Parliament: Waging War (Constitution Committee Report)

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I say to him that there are few people for whom it is worth waiting more than it is worth waiting for him. The report is of such significance that it, too, was worth waiting for. I do not believe that I shall be alone in sayingthat I welcome the sensible recommendations in the report. They seem timely and self-evidently relevant. There are observations in the text of the reportthat are also important and worthy of serious consideration. I will focus for a moment on the reflections on the difference between war and armed conflict and the importance of care in terminology. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, when he replies, will agree with me on both these observations. As the noble Lord said, this is not an abstract or academic issue; it is an immediate and acute issue. He was right, and I was reassured to hear, that the issue has to be approached in the context not only of what was happening when the committee was deliberating but what is happening as we discuss the reportthis afternoon. There is bitter fighting in Iraq. Courageous men and women are serving on our behalf in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Deplorably large numbers of innocent civilians are being killed. All of this has immense implications not only for those countries but for the entire region and the world. Huge demands are being made on our armed services. All of us in both Houses are individually and collectively morally responsible for those who are serving on our behalf. It is therefore right to spend time reflecting on how we have acquired that responsibility, because we need to consider how a responsibility of this magnitude is shouldered in the future. There are some interesting quotations in the report. I was glad that evidence was forthcoming from people with distinguished service experience. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I emphasise a few parts of the report that made a particular impression on me. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, put his position as follows: "““all my experience over conducting or being involved with the conduct of several wars over the last five or six years or so is that those allies who go through the parliamentary process are frankly in my view not as operationally effective as those who do not ... I cannot see any advantage whatsoever in shedding the current practice of going to war from an operator's point of view. I believe it would make us operationally far less effective and we would probably start to lose””." Coming from a former Chief of the Defence Staff, those words cannot be lightly dismissed. But, with the greatest respect, he does not reflect the reality ofthe age in which we live—the reality of instant communication, instant analysis and very well informed debate that inevitably takes place around a conflict of any significance. I turn to the words of General Sir Michael Rose, who said: "““It would be enormously advantageous to members of the armed forces for such a formal and legal justification to be made by the government before entering into armed conflict. There can be no more debilitating effect on the morale of members of the armed forces [than] for them to know that their country does not support the mission or that the case for war is based on doubtful moral or legal arguments””." Throughout the story of the Iraq conflict, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has given powerful leadership in our debates and discussions in this House. The report sums up his position as follows: "““Field Marshal Lord Bramall considered that the Armed Forces would like to know three things before being committed to a large scale military operation: that they had the support of the country; that they had the support of Parliament and that what they had been asked to do was legal””." It is important that we take seriously and sombrely the observations of people with that kind of military background. The report also contained interesting quotations from other significant people. I note that the words of my right honourable friend Gordon Brown were quoted in the report. He said: "““Now that there has been a vote on these issues so clearly and in such controversial circumstances, I think it is unlikely that except in the most exceptional circumstances a government would choose not to have a vote in Parliament. I think Tony Blair would join me in saying that, having put this decision to Parliament, people would expect these kinds of decisions to go before Parliament””." Indeed, what were the words of the Prime Minister? They are quoted as part of the Government’s response to the report: "““The Prime Minister made clear at the Liaison Committee on 7 February 2006 ‘The fact of the matter is that I cannot conceive of a situation in which a Government … is going to go to ""war—except in circumstances where militarily for the securityof the country it needs to act immediately—without a full parliamentary debate’””." So I suggest to the noble Lord that there is room to take some heart about the possibilities. I want to dwell on one matter in my final minutes. There is a reference in the report to the United Nations. I am glad that it is there but, frankly, I wish that the report had said a bit more about it. In my early, formative years of political consciousness,the creation of the United Nations was a terribly important and significant step. I sometimes think that we forget that its foundations were laid not in 1945 but in 1942—in the most intense years of the war, when people were looking to what would be necessary to ensure peace and stability for the future of humanity. We argue that, whatever reforms take place in the United Nations, there can be no question of giving up our permanent seat on the Security Council. We were primary movers in the creation of the United Nations and leading experts among the draftsmen of the UN charter but, if we want this status in the global community, we have to show our commitment to living by what we have put our names to as essential for the stability of the world. That is set out right at the beginning in Article 1: "““To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace””." Discussing the nature of membership, the charter says: "““All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered … All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes””." Again on the subject of membership, Article 4 states: "““Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations””." We stated what is required and then became founders of the organisation that makes these demands. It therefore seems self-evident that we have to be exemplary in our commitment. On the specific settlement of disputes, the charter says: "““The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice””." The word ““enquiry”” stands out. Surely one anxiety at the time of the Iraq war was that the UN had embarked on exactly that course: its own inspectors were conducting an inquiry into the threat. There were those—I find myself in an unqualified position among them—who said that it was therefore ludicrous to suggest that we should move into action before the inspectors, who are referred to in, and endorsed by, the charter, had had time to report and before their report could be considered. Indeed, Article 34 repeats the point about investigation. I could go on quoting the charter, but it does notrule out force. It says that it has to be with the endorsement of the international community ifneed be. As a final observation, I take those legal and moral obligations to the UN as central to our approach on the need on any occasion to wage war. But it is not just a formal, legalistic requirement. Just as we need to have a strong national consensus behind our armed services when they are put into extremely demanding and difficult circumstances, so it is necessary when one is undertaking a war or military action with profound global implications, to ensure that one has built a sufficient global consensus for what is being undertaken. We have to have that in mind when talking about waging war, as well as the excellent recommendations put forward by the committee.