The Hindu : Waiting for summons

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 21, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Waiting for summons

By Hasan Suroor

Nobody in London has any doubt that when Washington finally decides to go into Iraq — and resident U.S. "hawks'' have been emphasising that it is not a question of "if but when'' — the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, would not be found wanting in declaring his support. But equally, nobody has any doubt that he will be doing this at an enormous cost not only to his personal image but to the credibility of British foreign policy whose independence he is already widely seen to have compromised by aligning it so closely with American global aims.

Mr Blair has been warned that he would be risking more isolation in Europe where there is widespread unease over U.S. moves with Germany ruling out even indirect support for any military attack on Iraq. He also risks further damaging Britain's already strained relations with the Arab world, particularly after the outspoken opposition from London's closest Arab ally, King Abdullah of Jordan. But obviously, he has weighed his options and believes that the advantages of going with President Bush outweigh the risks of participating in a venture whose very legality is in doubt.

The opposition at home, meanwhile, is growing and what started off as backbench noises, attributed to "usual suspects'', have turned into a chorus of protest with Mr Blair's Cabinet itself sharply divided on the issue. Several senior Ministers are reported to be ready to force a showdown if there is an attempt to bulldoze the Cabinet into endorsing a fait accompli.

With some of the biggest names in the Government such as the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, and the Leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, joining the anti-war campaign, Mr Blair has his work cut out as he tries to win support for his pro-U.S. instincts. Reports of a Cabinet "revolt'' might be exaggerated, but there is little doubt about the depth of anger among his party and Government colleagues over "toeing'' the American line, and Mr Blair's refusal to consider the "very real concerns'' of his people on the issue.

Over 150 MPs, mostly belonging to Labour, have signed a parliamentary motion insisting that the Government should not go to war without seeking Parliament's approval, and there is a move by Labour-affiliated trade unions to force a debate on the issue at the party's annual conference in Blackpool next month. An "anti-war'' rally is also planned at the venue of the conference.

Even the normally gung-ho Tories are sounding a bit queasy after military experts warned of the risk of heavy British casualties, and an overwhelming majority of British voters have told pollsters they are against pushing the country into a war whose aims have been called into question both on moral and legal grounds.

There was outrage over the U.S. National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice's remarks on BBC last week that there is a "very powerful moral case'' for toppling the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. It evoked widespread condemnation with a former Labour foreign office minister, Tony Lloyd, likening them to the "kind of rhetoric we sometimes hear from fairly tinpot regimes around the world where the agenda isn't to convince the world but to make sure the public at home believe the regime.''

Mr Blair has been deliberately ambiguous saying, on the one hand, that no decisions have been taken and accusing his critics of running "ahead of themselves'', but refusing at the same time to give an assurance that he would not take the plunge without seeking Parliament's endorsement.

He has consistently refused a vote on the issue, simply saying that Parliament would be consulted.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Hurriyat and elections

Of cricket, contracts, cash and country

Testing democratic institutions

Needed: a Kashmir policy — I

Boosting Indo-U.S. ties