This week saw the British Parliament at its best and worst, debating whether we should endorse the war against Iraq or not. It was not a debate about whether to go to war – that had already been decided (by George Bush) but whether we would support our Prime Ministers action in tying Britain in with Bush’s foreign policy. The debate was fierce. At its worst it saw simplistic arguments from Tory MP’s who seemed to have plums stuck in their mouths, Labour MP’s who were so sycophantic that it was stomach churning and Liberals who struggled to give a coherent argument for their position. At its best it saw well informed and passionate speeches on both sides. None better than those of Robin Cook, the ex-foreign secretary and, Tony Blair, our embattled Prime Minister. Both reminded me of preachers. Cook was the modernist – cool, calm, without personal invective, intelligent, well reasoned, short and measured – every word carried weight. It was the best political speech I have ever heard. Blair was the post modernist – passionate, persuasive, intelligent and long.

Robin Cook is a strange man. Highly intelligent, fiercely committed and a brilliant debater. But guaranteed never to become leader of the Labour party because he does not have the image (cruelly being described as looking like a weasel) and is absolutely useless at networking and pressing the flesh. I met him once. He visited Livingston Free Church at its opening. I was impressed that he did that and also that he had with him a big black bible, which had obviously been well used. He was pleasant , intelligent and appeared to be genuinely interested. Since then I have followed his career with interest – sometimes agreeing and sometimes being disappointed. Last Monday he was brilliant. Avoiding personal abuse and malice he gave his resignation speech with dignity, clarity and persuasive rational arguments. Of course there were those who immediately want to attribute some other motive and who never like meeting someone with principle who disagrees with them, but there were others who, even though supporting the war, recognised that his arguments were powerful and needed to be answered. One of the most interesting comments afterwards was from his ex-wife who, understandably is still very bitter at the break up of their marriage. She wrote in the Scotsman that this was for her ex-husband a ‘terrible sacrifice’ made solely out of principle.

As for the speech itself - I have read and reread it several times. Let me share some of if with you -

France - France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. “

International war against Terrorism – “Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired. “

Supporting our Troops - I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. “

The threat from Iraq – “ Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.”

Weapons of Mass Destruction - Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.” >

Israel – “ I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.”

The most revealing part of Tony Blair’s speech was at the beginning – “Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st Century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.” Surely nothing explains Blair’s motivation more than this. He was fully aware that the US was going to go it alone, with or without Britain and the UN. As the only Superpower in the world the US thinks (probably correctly) that it can do as it pleases. Blair in a doze of real politick committed himself and Britain to going wherever the Bush administration was going to go. The price was great – at one level he laid his job on the line for George Bush (one wonders whether the reverse would ever happen) but the rewards could also be great. However Blair took a gamble with the UN and the EU and in that he lost. Whether being tied to the US rather than the EU and the UN is a good thing will be a matter of some debate, but it is now, if you will forgive my use of the French language, a fait accompli.

I was also gratified to hear the following from our Prime Minister – “That is why what happens after any conflict in Iraq is of such critical significance. Here again there is a chance to unify around the UN. Let me make it clear. There should be a new UN Resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation. It should protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq. And let the oil revenues – which people falsely claim we want to seize – be put in a Trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the nation’s disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the fledgling democracy in Northern Iraq – protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the No Fly Zone – has done so remarkably.” It sounds great. The government of Iraq should be under the UN and not the US. Territorial integrity should be protected (no Turkish troops in Northern Iraq). Oil revenues put in a UN administered trust fund. And democracy in Iraq.

As we have begun war it now remains to see what will follow. If there are a large number of civilian casualties, a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq, an American military administration in Iraq, Israel still in the occupied territories, a divided UN, a split EU, an American administration ready to move on to the next target and a radicalized Arabic population providing recruits for Al Qaeda, then this war will have been a disaster and the New World Order a failure. If however Blair is right and Saddam is quickly defeated, sanctions are quickly removed, the oil is used for the Iraqi people, the reconstruction of Iraq is done throughout the world, the Americans and the French kiss and make up, Al Qaeda is defeated, and democracy and freedom comes to Iraq then we will all breathe a sigh of relief and rejoice. No one likes to be wrong. Especially yours truly. But I really do hope and pray that in this my fears and opinions do turn out to be wrong. It will be wonderful if I and others have to eat humble pie and admit that Bush and Blair were right all along. The alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

Meanwhile I am going to our church prayer meeting. We will spend the evening in prayer - praying that even at this moment Saddam will surrender, that our troops will be protected (for some of our people this is very personal – with friends and relatives on the front line), that the Iraqi people will be protected, bloodshed kept to a minimum and that our leaders Bush and Blair will be given wisdom. “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness, This is good and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy ch.2 v.1-3).

back