I believe that Robin Cook's resignation speech should be read. I post it here.
Robin Cook's resignation speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/h...cs/2859431.stm
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House
from the back benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much
better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than
the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving
this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more
enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with
you. It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House
to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded
by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press
interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to
address the House first on why I cannot support a war without
international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the
Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I
hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy
with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this
crisis to displace him. I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime
minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign
secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within
the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it
was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting
a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary
in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for
inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants
more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even
the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international
hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war
without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are
a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not
the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition
against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever
have imagined possible.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that
led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The
US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our
interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by
multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are
weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in
stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be
fired. I have heard some parallels between military action in these
circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There
was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the
action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was
supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single
one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were
our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case
that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security
Council as the Last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to
an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the
international community nor the British public is persuaded that
there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in
Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the
forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing
campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties
will be numbered at least in the thousands.
I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit
themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they
all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and
avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war
support our troops.
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an
alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor
is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of
not having an alternative strategy.
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the
western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy
destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's
nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range
missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the
time of the Last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's
military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its
invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are
so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be
over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam
is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim
that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass
destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a
credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city
target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical
munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies
sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved
chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we
should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has
been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it
necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to
complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN
inspectors?
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that
the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within
months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12
years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is
exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called
on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of
Israel to comply.
I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has
given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the
middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice
throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the
allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our
credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington
are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in
Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing
progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with
consternation: it reduces the case for war.
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion
that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al
Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British
troops. The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the
respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the
British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is
sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they
are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that
they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US
Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy
at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a
broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of
our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of
the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain
should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that
this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this
House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither
international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military
action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and
with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Linear Mode
