The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Iraq (No-fly Zone)
Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his
Department's estimate is of the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a
result of coalition aircraft responding to threats in (a) the northern and
(b) the southern no-fly zone in Iraq between (i) 1 April 1991 and 16
December 1998 and (ii) since 20 December 1998 through (A) collateral damage,
(B) attack on an unintended target and (C) malfunction of
ordnance; what percentage of attacks in the no-fly zones resulted in
civilian casualties over each of these periods, and if he will make a
statement. [145423]
Mr. Hoon: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave on
6 June 2000, Official Report, columns 168-69W.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many
occasions coalition aircraft patrolling the (a) northern and (b)
southern no-fly zone in Iraq have hit targets different from the intended
target since 20 December 1998; on what dates each attack took place;
what percentage these represented of overall attacks during this period; and
if he will make a statement. [145425]
Mr. Hoon: The coalition goes to exceptional lengths to avoid hitting
anything other than the intended target, including through the use of very
strict target clearance procedures and precision guided munitions. We also
routinely conduct painstaking battle damage assessment after every
bomb is dropped. For these reasons we are confident that, in the vast
majority of cases, ordnance released by coalition aircraft lands on or very
close to its intended target.
I am withholding detailed information on the activity undertaken by
coalition aircraft in accordance with Part II of Section 1c of the Code of
Practice on Access to Government Information.
For the period 20 December 1998 to 12 May 2000, I refer the right hon. and
learned Member to my answer to his question on 6 June 2000,
Official Report, columns 168-69W. There have been no further occasions of
ordnance from UK aircraft appearing to hit unintended targets. The
weapons released on these two previous occasions still represents some 1 per
cent. of ordnance released by UK over this period.
23 Jan 2001 : Column: 533W
Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many
occasions (a) coalition and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the
southern no-fly zone in Iraq have released ordnance in response to
violations since 1 November 2000 indicating in percentage terms for this
period the (i) nature of the threat, (ii) category of the target attacked
and (iii) tonnage of ordnance released on each category of target (A) in
total
and (B) as proportion of the overall tonnage released in this period; and if
he will make a statement. [145461]
Mr. Hoon: Between 1 November 2000 and 12 January 2001 coalition aircrew
conducting legitimate humanitarian patrols in the southern no-fly
zone were directly threatened by the Iraqi air defence forces on 24
occasions and responded in self-defence on nine occasions against Iraqi
military facilities posing a direct threat to coalition forces. UK aircraft
released ordnance on four occasions. Details of the threats to coalition
aircraft, broken down by percentage, are:
(i) Nature of threat by percentage
Aircraft Violations of Southern no-fly zone: 3 per cent.
Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Surface to Air Missile Firings: 97 per cent.
(ii) Category of Target Attacked by percentage
Integrated Air Defence System: 100 per cent.
(iii) UK Weapons Released against Integrated Ground Based Air Defence
System
(a) By tonnage: 4 tonnes
(b) By percentage: 100 per cent.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many
occasions since 20 December 1998 his Department has
been able to verify the claims of civilian casualties due to coalition
aircraft activity over the no-fly zones made by the Government of Iraq; what
percentage of Iraqi claims of civilian dead his Department considers to be
accurate in relation to (a) number of dead and (b) occasions when
coalition activity has resulted in casualties; and if he will make a
statement. [145468]
Mr. Hoon: The Ministry of Defence has no objective means of verifying Iraqi
claims of civilian casualties. I am not therefore in a position to
provide the precise information requested by the right hon. and learned
Member.
Coalition aircraft conducting legitimate, entirely humanitarian patrols of
the Iraqi no-fly zones are being repeatedly attacked by Iraqi forces.
Faced with these acts of aggression coalition aircraft, acting entirely in
self-defence, only ever target Iraqi military facilities that pose an
immediate and serious threat to their safety. It is deeply regrettable that
they are forced to take this action, but they are only acting in
self-defence. The risk of civilian casualties is always a major
consideration during the very careful target selection process and only
precision-guided weapons are used where there is any risk of civilian
casualties.
As the right hon. and learned Member implies, Saddam Hussein routinely
claims that civilian casualties have been caused as a result of
coalition activity over the no-fly zones. It is in his interests to do so.
We learnt long ago not to give too much credence to these allegations. We
conduct careful battle damage assessment (BDA) after every incident; this
analysis demonstrates in the majority of cases that the coalition
weapons have, acting in self-defence, in fact hit their intended military
target. The
23 Jan 2001 : Column: 534W
Iraqis regularly claim that there have been civilian casualties on days when
the coalition has not even patrolled, let alone dropped any ordnance,
and we know that they routinely claim that civilians have been killed when
the casualties were actually military personnel. We know also that
Saddam has claimed the coalition was responsible for casualties that were in
fact caused by Iraqi air defence weapons.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much
additional expenditure has been incurred by his Department as a
direct result of operations in the Gulf (a) between 1 August 1992 and 15
December 1998 and (b) since 16 December 1998, indicating in each
time period the percentage of that expenditure relating to (i) personnel,
(ii) base expenses, (iii) munitions, (iv) aircraft and fuel, (v)
intelligence
and (vi) other; and if he will make a statement. [145424]
Mr. Hoon: The information is not available in the form requested. The table
sets out the total additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of
Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992-93 onwards.
Year
£ million
1992-93
551
1993-94
179
1994-95
58
1995-96
14
1996-97
6
1997-98
16
1998-99
35
1999-2000
28
2000-01(9)
24
(9) Estimate
This expenditure relates to residual costs incurred during the Gulf War, the
enforcement of the no-fly zone since 1991 and the associated
deployments of naval, air and ground forces in support of our policy of
containing Iraq. These figures do not include routine naval deployments to
the Gulf.
33. Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with
opposition groups in Iraq about the effect of sanctions. [145067]
Mr. Hain: Ministers and officials keep in regular contact with
representatives of the Iraqi opposition on all aspects of our Iraq policy.
The Iraqi
National Congress, perhaps the most significant opposition grouping, makes
clear that it holds Saddam Hussein directly responsible for the
suffering of the Iraqi people, and wishes to ensure that he can never again
attack his own people or his neighbours with weapons of mass
destruction.
35. Mr. Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs if he will make a statement on Iraq. [145069]
Mr. Hain: Ten years after the outbreak of the Gulf war, we remember the
allied service-men who lost their lives in the successful operation to
expel Iraq from Kuwait. Kuwait is now prospering free from Iraqi tyranny.
However, we should not forget the Kuwaitis missing since the
occupation. I urge Iraq to co-operate with the Tripartite Commission, which
is tracing the Kuwaiti missing.
Since the Gulf war, our policy has contained the threat posed by the Iraqi
regime. In the last 10 years, Iraq has not used chemical weapons
against the Kurds or Iran or invaded its neighbours. Nor has it fired Scud
missiles at Israel or Saudi Arabia. Before sanctions, Iraq did all of
these. That is why Britain will continue to support sanctions and the no-fly
zones until Iraq no longer represents a threat. This anniversary should
be a reminder to us all of why it is necessary to contain the Iraqi threat
now as it was 10 years ago.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 offers Iraq a way out of
sanctions. It allows for the suspension of sanctions in return for Iraqi
co-operation with UN weapons inspectors. Britain wants to see sanctions
suspended. Critics of sanctions should unite with us in calling on the
regime to take up this offer rather than playing into Saddam's hands by
supporting his defiance of the UN and international law and prolonging
sanctions. Sanctions could be suspended in a matter of months if UN weapons
inspectors are allowed into Iraq to control Saddam's biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities, which are threatening the region.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
http://www.casi.org.uk