|
10/09/2003
Blair and the War
With the revelation in former foreign minister Robin Cook’s
diaries that British Prime Minister Tony Blair suspected weeks
before the war with Iraq that Saddam didn’t pose an immediate
threat as far as weapons of mass destruction, the prime minister
is back on the griddle.
But at the same time, Blair did give a powerful speech to his
Labour Party conference on September 30 and I agree with the
following excerpt concerning the War on Terror.
---
Iraq has divided the international community. It has divided the
party, the country, families, friends.
I know many people are disappointed, hurt, angry.
I know many profoundly believe the action we took was wrong.
I do not at all disrespect anyone who disagrees with me.
I ask just one thing: attack my decision but at least understand
why I took it and why I would take the same decision again.
Imagine you are Prime Minister. And you receive this
intelligence. And not just about Iraq. But about the whole
murky trade in WMD.
And one thing we know. Not from intelligence. But from
historical fact. That Saddam’s regime has not just developed but
used such weapons gassing thousands of his own people. And
has lied about it consistently, concealing it for years even under
the noses of the UN Inspectors.
And I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing.
And I look at Saddam’s country and I see its people in torment,
ground underfoot by his and his sons’ brutality and wickedness.
So what do I do? Say “I’ve got the intelligence but I’ve a hunch
its wrong?” Leave Saddam in place but now with the world’s
democracies humiliated and him emboldened?
You see, I believe the security threat of the 21st century is not
countries waging conventional war. I believe that in today’s
interdependent world the threat is chaos. It is fanaticism
defeating reason.
Suppose the terrorists repeated September 11th or worse?
Suppose they got hold of a chemical or biological or nuclear
dirty bomb; and if they could, they would. What then?
And if it is the threat of the 21st century, Britain should be in
there helping confront it, not because we are America’s poodle,
but because dealing with it will make Britain safer.
There was no easy choice.
So whatever each of us thought, let us agree on this.
We who started the war must finish the peace.
Those British soldiers who died are heroes.
We didn’t regret the fall of Milosovic, the removal of the Taliban
or the liberation of Sierra Leone and whatever the disagreement
Iraq is a better country without Saddam.
And why do I stay fighting to keep in there with America on the
one hand and Europe on the other?
Because I know terrorism can’t be defeated unless America and
Europe work together. And it’s not so much American
unilateralism I fear
It’s isolation. It’s walking away when we need America there
engaged. Fighting to get world trade opened up. Fighting to
give hope to Africa. Changing its position for the future of the
world, on climate change. And staying with it in the Middle
East, telling Israel and the Palestinians: don’t let the extremists
decide the fate of the peace process, when the only hope is two
states living side by side in peace.
And it’s not Britain being swallowed up in some European
federal nightmare as if Britain wasn’t strong enough to hold its
own, that I fear.
It’s Britain leaving the center of Europe retreating to its margin
at the very moment when the fate of Europe is being decided, 10
new nations and Britain’s leadership has never been more
essential. That’s why apart from all the good economic reasons
it is madness for Britain to give up the option of joining the Euro.
And I know both on terrorism and on Europe my views cause
offense. But I can no more concede to parts of the left on the one
than I can genuflect to the right over the other.
Because I believe both positions are vital in delivering justice in
a modern world.
---
Hott Spotts will return Oct. 23 with some thoughts on China.
Brian Trumbore
|
