A divided world stands on the brink of a war that could have been avoided
Independent UK
18 March 2003
Less than one month after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, Tony Blair permitted himself a rare flight of high rhetoric. "This is a moment to seize," he said. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us..."
We might have hoped the pieces would have settled after the military operation in Afghanistan. Yesterday, however, it became clear that was not to be. The half-century-old system of international arbitration broke down as America and Britain made it clear they would, unilaterally, circumvent the deadlocked diplomats and President Bush gave Saddam Hussein, 48 hours to leave his country or face the full force of US military might.
The consequences are that multilateral institutions from Nato to the European Union to the Arab League are riven with discord, long-standing alliances are in tatters, and one of Britain's most respected and principled ministers has resigned.
Britain may now be only hours from war, and it is a war that has not been sanctioned by the international community. It was not the outcome that this newspaper sought. Far from it. We hoped for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq, accomplished through diplomacy.
We continue to believe the UN process should have been allowed to run its course. The weapons inspectors, who answer to the international community through the Security Council, were still doing their job, unobstructed, only hours before Mr Bush spoke to the American people last night. To date, they had found no evidence that Iraq was developing a nuclear capability. In respect of chemical, biological and other weapons, they reported progress in disarmament not enough, but progress none the less.
The war that now seems inevitable constitutes a failure of potentially catastrophic proportions, whose malign effects will fall first of all on the long-suffering people of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein refuses the US ultimatum to leave, as seems likely, we trust that the military commanders and their political masters will do their utmost to minimise the number of civilian casualties. The sooner it is over, the sooner reconstruction can begin.
That said, this is a war that should not be happening. Saddam Hussein could and should have authorised the disclosure of far more information than he did. While co-operating with the letter of the latest UN resolution, 1441, he fell short of acting within its spirit. That now looks certain to cost him his country, and perhaps his life.
The failure of diplomacy is a tragedy, and the blame is widely shared. President Bush and his administration have much to answer for. Their rhetoric has seemed bullying, harsh and intemperate. They appeared obsessed with Saddam, and unready to accept compromise in their quest to impose their vision of a new world order. Washington has failed to nurture its alliances and to heed the misgivings of old friends; it appears to subscribe to a doctrine that might is always right.
After the United States must come France. The duo of President Chirac and Dominique de Villepin assumed leadership of the European anti-war party and argued their case with impeccable logic. Borne aloft on the wave of Europe's popular aversion to war, however, they overplayed their hand. M. Chirac's public threat to veto the so-called second UN resolution "whatever the circumstances" left France with no leeway. As the Foreign Secretary noted in the Commons yesterday, it undercut the credibility of the threat that Britain, for one, had been relying upon to push Iraq into compliance without war. And it handed Mr Blair a propaganda advantage a chance for some old-fashioned French-bashing which he rushed to exploit.
The failed UN resolution will go down in history as the fault of the French. In fact, with or without a French veto, Britain, the US and Spain may have been unable to muster the majority they needed in the UN Security Council. In believing they could, the British Government was sorely deluded or poorly advised; the politicians were let down by their diplomats.
Tony Blair now faces the worst of all political worlds. Not only must he almost certainly order British troops into battle, he is left isolated abroad and wounded at home. He may be fortunate to escape with just one Cabinet resignation, and Robin Cook set an example of honour and dignity that leaves Cabinet responsibility and for the time being Mr Blair's authority intact. The reasons he gave for his departure, however the vain pursuit of a second resolution and the lack of popular or international mandate for force will reverberate strongly among Britain's voters, validating an aversion to war that was starting to wane and threatening the first real internal opposition to Mr Blair.
It is a strange paradox that while Mr Blair's arguments have failed to convince, his patent sincerity has impressed, banishing his reputation as a fickle politician without convictions. His address and answers after Sunday's Azores summit were worthy of a first-class statesman, leaving Mr Bush looking like an ill-informed amateur. Key elements of his foreign policy, however, are in shreds. Any ambition he might have had to lead Europe in the future is at an end. Britain's reputation and influence in the Arab world cannot but be diminished. Britain risks being seen once again as Washington's junior partner and no more.
The next 24 hours will show how profoundly the kaleidoscope to which Mr Blair referred 18 months ago has been shaken; how many of the myriad shards are in flux and how long they may take to settle. We fear that it could be a very long time.
A divided world stands on the brink of a war that could have been avoided
Independent UK
18 March 2003
Less than one month after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, Tony Blair permitted himself a rare flight of high rhetoric. "This is a moment to seize," he said. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us..."
We might have hoped the pieces would have settled after the military operation in Afghanistan. Yesterday, however, it became clear that was not to be. The half-century-old system of international arbitration broke down as America and Britain made it clear they would, unilaterally, circumvent the deadlocked diplomats and President Bush gave Saddam Hussein, 48 hours to leave his country or face the full force of US military might.
The consequences are that multilateral institutions from Nato to the European Union to the Arab League are riven with discord, long-standing alliances are in tatters, and one of Britain's most respected and principled ministers has resigned.
Britain may now be only hours from war, and it is a war that has not been sanctioned by the international community. It was not the outcome that this newspaper sought. Far from it. We hoped for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq, accomplished through diplomacy.
We continue to believe the UN process should have been allowed to run its course. The weapons inspectors, who answer to the international community through the Security Council, were still doing their job, unobstructed, only hours before Mr Bush spoke to the American people last night. To date, they had found no evidence that Iraq was developing a nuclear capability. In respect of chemical, biological and other weapons, they reported progress in disarmament not enough, but progress none the less.
The war that now seems inevitable constitutes a failure of potentially catastrophic proportions, whose malign effects will fall first of all on the long-suffering people of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein refuses the US ultimatum to leave, as seems likely, we trust that the military commanders and their political masters will do their utmost to minimise the number of civilian casualties. The sooner it is over, the sooner reconstruction can begin.
That said, this is a war that should not be happening. Saddam Hussein could and should have authorised the disclosure of far more information than he did. While co-operating with the letter of the latest UN resolution, 1441, he fell short of acting within its spirit. That now looks certain to cost him his country, and perhaps his life.
The failure of diplomacy is a tragedy, and the blame is widely shared. President Bush and his administration have much to answer for. Their rhetoric has seemed bullying, harsh and intemperate. They appeared obsessed with Saddam, and unready to accept compromise in their quest to impose their vision of a new world order. Washington has failed to nurture its alliances and to heed the misgivings of old friends; it appears to subscribe to a doctrine that might is always right.
After the United States must come France. The duo of President Chirac and Dominique de Villepin assumed leadership of the European anti-war party and argued their case with impeccable logic. Borne aloft on the wave of Europe's popular aversion to war, however, they overplayed their hand. M. Chirac's public threat to veto the so-called second UN resolution "whatever the circumstances" left France with no leeway. As the Foreign Secretary noted in the Commons yesterday, it undercut the credibility of the threat that Britain, for one, had been relying upon to push Iraq into compliance without war. And it handed Mr Blair a propaganda advantage a chance for some old-fashioned French-bashing which he rushed to exploit.
The failed UN resolution will go down in history as the fault of the French. In fact, with or without a French veto, Britain, the US and Spain may have been unable to muster the majority they needed in the UN Security Council. In believing they could, the British Government was sorely deluded or poorly advised; the politicians were let down by their diplomats.
Tony Blair now faces the worst of all political worlds. Not only must he almost certainly order British troops into battle, he is left isolated abroad and wounded at home. He may be fortunate to escape with just one Cabinet resignation, and Robin Cook set an example of honour and dignity that leaves Cabinet responsibility and for the time being Mr Blair's authority intact. The reasons he gave for his departure, however the vain pursuit of a second resolution and the lack of popular or international mandate for force will reverberate strongly among Britain's voters, validating an aversion to war that was starting to wane and threatening the first real internal opposition to Mr Blair.
It is a strange paradox that while Mr Blair's arguments have failed to convince, his patent sincerity has impressed, banishing his reputation as a fickle politician without convictions. His address and answers after Sunday's Azores summit were worthy of a first-class statesman, leaving Mr Bush looking like an ill-informed amateur. Key elements of his foreign policy, however, are in shreds. Any ambition he might have had to lead Europe in the future is at an end. Britain's reputation and influence in the Arab world cannot but be diminished. Britain risks being seen once again as Washington's junior partner and no more.
The next 24 hours will show how profoundly the kaleidoscope to which Mr Blair referred 18 months ago has been shaken; how many of the myriad shards are in flux and how long they may take to settle. We fear that it could be a very long time.
