An Open Letter to Tony Blair

The past seven days have been busy ones for the war on Iraq. (Let's not dignify Western aggression by pretending this is anything other than war.) From Colin Powell's measured speech to the UN to Tony Blair's disappointing interview with Jeremy Paxman the justifications for attack are being pushed ever harder.

Powell's presentation was superficially convincing, but rapidly fell apart on closer examination. Much of the speech was based on innuendo, and all of it was riddled with contradictions - Hussein is preparing to use chemical or biological weapons against invading Americans, but has hidden them in the western desert; Al Qaeda have an eight man team working in Baghdad which couldn't exist without the support of the Iraqi security services, but much of the information comes from CIA agents inside Iraq. The presentation provides answers to three main questions - Does Iraq want weapons of mass destruction (yes), is Iraq co-operating with the inspectors (not fully) and does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (not that we have any evidence of). What the presentation did not do was justify war - why now, why war, why Iraq. Far from it, all the evidence presented suggested that the inspection regime is currently working, and enhancing inspections in line with the Franco-German plan is likely to work all the better.

The Franco-German plan has its own problems. While there is little doubt to my mind that it could work, sending the numbers of foreign troops required into Iraq is very much kill or cure. If Hussein were to refuse access to the troops, or there was an attack (provoked, accidental, or planned) on UN personnel there would be no possibility except war. American and British opposition seems to me to be focused on two areas. If the plan works, there would be no need for war, no justification for regime change. If the plan fails, it will fail dramatically, forcing a war that might not suit America's desire to fight a winter campaign that does not interfere with presidential elections. Donald Rumsfield's description of the idea as "a distraction" is particularly telling - peace plans are a distraction from what exactly? The march to war?

Unfortunately, the Franco-German peace bid was revealed too late to be mentioned in the BBC's interview with Tony Blair. Not that the program would have tested the Prime Minister particularly on the subject anyway. In many ways, the interview was a massively missed opportunity, with no deep questions being asked. While the general public cannot be expected to press an experienced politician on his evasions and half truths, Jeremy Paxman should have done. Instead, it remains unclear where Paxman's reputation as a fearsome inquisitor comes from. In a probably vain attempt to ask the questions that were missed by the interview, I will turn the remainder of this column over to an open letter to the Prime Minister.

Dear Mr Blair,

I watched your interview for the BBC Newsnight program with some interest. Unfortunately, while your answers were often illuminating, the depth of questioning left many questions unasked, and many points you made were not fully explored. Such is the nature of this type of program. For my own enlightenment, and that of others with similar queries, may I briefly ask you to expand on your comments?

Let me begin with your use of history as a justification for attacking Iraq. Three times during the interview, Prime Minister, you referred to the history of Iraq, a further twice specifically mentioning the Iraq-Iran war. From your comments it appears you believe this demonstrates Saddam Hussein's desire for chemical weapons and his willingness to use them. Where I take issue with these comments is that you are disregarding the context of these events. Both Britain and America supported Iraq's aggression against Iran, supplying both financial and armament aid to the regime. Indeed, it is unlikely that Iraq would have developed the chemical weapons used against Iran without western support, especially American. Even after these terrible weapons had been used, the west did not break off relations from Iraq. Instead we continued to supply and support Hussein's regime, with the Americans even providing Anthrax and chemical agents. There is even evidence that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was begun with the blessing of the American government, with America only changing sides following British protests. How then can you claim Hussein as a unique monster? We aided and abetted his crimes both before and after the fact, leaving us as guilty as he. (When I say "we" I of course do not refer to either you or me specifically - I know I had no part in this, and can not see how you could have. President Bush, however, may have been party to the decision to support the Iraqi monster, and his father certainly was.)

The next area of concern that your interview failed to address is nuclear proliferation. Mr Blair, you twice mentioned during the program that Britain is part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet we are not acting within our commitments under that treaty. Your government has not drawn up plans to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal, and has stated that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons. Further, you personally are widely seen to be supporting an American president who has stated that he will authorise the use of nuclear weapons where doing so would provide a "battlefield tactical advantage". Finally, your government is conspiring with that same president to implement the so-called "Son of Star Wars" program that would increase the effective capacity of America's nuclear arsenal by removing (psychologically) the threat of retaliation. Given this, why should other countries, most especially North Korea, abide by treaties that we are ignoring? What steps will your government take to meet our commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to encourage our allies to do likewise?

Mentioning North Korea brings me to perhaps the most dangerous part of the campaign against Iraq. I believe, unlike the audience member during your interview, that the major difference between Iraq and North Korea is that the latter has weapons of mass destruction ready for use, whereas the former merely has programs to acquire them. The message being sent is that if you have weapons of mass destruction we will talk nicely, if you don't we'll attack. Prime Minister, this attitude seems to encourage countries to arm themselves. America's (and by extension our) willingness to fight seems to be directly related to the perceived weakness of the opposing army. By following this course you risk making weapons of mass destruction more, not less, common.

The final point I wish to address from your interview is the matter of the "unreasonable veto". If I understand you correctly, you define an unreasonable veto as occurring when you believe the weapons inspectors have reported a material breach, and the security council has voted by majority on a second resolution. From this I infer you to mean that the argument will be about what will happen when a material breach occurs. However, I believe that the weapons inspectors to be honourable, honest men, and that I can predict what their report on Friday will say. Broadly, they will say the same as their last report - we've made progress in these areas, we're receiving this co-operation, ideally we'd like to see this further co-operation, there are these unanswered questions. The argument will then be about whether this demonstrates a material breach or not. America, desperate to go to war within the month, will claim a breach and push for a second resolution. We will follow their lead. Indeed, I understand that the foreign office has already drafted the resolution to be presented. France, however, are likely to seize on the co-operation that does exist as justification for peace. They will claim that a breach has not occurred. The issue of the majority vote is a smoke screen, given America's blatant program of buying votes with aid and trade agreements. This means that the second resolution will be determined purely by whether one country follows their interpretation of the weapon inspectors' evidence, and uses their veto. If France were to do so, they would be using the veto for exactly the purpose for which it was intended. If this is "unreasonable" what use of the veto could be considered reasonable? Will you therefore be campaigning to remove the veto entirely and reform the security council around a majority voting basis?

I'll finish with the question that I would have asked had I been in the audience for your interview. Prime Minister, much of the justification for war against Iraq has been, you claim, hidden from us for security reasons. You ask us to trust you. By trusting you, we will allow something approaching two hundred thousand allied troops to risk their lives. Countless millions of civilian lives will be at risk, both within Iraq and in surrounding countries, Israel, Turkey, Kuwait. Thousands will die. Current reports suggest that our forces will take part in the war crime of the mass bombing of largely civilian Baghdad. Yet, for all this risk taken by others, it seems to me that you have little to lose. You are in no physical danger, certainly no more so than is attached to the office of Prime Minister anyway, and your political survival is assured while there remains no credible alternative. Therefore I ask, Prime Minister will you give a clear undertaking that should we invade Iraq and not find the weapons of mass destruction you assure us exist that you will resign? Because if you are unwilling to risk anything on the evidence you assure us is so convincing, we cannot believe you.

Yours Sincerely,

Graham Robinson. 12th February 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.