Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Robin Cooks resignation speech
An index of all posts on this Blog
Resignation over Iraq war
In early 2003, Robin Cook was reported to be one of the British cabinet's chief opponents of military action against Iraq, and on 17 March he resigned from the Cabinet.
Part 1
Part 2
Here is the full text of his speech. It is pure wisdom.
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
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.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
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.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now here is Tony Blair's Speech, given the next day, explaining to British MPs why Britain had to go to war in Iraq. With it Tony Blair dug the hole in which history will bury him.
Tuesday March 18, 2003
I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.
At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.
And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.
This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.
I believe we must hold firm.
The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.
People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who never agree on anything, finding common cause. The country and parliament reflect each other, a debate that, as time has gone on has become less bitter but not less grave.
So: why does it matter so much? 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.
But first, Iraq and its WMD.
In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.
Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.
The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.
The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.
In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.
Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.
Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.
In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.
In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.
In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.
Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.
In August, cooperation was suspended.
In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.
The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.
In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.
So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.
What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.
Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.
I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...
"Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.
"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.
What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.
But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.
We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.
But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.
The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.
Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force.
The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep.
And yet when that fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are told that any resolution that authorises force will be vetoed. Not just opposed. Vetoed. Blocked.
The way ahead was so clear. It was for the UN to pass a second resolution setting out benchmarks for compliance; with an ultimatum that if they were ignored, action would follow.
The tragedy is that had such a resolution issued, he might just have complied. Because the only route to peace with someone like Saddam Hussein is diplomacy backed by force.
Yet the moment we proposed the benchmarks, canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an immediate recourse to the language of the veto.
And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.
Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You've waited 12 years. Why not wait a little longer?
And indeed we have.
1441 gave a final opportunity. The first test was the 8th of December. He failed it. But still we waited. Until January 27, the first inspection report that showed the absence of full cooperation. Another breach. And still we waited.
Until February 14 and then February 28 with concessions, according to the old familiar routine, tossed to us to whet our appetite for hope and further waiting. But still no-one, not the inspectors nor any member of the security council, not any half-way rational observer, believes Saddam is cooperating fully or unconditionally or immediately.
Our fault has not been impatience.
The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.
What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.
That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.
Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us.
Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.
But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.
There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. No one here is an appeaser. But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say: there's the time; that was the moment; for example, when Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis - that's when we should have acted.
But it wasn't clear at the time. In fact at the time, many people thought such a fear fanciful. Worse, put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Listen to this editorial - from a paper I'm pleased to say with a different position today - but written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.
"Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the continent to confuse us."
Naturally should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history doesn't declare the future to us so plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight.
So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order.
The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.
Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.
I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.
The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.
Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa.
The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow. But it has not gone away.
And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life.
At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening.
And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.
And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city.
Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.
Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.
To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.
And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.
I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.
But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.
What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.
But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power. The US and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.
I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance.
There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.
We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.
I do not believe there is any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine. Of course there is cynicism about recent announcements. But the US is now committed, and, I believe genuinely, to the roadmap for peace, designed in consultation with the UN. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today.
All of us are now signed up to its vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world, and a viable Palestinian state. And that should be part of a larger global agenda. On poverty and sustainable development. On democracy and human rights. On the good governance of nations.
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.
And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.
I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.
I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear."
And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?
What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.
Who will celebrate and who will weep?
And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the Middle East peace plan, devoid of our influence, stripped of our insistence?
This house wanted this decision. Well it has it. Those are the choices. And in this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal.
But on this decision hangs the fate of many things:
Of whether we summon the strength to recognise this global challenge of the 21st century and meet it.
Of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship.
Of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear.
Of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come."
I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come.
To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the UN back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.
Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.
I beg to move the motion.
Resignation over Iraq war
In early 2003, Robin Cook was reported to be one of the British cabinet's chief opponents of military action against Iraq, and on 17 March he resigned from the Cabinet.
Part 1
Part 2
Here is the full text of his speech. It is pure wisdom.
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
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.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
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.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now here is Tony Blair's Speech, given the next day, explaining to British MPs why Britain had to go to war in Iraq. With it Tony Blair dug the hole in which history will bury him.
Tuesday March 18, 2003
I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.
At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.
And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.
This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.
I believe we must hold firm.
The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.
People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who never agree on anything, finding common cause. The country and parliament reflect each other, a debate that, as time has gone on has become less bitter but not less grave.
So: why does it matter so much? 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.
But first, Iraq and its WMD.
In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.
Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.
The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.
The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.
In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.
Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.
Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.
In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.
In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.
In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.
Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.
In August, cooperation was suspended.
In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.
The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.
In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.
So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.
What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.
Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.
I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...
"Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.
"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.
What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.
But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.
We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.
But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.
The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.
Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force.
The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep.
And yet when that fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are told that any resolution that authorises force will be vetoed. Not just opposed. Vetoed. Blocked.
The way ahead was so clear. It was for the UN to pass a second resolution setting out benchmarks for compliance; with an ultimatum that if they were ignored, action would follow.
The tragedy is that had such a resolution issued, he might just have complied. Because the only route to peace with someone like Saddam Hussein is diplomacy backed by force.
Yet the moment we proposed the benchmarks, canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an immediate recourse to the language of the veto.
And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.
Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You've waited 12 years. Why not wait a little longer?
And indeed we have.
1441 gave a final opportunity. The first test was the 8th of December. He failed it. But still we waited. Until January 27, the first inspection report that showed the absence of full cooperation. Another breach. And still we waited.
Until February 14 and then February 28 with concessions, according to the old familiar routine, tossed to us to whet our appetite for hope and further waiting. But still no-one, not the inspectors nor any member of the security council, not any half-way rational observer, believes Saddam is cooperating fully or unconditionally or immediately.
Our fault has not been impatience.
The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.
What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.
That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.
Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us.
Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.
But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.
There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. No one here is an appeaser. But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say: there's the time; that was the moment; for example, when Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis - that's when we should have acted.
But it wasn't clear at the time. In fact at the time, many people thought such a fear fanciful. Worse, put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Listen to this editorial - from a paper I'm pleased to say with a different position today - but written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.
"Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the continent to confuse us."
Naturally should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history doesn't declare the future to us so plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight.
So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order.
The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.
Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.
I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.
The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.
Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa.
The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow. But it has not gone away.
And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life.
At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening.
And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.
And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city.
Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.
Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.
To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.
And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.
I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.
But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.
What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.
But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power. The US and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.
I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance.
There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.
We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.
I do not believe there is any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine. Of course there is cynicism about recent announcements. But the US is now committed, and, I believe genuinely, to the roadmap for peace, designed in consultation with the UN. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today.
All of us are now signed up to its vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world, and a viable Palestinian state. And that should be part of a larger global agenda. On poverty and sustainable development. On democracy and human rights. On the good governance of nations.
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.
And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.
I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.
I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear."
And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?
What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.
Who will celebrate and who will weep?
And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the Middle East peace plan, devoid of our influence, stripped of our insistence?
This house wanted this decision. Well it has it. Those are the choices. And in this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal.
But on this decision hangs the fate of many things:
Of whether we summon the strength to recognise this global challenge of the 21st century and meet it.
Of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship.
Of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear.
Of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come."
I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come.
To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the UN back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.
Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.
I beg to move the motion.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Afghans fear NATO strikes more than Taliban insurgents
An index of all posts on this Blog
When three dozen or so Afghan insurgents attacked the Kandahar prison on June 13, 2008, freeing about 1000 prisoners, including about 400 suspected insurgents, it served as a cover for other insurgents to move in to several villages in the Arghanhab district of the Kandahar province of Afghanistan, in a very effective show of force. They made ISAF, NATO and the ANA look like incompetant fools.
From several news reports I read on the subject, as the insurgents moved into their villages, many inhabitants of the Arghanhab district decided to flee and took shelter in downtown Kandahar.
What is significant is that most of those who fled did not do so because of the Taliban themselves, but because of fear of the Air Strikes that always rain in on their villages when the Taliban are in town.
It is NATO and ISAF Air Strikes they fear, not the Taliban. And for good reason.
Like I wrote several times before, if we let the military run this war in a purely military fashion, we will win every battle, but we will just as surely loose the war.
When three dozen or so Afghan insurgents attacked the Kandahar prison on June 13, 2008, freeing about 1000 prisoners, including about 400 suspected insurgents, it served as a cover for other insurgents to move in to several villages in the Arghanhab district of the Kandahar province of Afghanistan, in a very effective show of force. They made ISAF, NATO and the ANA look like incompetant fools.
From several news reports I read on the subject, as the insurgents moved into their villages, many inhabitants of the Arghanhab district decided to flee and took shelter in downtown Kandahar.
What is significant is that most of those who fled did not do so because of the Taliban themselves, but because of fear of the Air Strikes that always rain in on their villages when the Taliban are in town.
It is NATO and ISAF Air Strikes they fear, not the Taliban. And for good reason.
Like I wrote several times before, if we let the military run this war in a purely military fashion, we will win every battle, but we will just as surely loose the war.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Don't expect too much change from Barack Obama
An index of all posts on this Blog
What a disappointment Obama turned out to be, even before being elected. See the two articles below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Uri Avnery's article was published here.
No, I Can't!
07/06/08
AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Eric Margolis Article was published here
Archives > June 09, 2008
OBAMA: HOPE AND DISSAPPOINTMENT
NEW YORK – In late August, the Democratic Party convention will formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for president, 146 years after Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed America’s black slaves, and exactly 45 years after Martin Luther King delivered his epochal speech, `I Have a Dream.’ Barack Obama’s hard-won triumph in the Democratic Party presidential primaries is an historic event, and certainly a great moment for America. The nomination of the first non-white for the presidency ought to make all Americans stand taller. The rest of the world is certainly cheering. America has resumed its traditional role as being the land where achieving the impossible is possible. After eight years of deeply reactionary government, many Americans are rising up in revolt and calling for the most dramatic of changes. The media keeps calling Obama a `black.’ But the junior senator from Illinois is technically not a `black’ at all.His father was a black Kenyan, his mother a white from Kansas. Obama is as much white as black. We should really call him a `person of color’ or of mixed blood. In fact, Obama, who sips tea and listens to Mozart, is much closer to white, liberal, upper middle class society than America’s traditional black culture and working class whites. I suspect that to many of his white supporters, Obama is a man of color who acts, speaks and looks white. Even so, Obama’s candidacy will do much to uplift all America’s people of color and generate new respect for them. He seems set to be the second Martin Luther King. The French media hails him as the next John Kennedy.Though Obama is not really a black man in the North American sense of the term, his candidacy has revealed the racist underbelly of the United States, particularly among southern rednecks, blue collar workers, and some evangelical Christians. Hillary Clinton helped open this Pandora’s box, and Republicans will be certain to keep the lid open during the campaign. Many Jewish Americans, no strangers to racism, are also spreading anti-Obama sentiments. An intense, below the radar campaign is going on among Jewish groups warning that Obama is `soft on Israel’ or even a closet Muslim. `I don’t trust that Schwartz in a suit,’ as one New Yorker puts it. Even Obama’s embarrassing ritual kow-towing to the Israel lobby in Washington this week did not allay such hostility. Contradicting his vows to change US foreign policy, Obama vowed fealty to Israel’s positions, even going so far as to promise to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s `undivided capitol,’ threatening Iran and joining in the mantra that it is a grave world danger. John McCain’s positions expressed the same week were almost identical. What this all means is that no matter who becomes president, the Israel lobby, which is an arm of Israel’s expansionist right wing parties, will remain firmly in charge of US Mideast policy while Israel’s center-left, which advocates land for peace, remains ignored. A genuine peace settlement between Arabs and Israelis will thus remain unlikely, and the United States will increasingly be seen as the enemy of the Muslim world.Those who hoped Obama might change US Mideast policy will find their hopes dashed. The next big question: who will Obama choose for vice president. Angry feminists and the menopause brigades are demanding Obama name Hillary Clinton. But given her 40% negative national ratings, and the prospect of Obama being stuck in a ménage a trois with Hillary and Bill Clinton, he should look elsewhere.By refusing to graciously concede defeat weeks ago, and raising the race issue, Mrs. Clinton put her political career before the party. But she is clearly angling for a senior position with a new Obama administration, or at least a major role in the Democratic Party that will serve her as a platform for her next run for the presidency in the 2012 election. She intends to be a permanent political fixture. Even so, many America have had enough of eight years of Clinton sleaze, and then eight more years of the catastrophic George W. Bush. The nation craves dignity and honor in the White House. Either Obama or McCain will be a hugely welcome change to the previous two administrations. Obama has served only one Senate term. Veteran senator and decorated war veteran McCain will crucify him over the inexperience issue. So Obama badly needs a highly experienced political and foreign policy ally with Washington know-how for VP, like Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Chris Dodd, or the able Gov. Bill Richardson. McCain is now flirting with an East Indian-American, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and Colin Powell as potential `dark-skinned VPs,’ and with former HP boss Cory Fiorina to attract female voters. Picking a person of color or a woman just to steal votes from Obama would probably be seen as a cheap ploy by many Americans and backfire. McCain may end up picking a youthful governor or senator to offset his advanced years. Obama has broken America’s race barrier, but sadly the 2008 campaign promises to be as much about skin color as policy and character. Worse, in his first serious encounters with the Republican attack machine and the mighty Israel lobby, Obama either became flummoxed or caved in. Not an auspicious beginning for the man who is supposed to change America.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008
++++++++++++++++++++++
November 06 2008 Update
As I was writing several months ago, don't put too much hope on Obama for any real change in US Foreign Policy. The day after he was elected, he selected a Jewish American, Rahm Emanuel, one who had voted go to war in Iraq, as White House Chief of Staff. How can one claim to be an honest broker in the Middle East if your closest advisers are obviously pro-Israel ? What message did this choice send to the Arab and Muslim world ? NO CHANGE.
What a disappointment Obama turned out to be, even before being elected. See the two articles below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Uri Avnery's article was published here.
No, I Can't!
07/06/08
AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Eric Margolis Article was published here
Archives > June 09, 2008
OBAMA: HOPE AND DISSAPPOINTMENT
NEW YORK – In late August, the Democratic Party convention will formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for president, 146 years after Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed America’s black slaves, and exactly 45 years after Martin Luther King delivered his epochal speech, `I Have a Dream.’ Barack Obama’s hard-won triumph in the Democratic Party presidential primaries is an historic event, and certainly a great moment for America. The nomination of the first non-white for the presidency ought to make all Americans stand taller. The rest of the world is certainly cheering. America has resumed its traditional role as being the land where achieving the impossible is possible. After eight years of deeply reactionary government, many Americans are rising up in revolt and calling for the most dramatic of changes. The media keeps calling Obama a `black.’ But the junior senator from Illinois is technically not a `black’ at all.His father was a black Kenyan, his mother a white from Kansas. Obama is as much white as black. We should really call him a `person of color’ or of mixed blood. In fact, Obama, who sips tea and listens to Mozart, is much closer to white, liberal, upper middle class society than America’s traditional black culture and working class whites. I suspect that to many of his white supporters, Obama is a man of color who acts, speaks and looks white. Even so, Obama’s candidacy will do much to uplift all America’s people of color and generate new respect for them. He seems set to be the second Martin Luther King. The French media hails him as the next John Kennedy.Though Obama is not really a black man in the North American sense of the term, his candidacy has revealed the racist underbelly of the United States, particularly among southern rednecks, blue collar workers, and some evangelical Christians. Hillary Clinton helped open this Pandora’s box, and Republicans will be certain to keep the lid open during the campaign. Many Jewish Americans, no strangers to racism, are also spreading anti-Obama sentiments. An intense, below the radar campaign is going on among Jewish groups warning that Obama is `soft on Israel’ or even a closet Muslim. `I don’t trust that Schwartz in a suit,’ as one New Yorker puts it. Even Obama’s embarrassing ritual kow-towing to the Israel lobby in Washington this week did not allay such hostility. Contradicting his vows to change US foreign policy, Obama vowed fealty to Israel’s positions, even going so far as to promise to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s `undivided capitol,’ threatening Iran and joining in the mantra that it is a grave world danger. John McCain’s positions expressed the same week were almost identical. What this all means is that no matter who becomes president, the Israel lobby, which is an arm of Israel’s expansionist right wing parties, will remain firmly in charge of US Mideast policy while Israel’s center-left, which advocates land for peace, remains ignored. A genuine peace settlement between Arabs and Israelis will thus remain unlikely, and the United States will increasingly be seen as the enemy of the Muslim world.Those who hoped Obama might change US Mideast policy will find their hopes dashed. The next big question: who will Obama choose for vice president. Angry feminists and the menopause brigades are demanding Obama name Hillary Clinton. But given her 40% negative national ratings, and the prospect of Obama being stuck in a ménage a trois with Hillary and Bill Clinton, he should look elsewhere.By refusing to graciously concede defeat weeks ago, and raising the race issue, Mrs. Clinton put her political career before the party. But she is clearly angling for a senior position with a new Obama administration, or at least a major role in the Democratic Party that will serve her as a platform for her next run for the presidency in the 2012 election. She intends to be a permanent political fixture. Even so, many America have had enough of eight years of Clinton sleaze, and then eight more years of the catastrophic George W. Bush. The nation craves dignity and honor in the White House. Either Obama or McCain will be a hugely welcome change to the previous two administrations. Obama has served only one Senate term. Veteran senator and decorated war veteran McCain will crucify him over the inexperience issue. So Obama badly needs a highly experienced political and foreign policy ally with Washington know-how for VP, like Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Chris Dodd, or the able Gov. Bill Richardson. McCain is now flirting with an East Indian-American, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and Colin Powell as potential `dark-skinned VPs,’ and with former HP boss Cory Fiorina to attract female voters. Picking a person of color or a woman just to steal votes from Obama would probably be seen as a cheap ploy by many Americans and backfire. McCain may end up picking a youthful governor or senator to offset his advanced years. Obama has broken America’s race barrier, but sadly the 2008 campaign promises to be as much about skin color as policy and character. Worse, in his first serious encounters with the Republican attack machine and the mighty Israel lobby, Obama either became flummoxed or caved in. Not an auspicious beginning for the man who is supposed to change America.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008
++++++++++++++++++++++
November 06 2008 Update
As I was writing several months ago, don't put too much hope on Obama for any real change in US Foreign Policy. The day after he was elected, he selected a Jewish American, Rahm Emanuel, one who had voted go to war in Iraq, as White House Chief of Staff. How can one claim to be an honest broker in the Middle East if your closest advisers are obviously pro-Israel ? What message did this choice send to the Arab and Muslim world ? NO CHANGE.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Canada is allied with a nation that tortures its prisoners
An index of all posts on this Blog
A review of the FBI's involvement in and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq.
www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0805/final.pdf
For those who still do not understand that we will fail in Afghanistan and why we will fail: we do not stand on the moral high ground.
A review of the FBI's involvement in and Observations of Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq.
www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0805/final.pdf
For those who still do not understand that we will fail in Afghanistan and why we will fail: we do not stand on the moral high ground.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Canada-Cuba Foreign policy now comes from Washington
An index of all posts on this Blog
If you read here, you will find this May 20th 2008 statement of "Demonstrating Solidarity with the Cuban People’s Struggle for Freedom" made by the US Department of State.
www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2008/105032.htm
Here is a paragraph from that Statement:
To promote peaceful democratic change in Cuba and show support for the Cuban people, May 21 will mark a “Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People.” The day will focus on the plight of prisoners of conscience and the lack of civil and political freedoms in Cuba. The Cuban regime denies its people the most basic freedoms and opportunities that are enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The current regime seeks to legitimize itself both at home and abroad through initiatives which fail to address fundamental economic flaws or promote basic freedoms denied to the Cuban people. Raul Castro's succession to power occurred without a democratic vote by the Cuban people.
The very next day, on May 21st 2008, Canada made a nearly identical statement about "Solidarity with the Cuban people"
http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=E&publication_id=386203&docnumber=123
The Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued the following statement in recognition of May 21st as the Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People:
“Canada’s links with the people of Cuba go back many years. Indeed, Cuba was the first Caribbean nation selected by Canada as a location for a Canadian diplomatic mission,” Minister Bernier said.
“Canada engages Cuban society through our diplomatic presence which is aimed at helping to lay the groundwork for a Cuba that upholds freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is in keeping with our renewed engagement in the Americas.
“Canada continues to monitor developments in Cuba closely, and we are concerned about the plight of political prisoners, especially those suffering from poor health. It is our hope that recent shifts will open the way for the Cuban people to pursue a process of political and economic reform,” added the Minister.
Does anyone still have any doubts about who Maxime Bernier's boss really is?
If you read here, you will find this May 20th 2008 statement of "Demonstrating Solidarity with the Cuban People’s Struggle for Freedom" made by the US Department of State.
www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2008/105032.htm
Here is a paragraph from that Statement:
To promote peaceful democratic change in Cuba and show support for the Cuban people, May 21 will mark a “Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People.” The day will focus on the plight of prisoners of conscience and the lack of civil and political freedoms in Cuba. The Cuban regime denies its people the most basic freedoms and opportunities that are enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The current regime seeks to legitimize itself both at home and abroad through initiatives which fail to address fundamental economic flaws or promote basic freedoms denied to the Cuban people. Raul Castro's succession to power occurred without a democratic vote by the Cuban people.
The very next day, on May 21st 2008, Canada made a nearly identical statement about "Solidarity with the Cuban people"
http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=E&publication_id=386203&docnumber=123
The Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued the following statement in recognition of May 21st as the Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People:
“Canada’s links with the people of Cuba go back many years. Indeed, Cuba was the first Caribbean nation selected by Canada as a location for a Canadian diplomatic mission,” Minister Bernier said.
“Canada engages Cuban society through our diplomatic presence which is aimed at helping to lay the groundwork for a Cuba that upholds freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is in keeping with our renewed engagement in the Americas.
“Canada continues to monitor developments in Cuba closely, and we are concerned about the plight of political prisoners, especially those suffering from poor health. It is our hope that recent shifts will open the way for the Cuban people to pursue a process of political and economic reform,” added the Minister.
Does anyone still have any doubts about who Maxime Bernier's boss really is?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Canada - Burma: policy written in Washington
An index of all posts on this Blog
On May 2 2008 a terrible cyclone hit Burma and possibly killed over 100,000 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless. The people of Burma are in a dire crisis and are in need of relief quickly. They need food, water, medical supplies, doctors, fuel, shelter.
As I write these words, on May 13, 11 days after the disaster, Canada has still not sent any relief supplies.
How does Canada respond? Exactly like George W. Bush did.
On May 5 2008, three days after the cyclone hit, Canada made Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposion leader in Burma, an honorary citizen of Canada. And instead of offering unconditional help to the people of Burma, we are playing with their lives.
On Tuesday May 6th, the day after the Ottawa speech, Bush held a special ceremony at the White House to sign a bill giving Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi a Congressional Gold Medal. He used the occasion to place deliberately provocative conditions on any disbursement of aid to the ravaged country, beyond an initial token sum.
“The United States has made an initial aid contribution, but we want to do a lot more,” Bush declared. “We’re prepared to move US Navy assets to help find those who’ve lost their lives, to help find the missing, to help stabilize the situation. But in order to do so, the military junta must allow our disaster assessment teams into the country.”
These two ceremonies, coordinated to take place in Ottawa and Washington 24 hours apart, just days after the disaster struck, shows you how Canada's foreign policy is now written in Washington. We are using civil disasters to score political points against a military junta. How low will Canada go?
I support Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy in Burma but was the timing right to score political points against the junta? At this time of crisis, should Canada not offer UNCONDITIONAL humanitarian help?
Not according to Bush and Harper.
Here is the Maxime Bernier speech. Judge for yourself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 5, 2008
OTTAWA, Ontario2008/9
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY
THE HONOURABLE MAXIME BERNIER
UPON THE PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE
OF HONORARY CITIZENSHIP FOR AUNG SAN SUU KYI
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining me here today to honour Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.
Today is supposed to be a day dedicated to honouring Aung San Suu Kyi. However, last Friday, the people of Burma were severely hit by Tropical Cyclone Nargis, which caused massive destruction. Many lives have been lost and some of the most vulnerable communities in Burma have been affected.
On behalf of Canadians, I want to extend my sympathies to the people of Burma at this particularly difficult time. We encourage the authorities to provide full and unhindered access to the United Nations and Canadian humanitarian organizations to allow them to assist with the relief efforts.
As my colleague, Minister Bev Oda, announced earlier today, Canada has set aside up to $2 million to meet the urgent needs of the Burmese people. Canada will work closely with independent, neutral and trusted partners, such as UN humanitarian agencies, the Red Cross Movement and experienced non-governmental organizations, to determine how best Canada can help.
Our thoughts are with those families in Burma who have lost loved ones and whose lives have been affected by this disaster.
During last September’s demonstrations in Rangoon, Canadians were appalled by the violence inflicted on peaceful protesters’ demonstrations in that country. It was a sad reminder to us all of how little this country enjoys in the way of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Canada remains appalled by the ongoing repressive actions of the Burmese regime and the climate of fear that has been created in that country.
After observing the regime’s outrageous behaviour, the Government of Canada decided that imposing economic sanctions would be an effective way to respond—and to demonstrate Canadians’ disgust with the junta’s actions.
As I said in a speech in Toronto that announced the sanctions:
“Tougher sanctions against Burma are the right thing to do. They are right on moral grounds. The regime in Burma is abhorrent to Canadian values. And the strongest message has to be sent. Sanctions are the means by which we—not just Canada, but the international community—can best exert pressure against the military junta…There is no more room for compromise with this odious regime.”
The day after my speech, I took the initiative of meeting with Burmese-Canadian community representatives. I explained to them the steps we would take to increase pressure on the military junta.
I had a very clear message for the Burmese-Canadian community that day. I’d like to repeat that message again today: our government stands with you.
And so, on December 13, 2007, Canada formally imposed the strongest sanctions in the world against the Burmese regime—in order to respond to the gravity of the situation in that country.
In spite of the calls by Canada and other members of the international community, the Burmese regime has continued to arrest and detain those who oppose it. It has denied the people of Burma their basic human rights.
In Burma today, there is no right to freedom of the press.
There is no right to freedom of speech.
There is no right to freedom of assembly.
Nevertheless, many people in Burma continue with the struggle to bring freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law to that country.
This struggle is personified by monks across Burma who marched through the streets last September to oppose the oppressive and destructive actions of the regime.
It is personified by members of the 88 Generation Students Group, whose leaders, Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi, along with other democracy activists, have been arrested and charged for expressing their political beliefs.
And it is personified by Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, which won Burma’s last democratic elections in 1990, but was never allowed to take power.
It is in recognition of Aung San Suu Kyi’s long and courageous struggle to promote freedom and democracy in Burma that we are gathered here today. It is a struggle that she has pursued in the face of overwhelming odds.
Though she has been a political prisoner for much of the last 18 years, she has not been deterred in her efforts. Instead, she has become an inspiring force for democratic reform.
On October 17, 2007, in support of the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister tabled a motion in this House to confer honorary Canadian citizenship on Aung San Suu Kyi.
While it would give me great pleasure to be able to present this certificate to Aung San Suu Kyi herself, she remains under house arrest and is unable to leave Burma. Her continued detention is but one example of the Burmese regime’s complete unwillingness to engage in a genuine dialogue with Burma’s democratic forces.
However, I am very pleased that Sein Win, cousin to Aung San Suu Kyi and a leading member of Burma’s democratic forces abroad, has agreed to accept this honour on her behalf. Like his cousin, Sein Win has worked tirelessly to promote genuine democratic reform and national dialogue in Burma.
Our government was also pleased to welcome Dr. Sein Win to the March 27, 2008, conference entitled How the International Community Can Support UN Efforts in Burma/Myanmar. This conference was sponsored by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada [DFAIT] and hosted by Laval University.
This forum brought together leading experts on Burma from NGOs, the Burmese community in Canada and abroad, government and UN agencies, and academia, to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing Burma today.
My colleague, the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, delivered the conference’s opening address. In his speech, he underscored our government’s commitment to continue working with the international community to put pressure on the Government of Burma to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people.
At my direction, DFAIT has already begun studying the recommendations put forward over the course of the conference. They will form part of our ongoing search for ideas on how our government might further contribute to international efforts to bring about genuine democratic reform in Burma.
Our government is standing up for the universal values that are under siege in Burma today. The presentation of this honorary Canadian citizenship to Aung San Suu Kyi is testimony to Canada’s long-standing respect and admiration for her tireless struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma.
The Burmese regime has announced that it will hold a referendum on Burma’s newly drafted constitution on May 10, just a few short days from now.
Canada believes that all citizens of Burma should have the opportunity to freely express their views on the constitution. Otherwise, this process will be nothing more than a meaningless exercise to entrench and legitimize military rule.
However, rather than allow a free and open debate, the Burmese regime continues to conduct a campaign of harassment and intimidation against those who express their opposition to the Constitution. Many leading members of Burma’s democratic forces remain in detention, unable to have a voice in their country’s future.
These are just a few of the many reasons why our government continues to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners.
Until that day comes, our government—and I as Minister of Foreign Affairs—will continue to take a leadership role in urging the Burmese regime to undertake genuine democratic reform. We stand alongside those who share our founding values of respect for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, especially those who, like Aung San Suu Kyi, are denied them.
Thank you.
On May 2 2008 a terrible cyclone hit Burma and possibly killed over 100,000 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless. The people of Burma are in a dire crisis and are in need of relief quickly. They need food, water, medical supplies, doctors, fuel, shelter.
As I write these words, on May 13, 11 days after the disaster, Canada has still not sent any relief supplies.
How does Canada respond? Exactly like George W. Bush did.
On May 5 2008, three days after the cyclone hit, Canada made Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposion leader in Burma, an honorary citizen of Canada. And instead of offering unconditional help to the people of Burma, we are playing with their lives.
On Tuesday May 6th, the day after the Ottawa speech, Bush held a special ceremony at the White House to sign a bill giving Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi a Congressional Gold Medal. He used the occasion to place deliberately provocative conditions on any disbursement of aid to the ravaged country, beyond an initial token sum.
“The United States has made an initial aid contribution, but we want to do a lot more,” Bush declared. “We’re prepared to move US Navy assets to help find those who’ve lost their lives, to help find the missing, to help stabilize the situation. But in order to do so, the military junta must allow our disaster assessment teams into the country.”
These two ceremonies, coordinated to take place in Ottawa and Washington 24 hours apart, just days after the disaster struck, shows you how Canada's foreign policy is now written in Washington. We are using civil disasters to score political points against a military junta. How low will Canada go?
I support Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy in Burma but was the timing right to score political points against the junta? At this time of crisis, should Canada not offer UNCONDITIONAL humanitarian help?
Not according to Bush and Harper.
Here is the Maxime Bernier speech. Judge for yourself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 5, 2008
OTTAWA, Ontario2008/9
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY
THE HONOURABLE MAXIME BERNIER
UPON THE PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE
OF HONORARY CITIZENSHIP FOR AUNG SAN SUU KYI
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining me here today to honour Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.
Today is supposed to be a day dedicated to honouring Aung San Suu Kyi. However, last Friday, the people of Burma were severely hit by Tropical Cyclone Nargis, which caused massive destruction. Many lives have been lost and some of the most vulnerable communities in Burma have been affected.
On behalf of Canadians, I want to extend my sympathies to the people of Burma at this particularly difficult time. We encourage the authorities to provide full and unhindered access to the United Nations and Canadian humanitarian organizations to allow them to assist with the relief efforts.
As my colleague, Minister Bev Oda, announced earlier today, Canada has set aside up to $2 million to meet the urgent needs of the Burmese people. Canada will work closely with independent, neutral and trusted partners, such as UN humanitarian agencies, the Red Cross Movement and experienced non-governmental organizations, to determine how best Canada can help.
Our thoughts are with those families in Burma who have lost loved ones and whose lives have been affected by this disaster.
During last September’s demonstrations in Rangoon, Canadians were appalled by the violence inflicted on peaceful protesters’ demonstrations in that country. It was a sad reminder to us all of how little this country enjoys in the way of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Canada remains appalled by the ongoing repressive actions of the Burmese regime and the climate of fear that has been created in that country.
After observing the regime’s outrageous behaviour, the Government of Canada decided that imposing economic sanctions would be an effective way to respond—and to demonstrate Canadians’ disgust with the junta’s actions.
As I said in a speech in Toronto that announced the sanctions:
“Tougher sanctions against Burma are the right thing to do. They are right on moral grounds. The regime in Burma is abhorrent to Canadian values. And the strongest message has to be sent. Sanctions are the means by which we—not just Canada, but the international community—can best exert pressure against the military junta…There is no more room for compromise with this odious regime.”
The day after my speech, I took the initiative of meeting with Burmese-Canadian community representatives. I explained to them the steps we would take to increase pressure on the military junta.
I had a very clear message for the Burmese-Canadian community that day. I’d like to repeat that message again today: our government stands with you.
And so, on December 13, 2007, Canada formally imposed the strongest sanctions in the world against the Burmese regime—in order to respond to the gravity of the situation in that country.
In spite of the calls by Canada and other members of the international community, the Burmese regime has continued to arrest and detain those who oppose it. It has denied the people of Burma their basic human rights.
In Burma today, there is no right to freedom of the press.
There is no right to freedom of speech.
There is no right to freedom of assembly.
Nevertheless, many people in Burma continue with the struggle to bring freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law to that country.
This struggle is personified by monks across Burma who marched through the streets last September to oppose the oppressive and destructive actions of the regime.
It is personified by members of the 88 Generation Students Group, whose leaders, Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi, along with other democracy activists, have been arrested and charged for expressing their political beliefs.
And it is personified by Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, which won Burma’s last democratic elections in 1990, but was never allowed to take power.
It is in recognition of Aung San Suu Kyi’s long and courageous struggle to promote freedom and democracy in Burma that we are gathered here today. It is a struggle that she has pursued in the face of overwhelming odds.
Though she has been a political prisoner for much of the last 18 years, she has not been deterred in her efforts. Instead, she has become an inspiring force for democratic reform.
On October 17, 2007, in support of the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister tabled a motion in this House to confer honorary Canadian citizenship on Aung San Suu Kyi.
While it would give me great pleasure to be able to present this certificate to Aung San Suu Kyi herself, she remains under house arrest and is unable to leave Burma. Her continued detention is but one example of the Burmese regime’s complete unwillingness to engage in a genuine dialogue with Burma’s democratic forces.
However, I am very pleased that Sein Win, cousin to Aung San Suu Kyi and a leading member of Burma’s democratic forces abroad, has agreed to accept this honour on her behalf. Like his cousin, Sein Win has worked tirelessly to promote genuine democratic reform and national dialogue in Burma.
Our government was also pleased to welcome Dr. Sein Win to the March 27, 2008, conference entitled How the International Community Can Support UN Efforts in Burma/Myanmar. This conference was sponsored by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada [DFAIT] and hosted by Laval University.
This forum brought together leading experts on Burma from NGOs, the Burmese community in Canada and abroad, government and UN agencies, and academia, to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing Burma today.
My colleague, the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, delivered the conference’s opening address. In his speech, he underscored our government’s commitment to continue working with the international community to put pressure on the Government of Burma to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people.
At my direction, DFAIT has already begun studying the recommendations put forward over the course of the conference. They will form part of our ongoing search for ideas on how our government might further contribute to international efforts to bring about genuine democratic reform in Burma.
Our government is standing up for the universal values that are under siege in Burma today. The presentation of this honorary Canadian citizenship to Aung San Suu Kyi is testimony to Canada’s long-standing respect and admiration for her tireless struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma.
The Burmese regime has announced that it will hold a referendum on Burma’s newly drafted constitution on May 10, just a few short days from now.
Canada believes that all citizens of Burma should have the opportunity to freely express their views on the constitution. Otherwise, this process will be nothing more than a meaningless exercise to entrench and legitimize military rule.
However, rather than allow a free and open debate, the Burmese regime continues to conduct a campaign of harassment and intimidation against those who express their opposition to the Constitution. Many leading members of Burma’s democratic forces remain in detention, unable to have a voice in their country’s future.
These are just a few of the many reasons why our government continues to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners.
Until that day comes, our government—and I as Minister of Foreign Affairs—will continue to take a leadership role in urging the Burmese regime to undertake genuine democratic reform. We stand alongside those who share our founding values of respect for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, especially those who, like Aung San Suu Kyi, are denied them.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
