-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. It is
appalling to see terrible pictures once more of men, women
and children in agony from what seems to be a further
chemical attack in Syria. Chemical weapons were rightly
banned after the First World War, nearly a century ago. Does
the noble Baroness agree that we need to have a credible
investigation into what happened in Syria? If it turns out to
be sarin from the regime’s stocks, what actions will be taken
to ensure that this time there is full destruction of all
Syria’s chemical weapons?
-
Like the noble Baroness, I deplore events that cause such
suffering. She is right to point to the action by the
international community over the years to try to ensure that
such vile use of chemical weapons cannot happen. It is
essential that we work together to prevent these events. At 3
pm British time I understand that the debate at the United
Nations should have started—I cannot confirm that because I
have been here and so unable to see it. We will have to wait
to see the decisions on what actions to take. I entirely
agree with the noble Baroness that there must be a thorough
and credible investigation.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, the key point that the Foreign Secretary made was
that all the evidence points to the Assad regime. We have
also heard from the Prime Minister, who called for the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to
conduct an investigation. Of course, it has been gathering
evidence for some time on the use of chemical weapons in
Syria. I welcome the Government’s intention to raise the
matter at the Security Council—but, as the Minister has told
the House on many occasions, it is sometimes difficult to
reach a consensus in the Security Council. Can she tell us
what the Government will do if there is a failure to reach
consensus? Will we take it up in the full UN General
Assembly? The most important point—I know she shares this
view—is that the people responsible must understand that they
will be held fully accountable.
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. My right honourable friend
the Foreign Secretary said a short while ago in Brussels:
“I would like to see those culpable pay a price”.
I do not want to predict the result of today’s debate. It is
predicted not to conclude until around 6 pm or 7 pm. It is
clear that we have to try to ensure that nobody will vote
against the resolution. In the past, Russia and China have
done so. I hope that they will think very carefully today
before they take any action other than to support the
resolution before the United Nations.
-
(CB)
My Lords, in welcoming the swift response of Her Majesty’s
Government and the reply that the Minister has just given to
the Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover,
perhaps I might press the Government further on the use of
chemical weapons. We have now seen chemical weapons used
twice in Syria, but they have also been used, allegedly, in
Darfur by the regime of President Omar al-Bashir. We have
seen a chemical weapons attack using a toxic nerve agent in
an international airport in Kuala Lumpur. Does this not all
point to a climate of impunity in which those responsible do
not believe that they will be brought to justice? In pursuing
the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has just made,
will we be pressing also for a referral to the International
Criminal Court of all those responsible for war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide?
-
My thoughts today are very much concentrated on the children
and other civilians who suffered yesterday in Idlib. The
noble Lord will be aware of my previous answers on this
issue, to the effect that in the international field we bring
cases before the International Criminal Court when we are
able to do so, with the agreement of the Security Council.
With regard to Syria, there have been more than two occasions
when the regime has been proven to use chemical weapons—there
have been three. The proof has been gained by the OCPW-UN
Joint Investigative Mechanism, and there are further
investigations afoot.
-
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the recent use of
chemical weapons in Syria—assuming, of course, that the Assad
regime is responsible—flows in part from the failure of the
United States to use military action after Assad’s initial
action in 2013? Does this not demonstrate the importance in
foreign affairs of not promising or threatening that which
you are not prepared to do? I express the hope that President
Trump observes that principle in the context of his relations
with North Korea.
-
My Lords, a principle that we should all follow is to
consider carefully before we commit. All political parties in
all countries sometimes fall short of that objective. Today
we are working together as one with the United States to try
to ensure that the United Nations can agree that we should
put pressure on Syria, including from Russia, to ensure that
these vile events should not happen, whoever commits them.
-
The Lord
My Lords, as the most reverend Primate the said
yesterday, we on these Benches mourn with the people of Idlib
and we pray for justice and an end to violence. However, if
and when peace is finally secured in the region, the scale of
suffering and damage experienced by the people of Syria over
the past six years will demand enormous and costly
international effort if Syria is to be rebuilt. Will Her
Majesty’s Government commit not just to supporting the people
of Syria in the short term but to supporting the decades-long
process of restoration that will inevitably be needed once
the present crisis is over?
-
I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s question and I
certainly give that commitment. At the moment my right
honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is in Brussels at the
Syria conference, where the objective is to get the
international community to not only deliver on the
commitments it made in London last year but to take those
further, for the long-term support of the region.
-
(LD)
My Lords, it is axiomatic that if these events came about as
a result of deliberate action, they constitute a war crime.
Will the Minister bear in mind that, even if they were not
deliberate, they constitute a war crime, since they came
about because of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians?
-
The noble Lord is absolutely right.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, there was no military benefit to the Assad regime
from using chemical weapons in this circumstance—it did not
help militarily—and there is no political benefit. Is there
some internal dynamic that we do not understand within Syria?
I cannot see any reason otherwise why these weapons would be
used.
-
My Lords, who indeed can get into the mind of somebody who—it
has been proven in the past—on at least three occasions used
chemical weapons on his own people? We should all remember
that the conflict started because there were those who wanted
to see democracy in Syria.
-
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the sentiments of the
great human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, who said that
there will be no progress on human rights until we are
even-handed in condemnation? Having said that, does she
further agree that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in
Mosul should be equally condemned? For survivors and for the
relatives of those killed and maimed, it is equally bad.
-
My Lords, where action is taken purposely to bomb civilians
it is a war crime and something that we would condemn. I
would mention, with regard to Mosul, that I am aware of the
recognition there that the Iraqi forces have taken every step
they could to avoid hitting civilians, against an enemy that
uses civilians as human shields.
-
(Con)
My Lords, is there not a case now for trying to talk to the
Syrian regime? We have broken off all relations and refused
to recognise the regime from the outset of the civil war. As
we are not in a position to end this, would it not make a
great deal of sense at least to have some diplomatic contact?
-
No, my Lords, because when we have engaged before we have
been let down. Clear action by the regime has shown that we
are right not to have diplomatic relations. What we are right
to do and what we will continue to do—I give my absolute
assurance to my noble friend—is to seek the path of political
agreement through the Geneva talks. That is the only way
forward to achieve peace.
