Prime Minister’s statement to

the House on Libya

Monday 21 March 2011. Prime Minister David Cameron has secured

comprehensive support from MPs for the military intervention in Libya.

Introducation – Updating the House

Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name
and those of my Rt Hon Friends.

On Saturday British forces went into action over Libya. The first British
cruise missiles were fired from HMS Triumph at 7pm. Subsequently RAF
Tornados were deployed in several missions. This marked the beginning of our
involvement in an international operation…….working with the US and others at
the request of Arab nations……acting to enforce the will of the United Nations.
In line with UN Resolution 1973, there were two aims to these strikes. The
first was to suppress the Libyan air defences and make possible the safe
enforcement of the No Fly Zone. The second was to protect civilians from attack
by the Gaddafi regime.
Good progress has been made.

I can announce to the House today that Coalition forces have largely neutralised
Libyan air defences and that as a result a No Fly Zone has effectively been put in
place over Libya. It is also clear that Coalition forces have helped avert a bloody
massacre in Benghazi. They did so just in the nick of time.

Today I can confirm that RAF Typhoon jets have been deployed to a military
base in southern Italy, within 25 minutes flying time from the Libyan coast. …and
two typhoons will be helping patrol the No Fly Zone this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, I’m sure the whole House will join with me in paying tribute to our
service men and women who are performing with their usual professionalism and
courage. Our thoughts are with their families and loved ones at this time as they
risk their lives to help save the lives of others. Mr Speaker, let me be clear why
these actions have been taken.

On Friday evening President Obama, President Sarkozy and I spelt out the
non-negotiable conditions which Colonel Gaddafi had to meet, under the
requirements of international law set out by UN Security Council Resolution
1973.

First, we said that a cease-fire had to be implemented immediately and that all
attacks against civilians must stop. Second, we said that Gaddafi had to stop
his troops advancing on Benghazi. Third, we said that Gaddafi had to pull his
forces back from Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zawiyah……establish water, electricity
and gas supplies to all areas……and allow humanitarian assistance to reach the
people of Libya.

The removal of Gaddafi’s forces from these towns will safeguard civilians,
enable the aid agencies to operate there safely and guarantee the humanitarian
assistance the UN Resolution demands. So, let me be clear Mr Speaker, the
Government’s view is that these non-negotiable conditions are entirely consistent
with implementing the UN Resolution.

Mr Speaker, Gaddafi responded to the United Nations Resolution by declaring a

ceasefire. But straightaway it was clear that he was breaking that promise.
He continued to push his tanks towards Benghazi as quickly as possible, and to
escalate his actions against Misurata.

On Saturday alone, there were reports of dozens of people killed in Benghazi,

and dozens more in Misurata. Gaddafi lied to the international community. He
continued to brutalise his own people. He was in flagrant breach of the UN
Resolution. It was necessary, legal, and right that he should be stopped – and
that we should stop him.
Necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent him using
military violence against his own people. Legal because we have the backing of
the United Nations Security Council. And right because I believe we should not
stand aside while this dictator murders his own people. And the Arab League and
many others agree.
In the Summit in Paris on Saturday, the Secretary General of the Arab League
and representatives of Arab States……including Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, Iraq, Jordan and Morocco……asserted their support for – and I quote –
“all necessary action, including military, consistent with UNSCR 1973, to ensure
compliance with all its requirements.”

At the meeting the Iraqi foreign minister made clear that the no fly zone over
Northern Iraq had saved thousands of Kurdish lives, possibly even his own.
In terms of active participation, the Qataris are supplying four jets from their
Royal Air Force to help enforce the No Fly Zone. And other Arab nations are
considering their participation.
Mr Speaker, I spoke to the Secretary General of the Arab League this morning,
who confirmed his clear support for all aspects of the UN Resolution and we
agreed it must be implemented.

Alongside America, France and Britain, a significant number of other countries

have now pledged their active support for these operations. Spain has confirmed
its active participation, committing 4 air defence fighters, a tanker aircraft,
a surveillance aircraft, an F-100 frigate and a submarine. Canada has also
committed 6 air defence fighters and two naval vessels. Norway and Denmark
have committed a total of 10 air defence fighters. Belgium has also offered air
defence fighters. Italy has opened important bases in close reach of the Libyan
coast, one of which we are using now.
Greece has excellent facilities and bases only minutes flying time from Benghazi.

Mr Speaker, the message in Paris was loud and clear. The international
community had heeded the call of the Arab nations. Together we assured the
Libyan people of our “determination to be at their side to help them realise their
aspirations and build their future and institutions within a democratic framework.”

How we got here

Mr Speaker, it is important to remember how all this started. Gaddafi’s response

to his people taking to the streets in peaceful protest was utterly brutal. He used
the full might of his armed forces as well as mercenaries against them. That’s
why we pushed for UN Security Council Resolution 1970. This condemned the
Gaddafi regime, imposed a travel ban and assets freeze, and brought in the
International Criminal Court.

At the same time we said contingency planning should also be carried out for
different scenarios including involving military assets and in particular plans for a
no fly zone.
Throughout, we were clear that three tests would need to be met in order to
justify military action. Demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal
basis.
These were met.

Demonstrable need because Gaddafi had so flagrantly ignored the demands

of two UN Security Council Resolutions to end the violence against his people.
Regional support – because it was the people of Libya who first called for
protection from attack. And because they were supported in that call by the Gulf
Co-operation Council, the Arab League and the three African members of the
Security Council.
And legal because of the clear mandate provided by the UN Security Council
Resolution.

Mr Speaker, ahead of today’s debate the government has placed in the Library of
the House a note on the legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military
assets.
It makes clear that the Attorney General has been consulted and that the
Government is satisfied there is a – and I quote – “clear and unequivocal legal
basis” for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution’s
objectives.
The next phase of the operation will continue our focus on maintaining the no fly
zone and protecting the civilian population.

We are in no doubt that Colonel Gaddafi is still arranging his forces to inflict
further attacks on the civilian population – notably in Misurata – and we are
determined to stop him. The message to those in Gaddafi’s forces is clear. We
will not tolerate attacks on civilians and those who support such attacks will be
brought to account for their crimes. Now is the time for those involved in the
Gaddafi regime to desert him. To put down their arms, walk away from their
tanks and stop obeying orders from someone who has brutalised his own people.

Why could we not have waited longer before using force?

Mr Speaker, let me turn to the amendment proposed by the Honorable Members

for Islington North and for Hayes and Harlington. There is much in here that I can
welcome. First, no military actions are without risk, but I can assure the House
that we will of course do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties. Indeed,
last night our RAF pilots aborted their mission when they determined that there
were civilians in close proximity to the identified military targets.

Mr Speaker, this is a clear example of the lengths we will go to in trying to

minimise the risk of civilian casualties. Second, I also agree with the Honorable
Members about the need to avoid the use of depleted uranium and cluster
munitions. We do not use those munitions. Third, I welcome their support for
those struggling for democracy and freedom in the region. And fourth, I agree
wholeheartedly this is no time to step back from determination to advance the
Middle East Peace Process. I often make this point and am happy to do so
again.

But Mr Speaker, I do have to take issue with two crucial points in the
Amendment.
The first is the suggestion that there was time to have further consultations
before undertaking military action. The United Nations gave Gaddafi an
ultimatum and he completely ignored it. To those who say we should wait and
see, I would say we have waited and we’ve seen more than enough.

The House is aware that the Cabinet met and agreed our approach on Friday.
On Saturday morning, as I was travelling to the Paris Summit, the Deputy Prime
Minister Chaired COBR. He was presented with the final analysis of the state
of play on the ground in Libya. The advice was very clear. We were in a race
against time to avoid the slaughter of civilians in Benghazi. All of us would have
hoped to avoid the use of force. And this could have been achieved if Gaddafi
had complied immediately and fully with the requirements of the resolution. But
the fact is that he did not.
And that left us with a choice. Either to use force, strictly in line with the terms of
the Resolution. Or to back down and send a message to Gaddafi that he could
continue brutalising his people.

Remember this is the man who told the world he would show the people of
Benghazi no mercy. I am convinced that to act, with others, was the right
decision. To do otherwise would have completely undermined the United Nations
risking it becoming just another League of Nations.

That is something I would hope this whole House would never wish to see. My
second objection to the Amendment is that it says we should “acknowledge”
rather than “support” UN Security Council Resolution 1973. I think that is
profoundly wrong.
This is an important resolution which the UK helped bring about – and I believe
this House should welcome it.

Has the use of force been reasonable?

Mr Speaker, let me turn to other questions that have been raised in recent days.
First, has the use of force been reasonable? We have undertaken the use of
force in two ways The first has been the suppression of Libyan air defences. This
was absolutely essential to safeguard the security of our pilots and allied pilots
in enforcing the no fly zone. As Prime Minister I would not have been prepared
to sanction our participation in enforcing the no fly zone without doing everything
possible to reduce the risk to our service men and women beforehand.

The second area of activity has been action designed explicitly to safeguard
civilian populations under attack. As the Resolution explicitly authorises, it was
quite clear that the population of Benghazi was under heavy attack, that civilians
were being killed in significant numbers, and that an exodus from the town had
begun. So there was an urgent need to take action to stop the slaughter.

In short, I am absolutely satisfied that all the military actions that the coalition has
undertaken are fully within the authorisation of the United Nations Resolution.
Let me put the issue of targets beyond doubt. Targets must be fully consistent
with the UN Security Council Resolution. We therefore choose our targets to
stop attacks on civilians and to implement the No Fly Zone. We should not give a
running commentary on targeting. I don’t propose to say any more on this subject
than that.

How is this in our national interest?

Mr Speaker, there are some who question whether Britain really needs to get
involved at all. Some people have argued that we should leave it to others
because there isn’t sufficient British national interest at stake. I believe that
argument is misplaced.
If Gaddafi’s attacks on his own people succeed, Libya will become once again
a pariah state, festering on Europe’s border, a source of instability, exporting
terror beyond her borders. A state from which literally hundreds of thousands of
citizens could seek to escape, putting huge pressure on us in Europe.

We must also remember that Gaddafi is a dictator who has a track record of
violence and support for terrorism against our country. The people of Lockerbie,
know what he is capable of. I am clear: taking action in Libya, together with our
international partners, is in our national interest.

Is this another Iraq?

I know a feature of this debate will be Honorable Members asking how do we

make sure this isn’t going to be another Iraq? My answer is very clear. The UN
resolution – which we, with the Lebanese, the US and French helped draft –
makes it quite clear there will be no foreign occupation of Libya. The Resolution
both authorises and sets the limits of our action. Specifically it excludes an
occupation force of any form, on any part of Libyan territory.

But the differences with Iraq go deeper. It is not just that this time, the action
has the full and unambiguous legal authority of the United Nations….….nor is
it just that this time it is backed by Arab countries, and by a broad international
coalition…

The point is this. There are millions in the Arab world who want to know that the
UN, the US, the UK, the French, the international community …. care about their
suffering and their oppression. The Arab world has asked us to act with them to
stop the slaughter. We must answer that call.

Will we be shouldering an unfair burden?

Next, Mr Speaker, there are those who accept Britain should play its part, but
worry that Britain might shoulder an unfair burden. I want to assure the House
that will not be the case. The UN resolution confers a duty on Britain, along with
the other permanent members of the Security Council who supported it, to play
our part in implementing it. Let me explain how the Coalition will work.

It’s operating under US command with the intention that this will transfer to
NATO.
This will mean that all the NATO allies would be able to contribute – and that the
mission would benefit from NATO’s command and control operations. With the
fourth largest defence budget in the world, Britain has the means to play its part.
But given that British troops are currently engaged in Afghanistan, that part must
be in line with our resources. And so it will be.

No resources have been diverted from the Afghanistan campaign to carry out
the enforcement of Resolution 1973. I have the assurance of the Chief of the
Defence Staff that both operations can take place concurrently. The impact
of what we are doing in Libya will not affect our mission in Afghanistan. And
crucially, we will work alongside Arab countries in the region, who themselves
called for this action in the first place. In other words, the British people should
know that we are doing our fair share – no more, no less.
Are the risks too great?

Next there are those who ask if the risks will outweigh the benefits? Plainly, there
is no action without risk. But alongside the risks of action, we have to weigh the
risks of inaction. The sight of the international community condemning violence
but doing nothing to stop it. The effect across North Africa and the Middle East if
Gaddafi succeeds in brutalising his own people. The humanitarian consequences
for the city of Benghazi and beyond. The consequences for Europe of a failed
pariah state on its southern border. All of these are simply too great to ignore.

So yes, Mr Speaker, there are dangers and difficulties. And there will always
be unforeseen consequences of inaction. But it is better to take this action than
to risk the consequences of inaction, which is a further slaughter of civilians
and this dictator completely flouting the United Nations and its will. That is why
the Security Council has judged it right to act, and why Britain and others have
supported it.

Are we stirring up trouble?

Finally there are some who say we are just stirring up trouble for the future.
These people say that Arabs and Muslims can’t do democracy and that more
freedoms in these countries will simply lead to extremism and intolerance. To
me, this argument is not only deeply condescending and prejudiced, it is utterly
wrong and has been shown to be wrong.

Let’s remember that people made this argument about Egypt only a short month
ago.
They said that the departure of Mubarak would lead to a dangerous vacuum in
which extremists would flourish. Of course, I deplore the attack on Mohamed El-
Baradei at a polling station. But the overwhelming picture from Saturday was of
millions of people queuing up patiently and proudly to exercise their democratic
rights, many for the first time. Inevitably information about the Libyan opposition
is not complete. But the evidence suggests that they are predominantly ordinary
Libyans from all walks of life who want freedom, justice and democracy; the
things we take for granted.
Next Steps

Mr Speaker, people will be rightly concerned that we have a clear plan for
what happens next in Libya……both in humanitarian terms, and also politically
and diplomatically following the successful conclusion of the No Fly Zone. On
humanitarian issues, the UK was one of the first to respond to the humanitarian
needs arising from Gaddafi’s actions. We provided tents and blankets from
our stores in Dubai for the thousands of migrant workers crossing the borders
to escape the regime’s violence. We were the first country to provide flights to
enable 12,000 migrant workers to return to their homes. This timely assistance
prevented what was a logistical emergency becoming a humanitarian crisis.

The Development Secretary announced last week that we will now support the
International Committee of the Red Cross to deploy three medical teams. These
will help provide medical assistance to 3,000 people affected by the fighting and
food and essential items for 100,000 of the most vulnerable. From the beginning
we urged the United Nations to lead international pressure for unfettered
humanitarian access within Libya.

We are now planning for new humanitarian needs that may emerge as a result
of the conflict. This includes ensuring that the international system, led by the
UN, is ready to respond rapidly and effectively when they can get access.
Security Council Resolution 1973 is about protecting the citizens of Libya who
bravely rose up against the oppression of Gaddafi’s regime. It is important that
in supporting the implementation of the resolution the international system plans
now for stabilising the peace that will follow.

This could include rapidly restoring damaged infrastructure, keeping important

services such as health and education running, reforming the security sector
and ensuring an open and transparent political process to elections. All this will
take time and will require an internationally led effort. Britain will play its part in
this. In terms of what happens politically and diplomatically, what is crucial is that
the future of Libya is for the people of Libya to decide, aided by the international
community. The Libyan opposition have made it clear that they do not want to
see a division of the country, and neither do we. They have also expressed a
clear and overwhelming wish for Gaddafi to go.
And we agree with that too. The UN resolution is limited in its scope. It explicitly
does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from
power by military means. But we will continue to implement a wide range of
tough sanctions designed to put pressure on the regime towards that end. There
is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Gaddafi has had every conceivable opportunity to stop massacring

his own people. The time for red lines, threats, last chances is over. Tough action
is needed now to ensure that people in Libya can lead their lives without fear and
access the basic needs of life. That is what the Security Council requires. That is
what we are seeking to deliver.

There are rightly those who ask how and where this will end. Of course, there are
difficulties and dangers ahead But already we know, beyond any doubt, that we
have succeeded in chasing Gaddafi’s planes out of the sky. We have saved the
lives of many Libyans. And we have helped to prevent the destruction of a great
and historic city.

Of course, no-one can be certain of what the future can hold, but as we stand
here today the people of Libya have a much better chance of determining their
destiny.
And in taking this action we should be proud that we are not only acting in British
interests but also being true to our values as a nation. And I commend this
motion to the House.