Committing its forces to war is never an easy decision for a centre-left government to take. And, as the backbench revolts in the House of Commons have demonstrated, throughout the Labour party there is a deep unease about such a course: concern about civilian casualties in Iraq, the creation of even more instability in the Middle East, and the possibility that Britain will become a greater target for terrorists.
There are indeed entirely legitimate questions that party members have raised. Has the policy of containing Iraq really failed? Will war against Iraq weaken the international coalition against terrorism? What about other countries – Israel, for instance – who are in defiance of UN resolutions? What about North Korea? Has America a viable plan for the reconstruction of Iraq and the creation of a liberal democratic state? In short: why Iraq, and why now?
The party is, of course, simply reflecting the concerns of the country at large, which were made evident by last month’s huge demonstrations. We share, and understand fully, these concerns, even if we feel that the anti-Americanism in which some of them are couched has no real justification. Nonetheless, we believe that military action, in the case of Iraq, is both legitimate and justified. Labour party members should be concerned about our government going to war against Iraq, but they have no reason to feel ashamed of it.
Iraq is in clear breach of not simply UN resolution 1441, but also of the resolutions which govern the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Saddam Hussein has been given opportunity after opportunity to disarm and to do so peacefully. He has flouted the will of the international community, spent most of the 1990s playing games with the UN weapons inspectors and, for propaganda purposes, allowed millions of his own people to suffer the consequences of sanctions.
Aside from the geopolitical case for action, there is a moral and humanitarian case for liberating the Iraqi people by removing Saddam. This should appeal to progressive internationalists everywhere. We accept that this case has problems. The people of China (and Tibet), for instance, would, no doubt, dearly love to be rid of a government with an appalling human rights record. However, we do not accept the notion that if we cannot do good everywhere, we should not do good anywhere. It’s also important to remember that in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, our government has played a necessary and honourable role in standing up to tyranny and promoting human rights.
We also find it interesting that many of those who accuse Tony Blair of stubbornness and ignoring public opinion are the very same people who, in the past, have accused him of lacking convictions and being a slavish follower of opinion polls and focus groups.
Much of the unease that the public and Labour party feel about this situation reflects a deep distrust of George W Bush and all that he stands for. We fully agree with that suspicion, even if we find muddled and frankly distasteful the attempt to draw some form of moral equivalence between the President and Saddam. Bush has long been the weakest link in the case for action. Indeed, the UN route has only been pursued because Tony Blair persuaded Bush to adopt this course.
We should not be surprised about this. Since he took office, the President has shown a reckless disregard for the opinions of the international community. His approach to Kyoto, refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court and indifference to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to say nothing of his administration’s apparent desire to develop a new and dangerous generation of bunker-busting nuclear weapons, has undermined, at the worst possible moment, the United States’ ability to portray itself as a force for global good.
In contrast with both his predecessor and Tony Blair, Bush has failed to recognise the centrality to the overall stability of the Middle East of resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Finally, while projecting himself as tough on terrorism, the President, unlike the British government, shows no interest in tackling those injustices and inequities in the world which breed it.
We may find ourselves uncomfortable at being an ally of a President whose domestic and international record has so little to commend itself. But we should not let that blind us to this simple truth: Iraq, the Middle East and the world would be a far better place without Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. In making that case, in the face of public and party opposition, the Prime Minister deserves our support.