![]() Monday, Mar 11, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Hasan Suroor
Critics of Washington's Iraq policy were up in arms after a newspaper reported that America had asked Britain to provide 25,000 troops for an attack on Iraq. The British contingent would join a 250,000-strong U.S. ground force to "invade" Iraq in an operation similar to the 1991 attack, it said triggering a wave of protests with Labour MPs warning the Prime Minister, Tony Blair against backing any such move. One Labour MP, George Galloway called it "madness" to attack Iraq saying it would destabilise the entire region at a time when there was already so much tension in West Asia. He warned that Mr. Blair would pay a "heavy price" if he supported an "invasion" of Iraq in the absence of any evidence. Mr. Galloway has been often accused of being an apologist for the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein but even more restrained voices in the Labour Party reacted with concern to The Observer report which, they said, suggested that U.S. plans for military action against Iraq were in an advanced stage. Donald Anderson of Parliament's foreign affairs committee said the first aim should be to get Iraq to accept U.N. weapons inspectors, and criticised the "reckless elements" in America who, he said, were on a "roll" after the military success in Afghanistan. A military action, he said, should be the last option and nothing should be done without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council. His remarks echoed the growing concern within the Blair Government over what is seen as America's "unilateralist" foreign policy aims. As pressure mounted on the Government to desist from "adventurism" and two Labour MPs, Alice Mahon and Tam Dalyell prepared to deliver a protest letter to the Prime Minister's Office, the party chairman, Charles Clarke sought to calm things down saying that Mr. Blair would urge the U.S. to seek international consensus before taking the plunge. British concerns would be conveyed to Mr. Cheney who is coming here, apparently armed with "fresh evidence" to justify action against Iraq. "Our argument is that the U.S. must internationalise what they are doing and work with other people in the world community," he told the BBC. But he denied that there was a split in the Cabinet even as speculation persisted that at least two senior Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, currently leader of the Commons, had clearly told the Prime Minister that they were opposed to Britain getting drawn into America's war aims. Downing Street played down The Observer report saying no decision had been taken "let alone any requests" for British troops. There was no official comment on America's nuclear "hit list" but analysts said the report, coinciding with Mr. Cheney's visit, would embarrass both the British and U.S. Governments. "It drives a coach and horses through NATO's nuclear doctrine of minimum deterrence," the Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies Campbell said.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|