Global Policy Forum

By Richard Norton-Taylor

Telegrams from British embassies and missions around the world are urging Tony Blair to step up pressure on President Bush to pull back from a war against Iraq. In what amounts to a collective cri de coeur, our envoys - congregating in Whitehall today for an unprecedented Foreign Office brainstorming session - are warning of the potentially devastating consequences of such an adventure, including its impact on a greater threat than Saddam Hussein: al-Qaida-inspired terrorism.

The warnings are not just coming from our envoys and defence attaches in Arab capitals. They are also, I am told, coming from Washington. This, our diplomats suggest, could be one of Blair's - and Britain's - finest hours, a unique opportunity to make a constructive contribution to world affairs. They also know, not least from American opinion polls, that the Bush administration needs Britain onside. Our contribution would be a token one in military terms, but significant politically. That gives Britain leverage.

It is hard to find anyone in Whitehall who supports a war against Iraq and who is not deeply concerned about the influence of the hawks around Bush. They cannot say so in public, of course.

Whitehall gives Blair the credit for helping to persuade Bush to go down the UN route - a prime example of what Whitehall describes as Britain "punching above its weight". But this should be put into perspective. Richard Falk, Princeton's emeritus professor of international law, notes in the latest issue of Le Monde Diplomatique: "This belated recourse to the UN does not fool many people outside the US, and is not very persuasive to Americans themselves. It is obvious that Bush is no friend of the UN, and only sought UN approval for US policy to defuse domestic opposition to blatant unilateralism."

Falk addresses a key issue: "For the US to insist in voting for resolution 1441 on 8 November, that the UN act as an enforcement agency by reviving weapons inspection, and in so onerous a form that it almost ensures a breakdown, is to enlist the UN in the dirty work of war-making."

It is a key issue because UN security council backing for military action will be seized on by ministers to convince those, including Labour MPs and bishops, who have grave doubts about a war against Iraq. The fact is that the security council has always considered itself above any tenet of international law.

In his biography, The Politics of Diplomacy, former US secretary of state James Baker shamelessly admits how, before the 1991 Gulf war, he met his security council counterparts "in an intricate process of cajoling, extracting, threatening, and occasionally buying votes". America's relative power, and its willingness to use it, has increased over the past 12 years. James Paul, head of Global Policy Forum, a non-governmental body that monitors the UN, says: "The capacity of the US to bring to heel virtually any country in the world is unbelievable."

The US is corrupting the security council by bribing its permanent members - Russia with dollars, China with trade concessions, France and Britain (if it needs any carrots) with the prospect of oil concessions. And Turkey will be amply rewarded if it allows the US to use its bases for an assault on Iraq. Is this how international relations are going to be conducted among the world's most powerful countries in future? Is it that difficult for Blair to go down in history as the leader who prevented a potentially disastrous war fought, as one Whitehall official puts it, simply to prevent Bush from having egg over his face?

What kind of country meekly succumbs to demands for war dictated by domestic party politics, even those of its closest ally? Where is the evidence that Iraq is lying about its weapons of mass destruction? Worried Whitehall officials ask: even if evidence is found, and Saddam Hussein is discovered to have lied, is it not better to keep the UN inspectors - the best deterrence against the use or development of such weapons - on the ground?

One lie ministers could nail is that put about by elements in Washington and Israel - that there are links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. British and American intelligence insist there is no evidence of such a link, yet ministers are frightened to say so for fear of upsetting Washington.

Though there is no love lost between the Iraqi regime and Islamist fundamentalists, an Anglo-American attack on Iraq is likely to attract more recruits to al-Qaida, thereby increasing the risk of terrorist strikes against British and American interests, as well as the destabilisation of other secular Arab states and the west's Middle East allies.

So we come to double standards. While the US demands that Baghdad abide by UN resolutions, it ignores Israel's refusal to do so over the occupied territories. While the US pursues a diplomatic course towards North Korea - a country which has thrown out UN nuclear inspectors - it threatens military action against Iraq, where UN inspectors are busy on the ground. And while the US says international inspectors must investigate the rest of the world to ensure they are not producing chemical or biological weapons, Washington rejects such inspections in the US.

We know, too, that the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein has little to do with democracy. Despite public utterances in support of democratic change in Iraq, Richard Haas, former director of Middle East affairs in Washington's national security council, has admitted that US policy "is to get rid of Saddam Hussein, not his regime". There are those in the Israeli government and Bush administration who argue that the fall of Saddam would encourage the populations of other Arab states to get rid of their undemocratic governments, make peace with Israel and embrace pro-western policies.

Our diplomats and military commanders are clinging to the hope that pressure on Iraq from the build-up of American military force in the Gulf will lead to an "implosion" of Saddam Hussein's regime without a war. They want the organs of the Iraqi state, including the Republican Guard, to remain in place, to maintain law and order with the help of American and British forces and prevent the oil-rich nation's disintegration.

But even if that scenario does come off, it will not address the fundamental questions - about the future conduct of relations between states, the role of the UN, international law, peace in the Middle East, disarmament, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - being asked behind the scenes in Whitehall. Since officials can't talk openly, it is up to MPs to force ministers to give answers.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.