmarthen East and Llanelli. We achieveed our aims by winning each and every one of the seven seats. This wasn’t a co-incidence but a sign that Plaid, with limited resources, campaign effectively and efficiently. This reflects the talent of the young team at Ty Gwynfor, but also the high level of activity by Plaid activists, not seen in a European campaign since Dafydd Wigley’s efforts in 1994.
It would be easy to compare Plaid with the SNP. But we must remind ourselves each time about the basic differences in the Welsh situation: the border with England is long and close to English population centres, whereas that of Scotland is narrow and far away. Anglo-influences on our politics, both direct and indirect, from population movements to the effect of English regional television, are obvious. The fact that UKIP has more than double the vote in Wales that they have in Scotland is partly a sign of this.
In the Valleys, there are promising signs that Plaid are once more growing. We came within 500 votes to almost win in Caerphilly and second almost everywhere else, including Merthyr, for example, where we haven’t any party machine but where the Lib Dems have some half a dozen councillors. The new Development Unit that Plaid has announced as a consequence of these results has the aim of building on this potential. The prize of coming first nationally is there too, if the opportunity is grasped in 2011.
Dewis Lerpwl yn gartref newydd i’r Senedd / Choose Liverpool as Parliament’s new home
Fel y bydd darllenwyr y golofn hon yn sylweddoli, ar ol wyth mlynedd o fwrw fy mhen yn erbyn colofnau carreg San Steffan dwi ychydig bach yn besimistaidd ynghylch y gallu i ddiwygio San Steffan.
Rhan fawr o’r broblem, fel oedd Aneurin Bevan yn nodi yn ei lyfr In Place Of Fear, yw’r adeilad. Y model ar gyfer y cynllun newydd wedi dinistrio’r hen Senedd oedd yr eglwys gadeiriol. Ond tra oedd penseiri’r Canol Oesoedd yn ceisio creu ofn yn wyneb gogoniant Duw, mawrygu grym y Wladwriaeth oedd diben cynllunwyr y Senedd. Dieithriaid yw’r cyhoedd. Dar dyrchafad (portcullis) yw’r sumbol. Mae hynny yn crynhoi’r lle yn eitha da, dwi’n meddwl.
Tu fewn i’r muriau trwchus mae Aelodau yn cael eu trin fel Man-Uchelwyr a phorthororion yn agor drysau i chi byth a beunydd. Ym moethusrwydd clyd, croesawgar yr Ystafell De a’r Ystafell Ysmygu mae’r walydd wedi gorchuddio gan bren fel yng nghlybiau dirhifedi Pall Mall.
I gynnyrch Eton, Caergrawnt a’r Inns of Court mae yna rhywbeth cyfarwydd hoffus am glastiroedd (cloisters) y Senedd. Ond i’r weddill o honon ni y mae’r lle yn cynrychioli pob ansoddair anffodus sydd yn crisialu ein cyfansoddiad: elitaidd, adweithiol, mewnblyg, hynafol.
Mae hyn yn fwriadol. Fel dywedodd Churchill – wnaeth oruwchwylio ail-adeiladu’r Siambr ar ol ei fomio gan y Luftwaffe – ni sydd yn siapio ein hadeiladau, a’n hadeiladau yn eu tro yn ein siapio ni.
I geisio adfer y sefyllfa beth am ddychwelyd at syniad y crybwyllais i rhai blynyddoedd yn ol erbyn hyn a symud y sioe i safle newydd rhywle yng ngogledd Lloegr.
Does dim rheswm pam y dylai senedd gwlad fod o hyd yn y ddinas fwyaf (meddyliwch am Ottawa, Canberra a Brasilia).
Lerpwl yw’r opsiwn gorau i mi gyda’i chefndir Eingl-Geltaidd. Does bosib y gallwn ffeindio llety rhad i ASau yno. A gallwn troi San Steffan yn amgueddfa a’i gyfuno efallai gyda Madam Tussauds.
Byddai Senedd fodern dryloyw yng nghanol dinas o bobl cyffredin ymhell o fywyd artiffisial a breintiedig pentref San Steffan, pwy a wyr, efallai yn creu democratiaeth modern…fel mae wedi gwneud ar lannau’r Taf.
Gobeithio y bydd hi’n gartre i waed newydd. Nid hap a damwain oedd hi taw 26 mlwydd oed oedd cyfartaledd oedran Cynulliad Cenedlaethol y Chwyldro Ffrengig ym 1792. Vive la Revolution.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
As readers of this column will have realised, after eight years of banging my head against Westminster’s stone walls, I am a little pessimistic about reforming Westminster.
A large part of the problem, as Aneurin Bevan noted in his book, In Place of Fear, is the building. The model for the new plans after the destruction of old Parliament was the cathedral. But while Middle Age architects tried to create fear in the face of God Almighty, imposing the State’s power was the aim of Parliament’s designers. The public are strangers. The symbol is the portcullis gate. This sums up the place quite well, I think.
Inside the thick walls Members are treated as Supermen with gatekeepers who open doors to you each and every day. In the welcoming, sheltered luxury of the Tea Room and the Smoking Room the walls have been panelled with wood like in countless Pall Mall clubs.
To the products of Eton, Cambridge and the Inns of Court there is something affectionately familiar about Parliament’s Cloisters. But to the rest of us the place represent every invidious adjective that captures our constitution: elitist, reactionary, introverted, archaic.
This is intentional. As Churchill said, who oversaw the re-building of the chamber after its’ bombing by the Luftwaffe – we shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.
To try to revive the situation, what about returning to an idea I mentioned a few years ago now and move the show to a new place somewhere in northern England.
There is no reason why a parliament should still be in the largest city (think about Ottawa, Canberra and Brasilia).
Liverpool is the best option to me, with its Anglo-Celtic background. It wouldn’t be impossible to find cheap accommodation for MPs there. And Westminster could become a museum, perhaps merged with Madam Tussauds.
A modern, transparent Parliament in a city centre of normal people, far from the artificial world and privileged Westminster Village would, who knows, maybe create a modern democracy…as has been done on the banks of the Taff.
Hopefully it will be a home for new blood. It wasn’t coincidental that 26 years old was the average age of the French Revolution’s National Assembly in 1792. Vive la Revolution.
25th June 2009
Those who lead us cannot mislead us and expect to get away with it: My speach for the Iraq inquiry debate
Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC):
At this point in the proceedings, we begin to echo each other, and we are doing so today across the Floor of the House. It might be repetitive but, at times such as this, we begin, as a House, to get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that this inquiry is not just about the specific events leading up to the war or about its aftermath. It is also about our constitution and the way in which we conduct our democracy. That is its importance. The House has an opportunity today to restore the proper balance of power in this country.
We need to accept our share of the collective responsibility. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) referred to the many institutional failings that lie at the heart of this terrible, tragic, unnecessary war. Unfortunately, Parliament also played its part in that, on 18 March 2003, and it is now up to Parliament to play its part in making amends for that mistake. We have the opportunity to do that today.
Most of the Labour Members who have spoken today—indeed, most of the Labour Back Benchers who have attended the debate—voted against the war on that day. I ask them to join us in voting for the motion in the name of the official Opposition today. I speak as a miner’s son from Ammanford, and I mean no personal disrespect when I say that, on occasion, it is difficult for me to join the Conservatives in the Lobby. Today, however, the Opposition are doing what an Opposition should do: we are probing the contradictions in the Government’s stated position. We had a new Prime Minister who said that he wanted to restore the proper balance of power between Parliament and the Executive, but does anyone seriously believe that he would have rowed back so fast and so furiously if the Opposition had not tabled this motion on the openness of the inquiry?
Today, we have to push the Prime Minister even further, on the key question of the terms of reference. The line of accountability on this issue, which is a stain on our democracy, has to lie through Parliament to the people, who are the ultimate arbiters. It should not
involve the Privy Council or a hand-picked group of people whose accountability is fundamentally to the Prime Minister. We cannot allow that mistake to happen again. It was that very concentration of power that got us into this mess in the first place.
Let us go back a century, to the time when some would say we moved away from a balanced constitution. The House of Lords lost its power to this House, then, in the 20th century, this House lost its power to the Cabinet. Finally, the Cabinet was sidelined and power was concentrated in the hands of one man. The power symbolised by the Mace—the royal prerogative—was placed in the hands of one man and a small cabal of advisers. That was what led to the terrible tragedy of the Iraq war, and that is what we, as a House, must now put right. We shall do that by voting for the motion and insisting that this inquiry into the war has to report to us in terms that we have set.
I remember when the then Prime Minister spoke at that Dispatch Box on that terrible day for our democracy. He referred to the UN inspectors’ reports, which contained, he said, unanswered questions and
“29 different areas in which the inspectors have been unable to obtain information”.—[ Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 763.]
He used that terrible Rumsfeldian logic. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the fact that there was no evidence of WMD did not mean that the WMD were not there. That was sufficient reason—justification—for the war.
I did not believe a word that the Prime Minister said, but many hon. Members believed that it was not possible for a serving Prime Minister to lie to the House and to the people. Because he is no longer a Member of the House, I no longer have to fear being ejected for saying what many people believe: we were misled and the House was misled on a matter so serious—life or death, peace or war. That is why it is our responsibility tonight to get to the heart of the matter, both the specifics of the Iraq war and how our democracy and our machinery of government were so terribly undermined. We have to establish the truth and ensure that that never happens again—and yes, if as a result of that the inquiry believes that it must attribute blame, it should be free to do so if there is individual culpability, as many of us believe.
There are three key issues that the inquiry must consider and which have been touched on by many hon. and right hon. Members. On the motivation for the war, I believe that WMD were the pretext. As we have heard, various minutes and the Downing street memos that have emerged subsequent to the Butler inquiry suggest clearly, as Wolfowitz said, that WMD were simply the bureaucratic rationale. The real reason lay elsewhere, and it was regime change all along.
On legality, the contribution made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) was fascinating and it chimes with what Philippe Sands said in his book, “Lawless World”: the Butler inquiry saw correspondence between Ministers that the Cabinet never saw and which raised serious doubts about the legality of the war, and indeed shared some doubts that Colin Powell had about its legality.
We now know that the legal advisers in the Foreign Ministry of the Dutch Government believed that
“the Netherlands would lose any case brought before the International Court of Justice”.
Interestingly, written on that memorandum were the words:
“Bury it well in the archives for future generations.”
Our memorandums will not be buried. We owe it to future generations to ensure that this does not happen again.
Will there be prima facie evidence? Will the inquiry conclude that there is evidence that the war was indeed unlawful? We must remember that in November, Lord Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice and senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom, said that the Attorney-General’s advice to the British Government contained
“no hard evidence”,
that Iraq had defied UN resolutions
“in a manner justifying resort to force”
and that the invasion—the Iraq war—was
“a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law”
in this country as well.
Barry Gardiner:
Does the hon. Gentleman recall the words of resolution 1441, which includes the words:
“Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations… Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687”?
Chapter VII, of course, is the only chapter of the UN charter that justifies the use of force.
Adam Price:
That point was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood when she said that there was no automaticity as a result of that resolution and that a second resolution was required. The Government changed their position when they could not get the second resolution—that is the reality of it—and they misled the House, the UN and the people of this country.
I believe that if the inquiry concludes—as the senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom has concluded—that the war was indeed unlawful, the Government should voluntarily report themselves. They should report the Iraq war to the International Court of Justice for a declaratory opinion so that we can ensure that, for the avoidance of doubt, it is established in international law for future generations, and so that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the 179 British servicemen and women who lost their lives will not have lost them in vain. We will then have established a core principle in our democracy: that those who lead us cannot mislead us and expect to get away with it.
There is a fundamental principle in the way in which we govern relations between the nations of this world, and it is called the law. It is time for us, as a House of Commons, to undo the wrong of six years ago and vote for the motion. Sometimes it is necessary to have a parliamentary insurrection. I believe that Labour Members would be in tune with the best principles and traditions of the Labour party if they joined the official Opposition in the Lobby tonight. They may have their own reasons for doing so—many of us are mixtures of altruism and self-interest—but we know what it is right for us as a House of Commons to do tonight, and that is to unite behind an amendment calling for a proper inquiry that deserves the respect of the people of this country.