Nick Harvey MP

SPEECH OPPOSING THE MOTION: "This House would under no circumstances fight for Queen and Country"

Madam President (Emily Partington, Jesus College), distinguished guests and Members of this great Union, it is an honour tonight to take part in such a historic debate, marking as it does the 75th anniversary of the original "King and Country" debate which caused such momentous waves in 1933.

The exact wording of the motion before this House deserves our closest attention because it was no accident in 1933; rather it was determined in a deeply considered and precise way.

To oppose this motion does not mean that we would advocate fighting blindly in "any and all circumstances", but rather that we believe that war can sometimes be a necessary evil. It is surely complacent to resolve that you would never fight.

We should be asking what type of man (or woman) is it who has nothing worth fighting for? Who relies on others to provide the freedoms, liberties and privileges that we enjoy? Whether that be in the name of Queen, country, liberty, fraternity or solidarity.

In the words of John Stuart Mill, arguably one of the greatest liberal thinkers: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."

Queen and Country

I confess it is a strange concept, Queen and Country, and one that was right in the context of the original debate in 1933 (when it was King) but is now outdated and out of place.

Should one fight for one's country just because of the accident of where one was born and lives? Or do we fight for the community within whose protection we live in safety? For our loved ones? For our homes and property? Or to protect our life's work or life's ambitions?

The motion suggests a willingness to roll over and allow all these to be seized or destroyed. In the 1933 debate a speaker asked a mover of the motion: "If your wife were being raped, would you not defend her?"

Perhaps in an age where we are apathetic in our patriotism, it is less a question of fighting for Queen and country, but rather that future conflicts will be fought for mankind (as was said in the 1965 debate), and for common principles and values.

Indeed, Gordon Brown has now introduced the teaching of patriotism - a sign of how low the feeling is perhaps?!

Those who sign up in peace time to fight in operations abroad know they could be ordered to do more or less anything for Queen and country. But those who sign up because foreign forces are massing on our border or coast do so because of the threat to our personal security, and what we stand for and represent as a society.

When faced with a common enemy, we need not be monarchists. But patriots - yes - in times of common threat we fight for our common survival and unify in a common bond and for one's country.

Unless you are a mercenary you fight for your national army, and our Commander in Chief is the Queen so you fight for her.

War

War is never glamorous, nor should we attempt to make it so - this is what made the propaganda of the First World War so awful. That is what Wilfred Owen was so keen to point out when he wrote about the "Old Lie: Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori"

And yet, we must not forget that he fought and he died in battle. His problem was less with the need to fight than with the reasons: the lies that surrounded it, the futility of the strategy of attrition, and the selfishness behind the Government's willingness to send men as mere instruments or cannon fodder to a certain death in the trenches.

Indeed, we are all too fully aware that in war it is the innocent men and women who lose their lives, fighting for leaders or monarchs. People with no quarrel on the other side

We can make a distinction between wars of 'choice' and wars of 'necessity' or obligation. The Government chose to go to War in Iraq: an error that has cost them far more dearly than they could have ever imagined. And a war based on a false premise and born out of erroneous calculations in unnecessary circumstances.

It goes without saying that I would not have fought, nor sent men to fight, for Queen and country in this conflict.

Nonetheless, as I have said, sometimes war may be a necessary evil. I know that however much I hate war and see conflict as a last resort, I would be prepared to risk my life for my family, for my friends and for the freedoms and principles that I value above all else.

Indeed, when freedoms, liberty, security, and loved ones are threatened it is arguably an animal instinct to respond to protect oneself and those of your pack, tribe or clan.

Making the case

And so we need therefore to look at when war is justified and under which circumstances we would fight. To prevent further killing? To prevent genocide?

Looking at the context of the debate 75 years ago, it is perhaps understandable why this motion was so popular. The Great War just fifteen years earlier was neither great nor good, but a horrendous loss of life through misguided tactics of attrition.

This distinction, between types of circumstances in which one might fight, is put again by John Stuart Mill, who said: "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice - a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice - is often the means of their regeneration.

Perhaps some will feel that pacifism and this motion are a very admirable stance. Perhaps some will feel that they are a luxury we can afford now when conflict seems remote, removed and not in our back yard.

However, in times of real, imminent threat it is irresponsible and unrealistic. I remain concerned that whilst we may well seek peaceful means, we cannot assume that everyone else does or will. Would Hitler have respected our pacifism had we made a peaceful stand? It is unlikely.

But, in 1939, this was a luxury we could only afford to pacifists and Quakers.

There is a danger that the passive stance will lead to enslavement. How many here have heard of Moriori in New Zealand? If you have not, it is because they were wiped out by the Maori and the colonisers who did not share the same pacifist approach and used war to seek their ends.

What do we do when we exhaust diplomacy? When no result is forthcoming where does diplomacy end and action begin? Just as society has to meet lawlessness with a firm response, so it also has to meet the aggressor.

In the words of Rudyard Kipling who was pro-war and later lost a son to it: "Who stands if freedom fall? Who dies if England live?"

'Ethical' war

However, when we do conclude that war must come, we should do so with the deepest regret, we must always ensure that it is as ethical as it can possibly be, and as that the cause is just and the manner of the fighting is fair.

Before we embark on war, we should be sure we have exhausted all international mechanisms, should adhere to international codes of conduct and warfare, and respect human rights. As a Liberal Democrat I place particular value on international mechanisms, rule of law, and diplomacy.

And when war does come, we must have taken all possible measures to lessen its destructive impact of war. To this end, we should have a full ban on cluster munitions, get rid of landmines and work tirelessly to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

And as a people we must honour the military covenant to our armed forces, so that in the circumstances of war they are well equipped, properly prepared and we no longer send men to an unnecessary death.

Conclusion

To conclude: this is not an easy or a straight forward debate. It is one which may vary according to the context, the timing and even the assembled audience.

Perhaps the question is misleading. Perhaps it is understandable that one would be less willing to fight on the behalf of a remote monarch or for a country that is ours only by accident of birth.

But in the words of J.S. Mill: "A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

And that is the true meaning of the motion before you tonight. Are you really ready to say that there are no circumstances in which you would be willing to defend the country? No circumstances whatever?

I leave you with those memorable words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."