Enfield & The Barnets United Nations Association

Why Does the UK Support of the USA over Iraq?

---

Ever since George W. Bush took office there has been concern about US Unilateralism. Reduced to its essentials, this is a concern that under the Bush Administration, the United States of America has decided to abide by international law and treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, or the UN Torture Convention, only when it suits US policy objectives to do so. When it does not, the United States is prepared to ignore international law secure in the knowledge that there is not much anyone can do to restrain the world's only hyper-power from acting as it sees fit.

One of the leading proponents of the unilateralist position is Professor Philip Bobbitt (Princeton, Yale, Oxford) who holds a chair in law at the University of Texas. Bobbit is the advocate of the "market state" theory. Bobbitt argues that globalisation has brought the end of the territorial nation state and the advent of 'market-states', i.e, nation-states whose power extends beyond territorial boundaries.

These powerful states, says Bobbitt, have responsibility for the maintenance of order among backward 'pre-modern' states, for the enforcing of human rights, and for ensuring that such states do not spawn bellicose dictators or provide safe havens for terrorist and pirates, in other words, A New World Order enforced by the Powerful.

Bobbitt considers Al-Quaid'a to be a "virtual state" equipped with international political goals, income and followers. In his theory the Al Quai'da threat and that of "rogue states" requires the "right thinking" states to form "coalitions of the willing" to enforce their values - within the United Nations framework if possible, but outside it if necessary.

Many of the US neoconservatives who have espoused the Bobbitt theory are former marxists and trotskyites who have gone from one political extrreme to the other. With the enthusiasm of the convert, they have sought to become "more catholic than the Pope" and have passed from the extreme left to the neofascist far right

The same phenomenon is to be observed at the heart of the Blair Government and in particular among the Blair/Straw/Blunkett Troika who have the conduct of UK policy on the Iraq crisis and the war on terrorism.

It is worth recalling that Jack Straw was considered by the UK security services to be a "Communist sympathiser" and he was certainly on the radical left as President of the NUS between 1969 and 1971. Many of your older members will recall that David Blunkett was regarded as being on the "loonie left" of the Labour Party in 1985 when as leader of Sheffield Council he was said to run the "Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire". Some may recall his participation in the campaign of disobedience to the Conservative ratecapping law.

It surprised many that in contrast to the late Roy Jenkins, both Staw and Blunkett have turned out to be fundamentally illiberal Home Secretaries. No longer. It appears that the BSB Troika have all been infected with the neoconservative virus and have moved from the left to the far right.

On 19th December 2002, the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Dr Rowan Williams, delivered his Dimbleby Lecture. In scholarly and measured terms, Dr Williams invited the audience to reflect on the validity of the Bobbitt "market state" theory and asked a number of very relevant questions about the moral issues flowing from it.

"The idea that's being increasingly canvassed is that we are witnessing the end of the nation state, and that the nation state is being replaced in the economically developed world by what some call the 'market state.", said the Archbishop. "This new form of political administration has in some ways crept up on us, and we need to do some hard thinking about how it has happened and what changes are."

Instead of scholarly debate, what Dr Williams got was David Blunkett in the Spectator magazine attacking Dr Williams' political views as "misleading and selective". In a sharp rejoinder to the archbishop's warning that politics was being reduced to "instantaneous button-pressing responses", Mr Blunkett accused him of ignoring reality. Mr Bunkett savaged much of Dr Williams' historical analysis of the development of the state as a "travesty" and "fetishism".

In today's world of spin doctors and news management, it was widely surmisedthat David Blunkett was attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury's thoughtful Dimbleby lecture because of the Archbishop's opposition to the BSB Troika policy on Iraq.

What had not been spelled out to the wider public at that time was just how far this core leadership of the New Labour government has gone down the road of adopting the essentially neofascist Bobbitt doctrines.

When the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on 15th January that the Government had to reserve the right to support US unilateral action if someone in the United Nations interposed "an unreasonable veto", everyone understood him to mean that he was prepared to sacrifice British troops on the altar of his supposed “special relationship” with George W. Bush even if Canada, France, Germany and other NATO allies were not. Significantly, when the Defence Secretary announced the despatch of 35,000 troops to the Gulf, he dodged the Liberal Democrat probing on command and control arrangements and declined to name any other country sending even a token force.

There are only 5 states with the veto power: China, France, Russia the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Which state does the Prime Minister think is going to be "unreasonable" ?

And how far should his proposition be taken ? Suppose a resolution for the enforcement of peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict should shortly come before the Security Council (as well it might) and be vetoed as usual by the United States – does Mr Blair then think that it would be legitimate for a "coalition of the willing" (say Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, Russia and Syria) to proceed to enforce peace in the Occupied Territories without UN authority ?

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his Address to the American People on 31st October 1956 in relation to the illegal British, French and Israeli intervention in Suez, "There can be no peace—without law. And there can be no law—if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us—and another for our friends."

The Prime Minister may not be as good a lawyer as his spouse, but he surely has enough law to read and understand the United Nations Charter and the relevant Judgments of the International Court of Justice (which alone is empowered to determine the proper interpretation of the Charter). He must well know that there is no right in international law to intervene in Iraq without the authority of a Security Council Resolution and also that it is for the Security Council to determine command and control arrangements for the use of force under Articles 46-49 of the Charter. If your members wish to look at the relevant legal provisions and ICJ Decisions see: http://www.eurolegal.org/uscivilrightspage4.htm

The “coalitions of the willing”, beloved of the Bush Administration are as a matter of international law nothing more or less than conspiracies of unlawful agressors.

The results of the latest Guardian ICM poll show that 81% of voters share Clare Short’s view that a further Resolution from the United Nations Security Council is an essential prerequisite to sending our servicemen into harm’s way.

That poll ought to serve as a salutory reminder to the Blunkett Troika (and to Labour Members of Parliament) that the British public now thoroughly distrusts the judgment of both the Bush Administration and the BSB Troika on the issue of making war on Iraq.

Perhaps fortunately, Members of the UN Security Council yesterday fired off some well targeted torpedoes at the Bush Administration's Iraq War timetable, leaving Colin Powell and Jack Straw fighting to contain several holes below the waterline.

The Bush Administration doubtless in concert with the BSB Troika's spin machine had crafted a careful scenario for a carefuly orchestrated crescendo of press occasions: (i) 27 January - Inspectors Report, (ii) 28 January - State of the Union Message, (iii) 29 January - Security Council Meeting, (v) 30 January (or shortly aftewards) - UN authority for the use of force on Iraq.

The Security Council meeting at Foreign Minister level had been called by France to discuss terrorism issues but, in a game of diplomatic ambush which had not been part of the Bush Administration's plan, the Security Council members also held preliminary discussions on Iraq inspections progress and used the opportunity to set out a series of positions which cannot have pleased the Bush Administration.

The vast majority of council members - including the French, Russians and Chinese, who all have veto power - want to hear the inspectors' assessments and give them time to do their jobs. Some privately object to being pressured by the US to meet a timetable for war which is more based on being able to send in the troops before the hot weather comes than on the possible conclusions of the Inspectors - which have not yet been delivered.

Several Members made it clear that they were happy to see the inspection process go on for months if need be.

In the lates of a series of increasingly strident messages from the Bush Administration, Powell told reporters ouside the meeting that when the Inspectors had presented their Report, the Security Council would be faced with difficult choices. "Hopefully there will be a peaceful solution, but if Iraq does not come into full compliance, we must not shrink from the responsibilities that we set before ourselves when we adopted 1441 on a unanimous basis," Powell said.

"Poodle" Blair's Foreign Secretary also chimed in to the same tune. "There has to come a moment when our patience must run out, and we are now near that point with Iraq," yapped Straw.

But Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan took an opposing position saying the inspections were proceeding apace and that the United Nations should give the teams more time to complete their work. "I believe this report actually is not a full stop of the inspection work but rather a new beginning," he said. "The two people in charge say there is more work to do in terms of the inspections and they need more time," Tang said. "I think we should respect their opinions and support their work."

France suggested it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the Security Council from passing a premature resolution authorising military action against Iraq. "If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end," Foreign Minister de Villepin told reporters. "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."

The United Nations, he said, should stay "on the path of cooperation. The other choice is to move forward out of impatience over a situation in Iraq to move towards military intervention. We believe that today nothing justifies envisaging military action."

De Villepin was asked whether France would use its veto power to which he responded that France "will shoulder its responsibilities, faithful to the principles it has."

"We would never associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community" de Villepin added. "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution."

The French and Chinese positions were supported by Russia too. "Terrorism is far from being crushed," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "We must be careful not to take unilateral steps that might threaten the unity of the entire [anti-]terrorism coalition. In this context we are strictly in favor of a political settlement of the situation revolving around Iraq."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said bluntly that Germany would not support any use of force to compel Iraq to disarm fearing "disastrous consequences" of war and he warned that war on Iraq could fuel more terrorism. "We shouldn't act in way that, at the end, terrorist groups will be strengthened and not weakened, because they want to drive us into a war of the civilizations," Fischer said. "We should react in a wise way based on a multilateral approach and based on the coalition in the war against terror."

Germany, which has already made it clear that it will not participate in military action against Iraq will hold the Security Council's rotating presidency next month and will therefore chair the meetings at which the Security Council will decide on what action should be taken on the Inspectors' Report.

The German position was later rubbished by a clearly rattled Colin Powell who said the United Nations should not be scared into "impotence" in the face of Baghdad's defiance.

The position now seems clear. Unless the US can present a convincing "smoking gun", or the Inspectors report obstruction by Iraq, there will be no UN mandate for military action on 27th January 2003 or anytime soon thereafter.

To a great extent this was a caculated and public put-down to pay back the Bush Administration for the hectoring and bullying tactics it thus has far employed. Heads of State and Government do not take kindly to being lectured on behalf of a President whose competence in foreign affairs is, to put it as charitably as possible, questionable. Particularly when the criticisms are voiced by someone of the likes of Richard Perle, who recently had the temerity to accuse French President Chirac, a decorated war veteran, of a "lack of moral fibre".

The time has now come for those Labour MP's who profess a commitment to the ideals of the United Nations to stand up and be counted. The question whether the BSB Troika is prepared to support a unilateralist adventure of the Bush Administration which would be unlawful as a matter of international law has to be debated, not on an adjournment debate, but on an amendable motion. As electors, the British people should be entitled to learn just where their MP's stand.

At least the neoconservative unilateralists in the Bush Administration who have espoused Professor Bobbitt’s neofascist “market state” theories have had the honesty to come out and say that the United Nations is now irrelevant and that the United States should now withdraw from it.

For the BSB Troika to profess commitment to the United Nations while stabbing it in the back is hypocrisy fit for only the whitest of sepulchures. It would do them no harm to take some lessons in plain and honest speaking and dealing from the excellent Ms Short.

Mourad Fleming