Cover Story
Why I oppose an attack on Iraq
Former shadow foreign secretary Gerald Kaufman reveals his deep suspicion of President Bush, and warns Tony Blair that war would mean a widespread Labour revolt
When I was shadow foreign secretary I supported first the Security Council-authorised sanctions, and then the air and ground war against Saddam that brought about the liberation of Kuwait. I led (most of) the parliamentary Labour party into the Commons division lobby in support of these actions. In the 1997-2001 Parliament, as a government backbencher, I supported this country's participation in the air war against Iraq following Saddam's expulsion of United Nations weapons inspectors. I think it would be a blessing for the world if Saddam were removed from office and replaced by a regime that rejoined the world community. I have over a dozen years rejected the arguments - if they can be dignified by such an epithet - of those such as Tam Dalyell who have opposed military action against Iraq (as well as military action to liberate the Falkland Islands, military action in Kosovo and military action to remove the Taleban and root out al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan).
So, presumably, to be consistent, I should be at the forefront of those urging President Bush to attack Iraq as soon as possible, and should be pressing Tony Blair, of whom I am an ardent supporter, to line up with Bush in any military action he may take. I am afraid it is not as simple as that.
Saddam's annexation of Kuwait was condemned by most of the world community. President Bush senior and his secretary of state, James Baker, went to immense trouble to build up an international coalition against Saddam that included active military participation by Arab and other Muslim countries. When George W. Bush decided, with Britain's support, last year to take military action against the Taleban and al-Qa'eda, once again painstaking efforts, led principally by Tony Blair, fashioned an international coalition to support that action. There is no possibility whatever of building such a coalition against Saddam today. Any war against Saddam, launched by Bush and supported by Tony Blair, would have the overt support of precisely one other country: Israel. Israel today, in its repression of the Palestinians, has the full support of precisely one other country: the United States.
If the United States were to attack Iraq, it would not only be Arab and Muslim countries that would point to the intellectual, diplomatic and moral incompatibility of an American invasion of Iraq, allegedly for violating United Nations Security Council resolutions, with the United States tolerating, and its defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, actively supporting Israeli violation of UN resolutions forbidding the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
