The Hindu : What is driving Blair to war?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jan 28, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

What is driving Blair to war?

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON JAN. 27. Forget all the moral arguments against a military attack on Iraq, but the question remains: what is in it for Britain? How does a war with Iraq serve British national interests, and how does it help the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, personally to defy the growing tide of anti-war sentiment, not only on the streets of Britain but within his own party and, more ominously, his Cabinet and among his European allies?

This is a question that has baffled even the most astute of political pundits ever since Mr. Blair declared his undying support for American military moves against Iraq. Reams of newsprint and hundreds of hours of television time have been consumed in finding an answer to this puzzle but nobody is any the wiser, and even the Downing Street spin machine, normally bright as buttons, is floundering. Particularly puzzling is Mr Blair's defiance of his most important European neighbours, Germany and France, considering that here is a man who had a grand "vision" for Europe, who saw it as his historic destiny to put Britain "at the heart of Europe," and emerge as a "bridge" between Europe and America.

Whatever then happened to Britain's most unapologetic and famous Europhile? Today, he is very nearly isolated in Europe as both France and Germany — the big beasts of Continental politics — have hardened their anti-war stance while he remains firmly tied to the American camp. Indignities are heaped on him every day as stand-up comedians, cartoonists and sketch writers deride him portraying him as Mr. Bush's "poodle" and "puppet". A panellist on BBC Question Time seriously suggested that Mr. Blair was trying to turn Britain into "the 51st state" of the United States of America, and the New Statesman showed him on its cover, dressed up as a marine and ready to shoot with the caption, "Can he be stopped".

Last week, Mr. Blair faced public humiliation when a student from the London School of Economics heckled him at a Labour Party function while the audience watched with glee. He was midway through his speech when the youth interrupted him and pointedly asked what all of Britain is asking: why was he going to war and not listening to the people, most of whom were "totally against this war".

But what is more damaging for him is the growing in-house opposition to his Iraq policy. Several of his senior Cabinet colleagues have been briefing against him, a revolt is said to be brewing among his MPs who say he is "demeaning" Parliament by trying to plunge the country into a U.S.-led war without Parliamentary approval, and with the bulk of the party opposed to his line there is concern that he could be risking his political career if he backs any unilateral American action which does not have a U.N. mandate. Even among the Tories, who are officially backing Mr. Blair's policy, there is concern that he is dragging the country into a war without public support. They include the former Tory Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, the former Tory Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, and a former Foreign Office Minister, Douglas Hogg. None of them thinks that Mr. Blair has been able to make out a convincing case for risking thousands of British lives where there is no apparent national interest at stake. "People wonder if Mr. Blair's stance is determined by national interest or by a personal interest in strutting the world stage," a senior Tory figure, Peter Ainsworth, told a Sunday newspaper, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, said the country was being "bulldozed into a war, not of our choosing and not on the basis of the evidence so far vital to our national interests." But Mr. Blair remains unfazed and insists that it is in British interest to disarm Saddam Hussein because he believes that terrorists might get hold of Mr. Hussein's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and use them against Britain when they have no other use for them.

The contrary and more persuasive argument, however, is that he is in fact making Britain more vulnerable to a terrorist attack by backing a U.S.-led war which will play into the hands of extremists.

By igniting a military conflict in West Asia, he is also seen to be undermining his own efforts to ease the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, which he himself acknowledges, is the source of a lot of anger that has bred militancy in the region.

He is clearly aware of the potentially destabilising effect of a war with Iraq but chooses to ignore it under American influence, if not pressure.

Mr. Bush might have his own reasons to get rid of Mr. Hussein (dad's unfinished business for one, oil for another) but what is driving Mr. Blair to a war? Whatever it is, one thing is clear: his standing in Europe and his credibility as a trusted ally would be greatly diminished if he goes it alone with America.

And at home, where the overwhelming majority is against a war without a U.N. mandate, he can only pray that there would be no body bags coming back from the Gulf to threaten his political career.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Gains from disinvestment

AICC's manoeuvres in Rajasthan

Liberties at risk

A new role for NGOs

What is driving Blair to war?

Congress and terrorism: clear break with the old line

Privatisation not the answer