Mike Irwin
Member
The British newspaper...
Last October, when I spoke at the Labour conference in
Blackpool, I supported the efforts of President Bush and Prime
Minister Blair to renew efforts to eliminate Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction, and to try to accomplish this
through the UN.
In November, the UN security council adopted unanimously
resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm,
after 12 years of defying UN resolutions requiring him to do so.
The resolution made it clear that continued sanctions were not
sufficient and that continued defiance would lead to serious
consequences.
The credit for 1441 belongs in large measure to Blair, who saw it
as a chance to disarm Saddam in a way that strengthened the
UN and preserved the Atlantic alliance. Unfortunately, the
consensus behind 1441 has unravelled. Saddam has destroyed
some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks
is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The
really important issues relating to chemical and biological
weapons remain unresolved.
In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been
pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want
regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and,
therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the
beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military
action probably will require only a few days, they believe the
world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as
Saddam is deposed.
On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly
opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on
Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe
that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not
use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and
therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose
a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces
were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not
willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with
their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the
UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a
credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.
Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch
proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without
military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution
that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a
reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting
for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi
scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed
resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the
use of force to depose Saddam.
Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would
veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being
destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum.
Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it
never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.
The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because
if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair
approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion
and he still might have disarmed without invasion and
bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and
depose him.
A s Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as
military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America
agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to
terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young
Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with
chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance,
there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall
into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will
be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution.
Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more
time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair
is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other
nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in
tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift
sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into
Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were
voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the
progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult
spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be
right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the
British people will too.
· Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States
Last October, when I spoke at the Labour conference in
Blackpool, I supported the efforts of President Bush and Prime
Minister Blair to renew efforts to eliminate Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction, and to try to accomplish this
through the UN.
In November, the UN security council adopted unanimously
resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm,
after 12 years of defying UN resolutions requiring him to do so.
The resolution made it clear that continued sanctions were not
sufficient and that continued defiance would lead to serious
consequences.
The credit for 1441 belongs in large measure to Blair, who saw it
as a chance to disarm Saddam in a way that strengthened the
UN and preserved the Atlantic alliance. Unfortunately, the
consensus behind 1441 has unravelled. Saddam has destroyed
some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks
is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The
really important issues relating to chemical and biological
weapons remain unresolved.
In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been
pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want
regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and,
therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the
beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military
action probably will require only a few days, they believe the
world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as
Saddam is deposed.
On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly
opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on
Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe
that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not
use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and
therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose
a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces
were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not
willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with
their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the
UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a
credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.
Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch
proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without
military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution
that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a
reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting
for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi
scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed
resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the
use of force to depose Saddam.
Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would
veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being
destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum.
Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it
never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.
The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because
if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair
approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion
and he still might have disarmed without invasion and
bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and
depose him.
A s Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as
military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America
agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to
terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young
Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with
chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance,
there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall
into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will
be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution.
Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more
time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair
is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other
nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in
tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift
sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into
Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were
voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the
progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult
spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be
right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the
British people will too.
· Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States
