DO NOTHING FOR PEACE - SILENT SIT DOWN PROTEST AGAINST WAR ON IRAQ - GUILDFORD HIGH STREET SATURDAY 22ND FEBRUARY 11.00AM - STATEMENT BY SUE DOUGHTY MP

12.00.00am GMT Fri 21st Feb 2003

The last week has been very encouraging for all those who oppose an invasion of Iraq. Hans Blix's report to the UN clearly showed that the weapons inspections process needs more time and must not be jeopardised by the artificial timetable that President Bush and his administration are trying to impose. Following the astonishing success of the Stop the War Coalition march and rally in Hyde Park, and with polls this week showing the highest level of public opposition to war yet, the Prime Minister can no longer ignore the British people.

These events have scotched President Bush and Tony Blair's plans to table a new UN resolution this week, which they had hoped would allow them to claim legitimacy for an invasion of Iraq. However, the hawks are still determined to press ahead and the British and US governments are drafting a resolution to be tabled at the end of the month that will set Iraq a firm and imminent deadline. War remains a great danger and the opponents of war must keep up the pressure and seize the initiative so that the agenda does not continue to be set by the hawks.

While UN approval would be essential before an invasion of Iraq, it must not be seen simply as a technical obstacle that the United States can clear by piling up pressure on the members of the Security Council until they cave in to demands for war. A clear moral case must be made in addition to the legal case.

Bush and Blair's arguments for war are becoming more and more desperate. They now state that there is a humanitarian imperative for regime change to liberate the Iraqi people. The Prime Minister seems to have switched from his policy of disarming Iraq of WMDs to a policy of regime change.

It is both condescending and insulting to be told by the same people who sold arms to Saddam Hussein (or remained silent about this trade) at a time when his record of brutality was well known that the opponents of war do not care about the suffering of ordinary Iraqis under Saddam. Many of today's campaigners for peace are the same people who campaigned in the 1980s against arms sales to Iraq and against the British and American support of Saddam Hussein's regime. The proposed war is motivated by the interests of the Bush administration. The humanitarian needs of ordinary Iraqis would be forgotten as quickly as our governments have forgotten the people in Afghanistan.

If war does begin then my thoughts go out to our servicemen and women and their families. We must also think of the Iraqi people, who have suffered for so long under Saddam Hussein and will suffer most from a war. We should expect high civilian casualties, as Saddam has vowed to place his troops inside the cities, putting military targets side by side with people's homes.

We would all like to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, but at what cost? Nobody would be happier to see the back of Saddam than the people of Iraq, yet they are not asking for this war. It is the Iraqi citizens who will suffer most. Unwilling conscripts and innocent civilians will bear the brunt of an invasion, while Saddam shields himself behind them.

If the government of the United States is correct in its assertions that Saddam Hussein is continuing to hide weapons of mass destruction, we must consider carefully if exposing our troops to this danger is really a sensible approach. Taking the longer road of doggedly pursuing diplomacy may be slow and at times frustrating, as Saddam continues to play his usual games. But I believe it would be preferable to the huge loss of life for Iraqi civilians and our own servicemen and women that would be the inevitable result of war.

An invasion would also bring wider dangers. Many of those constituents who have contacted me are particularly concerned that an invasion of Iraq will increase the terrorist threat to Britain. After the terrible attack on the World Trade Centre we must focus on strengthening our relations with Islamic countries rather than handing a propaganda victory to the terrorists that will help bring them new recruits.

We must remember that there are other major problems in the Middle East that will be further inflamed by an invasion of Iraq. Efforts to re-establish talks between Israel and Palestine have suffered a blow with the re-election of Sharon and would be further undermined by war with Iraq. Both Israel and Palestine will need our strong support to overcome the years of violence between the two communities. It is essential that the United States gives a firm and consistent message to the Israeli government that they must not react disproportionately, but be bold enough to end the cycle of violence.

Back home, as well as the worry for those with families and friends posted in the Gulf, we would have to contend with the wider costs of a war. The global economy remains poised to go into recession and the Chancellor has already had to increase borrowing to keep to his spending commitments. The cost of war would put another hole in his budget. Medical reservists will be sent to the Gulf, putting further strain on the NHS when it already lacks sufficient capacity to meet the nation's health needs.

Toppling Saddam Hussein will present a whole new set of problems that we are not prepared for. There is no obvious government in waiting because of Saddam's brutal suppression of any opposition. The United Nations would be the obvious choice to fill this void while a civilian government is formed, but in the United States' plans the UN would have only a limited role. Although the US have proposed that a civil administrator is appointed by the UN, they would have to work with a US military commander who would take charge for at least the first 18 months. Iraq's oil fields would be under US military control during this time. To the rest of the Arab world this would look like American colonialism.

We must be bold enough to be an honest friend to the United States. Sometimes you have to tell a friend when they are wrong. Opposing the policies of the current administration in the United States is not anti-American. Many Americans are also opposed to an invasion of Iraq and are pinning their hopes on European countries making a strong case for diplomatic alternatives to war and holding firm on the rule of international law and the independence of the United Nations. If we give President Bush the green light we will be failing them.

I believe that there is still time to let Tony Blair know that the British people are not persuaded of the need for this war and that he will be making a grave mistake if he commits our forces to join those of President Bush in an invasion of Iraq. I will continue to voice my opposition in Westminster. Knowing that I have the support of the overwhelming majority of constituents who have contacted is giving me great encouragement. I hope that all those who attended the march and rally in Hyde Park and other events across the country will have had their resolve strengthened by the success of the anti war movement so far and will continue to oppose this war with increased vigour.