The LibDems did NOT oppose the war

7th Jun 2004

"They said they didn't think the case for war proven, but they'd give it their "total support" anyway once it started. I don't call that opposing the war."

Liberal Democrat "opposition to the Iraq war" has become an urban myth, says leading Green Party Euro-candidate 'John Whitelegg'. Here he tracks the LibDems along the meandering path which led to their "genuine support" for Blair's policy.

It's a myth that the Liberal Democrats opposed the Iraq war. But it's a myth that keeps reappearing in political media coverage, and a myth that could mislead millions on polling day. So it's time we exposed the facts.

The scene was set by a decision of the Liberal Democrat conference in September 2002. It didn't oppose the war. It simply simply set out the conditions that would make war acceptable to the LibDems. In the end none of their conditions were met, but they supported the war anyway. (1)

The LibDem Federal Executive didn't oppose the war. In January 2003 it simply reiterated the conference decision and supported LibDem MPs' line that there was "no compelling argument" for war "at the present time." What' s significant here is that the argument never became compelling by the LibDems' previously expressed criteria, but they supported the war anyway. (2)

LibDem Leader Charles Kennedy didn't oppose the war - not even when he addressed a Stop The War rally. He spoke of "real concerns" and the "powerlessness" of "vast numbers of people" to whom Blair "must listen." But he didn't say, as Green MEP Caroline Lucas said at the same rally, that the war would be illegal, unjust and counter-productive. Indeed, Kennedy said on the party website at the time: "We are not the all-out anti-war party. I believe that the United Nations is the proper place to make the decisions."

He said firmly that there should only be war if the UN Security Council gave a clear mandate. But it never did. Unlike Blair, Kennedy never even claimed there was a clear UN mandate, yet he supported the war anyway. (3, 4)

On 18 March 2003 the LibDems voted against the government motion that would start the war. But paradoxically, even as they voted against the government, they fell into line behind the government. It was that very day that they abandoned their previous talk of forcing the Prime Minister to prove the unproven case for war. There were no more LibDem conditions about a clear UN mandate and clear proof of a threat from Iraq. Kennedy's view was now simply that the decision had been made, and the LibDems must give it their "genuine support." (5, 6)

Effectively the LibDems were saying they didn't believe the war was necessary but they would support it anyway once it started. I wouldn't call that opposing the war. In fact I can think of no more unprincipled a stance than to say this war is unjust but we'll support it anyway.

Those of us in Green politics have come to expect the Liberal Democrats to say one thing and do another. We watch them do this all the time over roadbuilding, aviation, GMOs, incinerators. We watched them after September 11th position themselves carefully as the party of the measured response, but then support the bombing of Afghanistan anyway just as Labour and the Tories did. Now Shirley Williams in the Lords provided a superb example of the fudged and smudged nature of Liberal Democrat politics. She agonised over the "catastrophe." She mentioned the "emphasis on regime change by the Bush administration" which was "an objective not recognised in international law." She alluded to attacks on civilian infrastructure, saying the bombing was "likely to knock out the key elements of Iraq's ramshackle infrastructure" and said how devastating all this would be.

She said: "Thousands more innocents will die. And from their ashes thousands more terrorists will spring up."

That is, she made exactly what would pass for a powerful anti-war speech - until the point where she put aside all thought that this war was wrong, and said we must support it anyway because "our troops are not politicians and they deserve to be supported in the professional job they are asked to do by Her Majesty's Government." On that logic, anyone who opposes any unjust war should turn their coat and support it on the grounds that their government does. It's like saying "I'm opposed to the invasion of Poland/East Timor/the Falklands but I'm going to support it because the troops are only doing what Hitler/Suharto/Galtieri told them to do."

On this pretext of supporting the troops, the LibDems now supported the government and supported the war. And whilst Kennedy had only ever skirted vaguely around the word "opposition" he now gave his "genuine support" to the invasion. But some LibDems went further. Emma Nicholson, their South East Euro-MP, said "This conflict has one of the strongest moral and ethical mandates since the second world war. It is a just war which we know to be right."

One may speculate about the origins of the myth that the LibDems opposed the Iraq war. (7, 8) But certain facts are undeniable. Firstly, the LibDems were widely perceived as being against the war despite their repeated pronouncements that they would support it under certain conditions. Secondly, having clearly articulated the conditions under which they would support the war, they supported it unconditionally in the end.

And finally, whatever they may have said before or since, the Liberal Democrats gave what Charles Kennedy himself described as "genuine support" to Tony Blair's war against Iraq.

Notes

1. The LibDem conference in Brighton said war would only be acceptable if "Iraq's agreement to the return of weapons inspectors without conditions has been violated by the Iraqi Government or shown to be deceptive." They said war should only be considered if "Clear and incontrovertible evidence has been presented to the international community and public that Iraq has the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them." They said the war would only be legitimate if "New UN resolutions are in place providing a clear mandate, or action is taken in accordance with international law." None of these conditions were met, but they supported the war anyway.

2. Motion of 21 January 2003. In mid-February a message from the Federal Executive on the party's website spoke of their "opposition to this war on the current discredited evidence." Note the qualifier about "the current discredited evidence." And note that although the evidence remained discredited, any appearance of "opposition" would evaporate a month later.

3. Kennedy said "We need to be certain that, after hearing from the UN Secretary General and the weapons inspectors, the Security Council is sure that military action is the only way to make Saddam Hussein disarm." It never was, but Kennedy supported the war anyway. He said "It is UN resolutions which have been flouted and it is the UN which must decide what the next step should be." But the UN didn't decide on war - George Bush and Tony Blair did - and Kennedy sided with them. He said "Ideally this requires a second resolution, but above all it requires a clear UN mandate." There was no second resolution, there was no clear UN mandate, but he supported the war anyway. He said "If it is impossible to persuade (Saddam Hussein) to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction by peaceful means, then military action may be necessary. But we are not there yet." We never did get there, because Bush and Blair decided the inspections must cease so the war could start. But Kennedy supported the war.

4. The closest Kennedy came to opposing the war was when he said, about 15 March, "I find it personally and politically very difficult indeed to support a war in which there is no mandate from the UN and no sense of legitimacy on the international stage." Yet that is exactly what he was to do.

5. Kennedy said that if "under the democratic procedures that we enjoy in this House, that is to be the decision, it is important that the whole House unites in that genuine support." No longer did Kennedy subscribe to the view that it was "the UN which must decide what the next step should be," with "Ideally . a second resolution, but above all . a clear UN mandate" - now he merely gave "genuine support" to Blair's decision.

6. The Liberal Democrats had sought to amend this motion. But even their amendment didn't say "we oppose the war." It said the case for war was not yet proven, but should it start, the LibDems would pledge their "total support."

7. The LibDems are adept at positioning themselves as distinct from Labour and the Tories. When it came to action, they would support the war as Labour and the Tories did; but in the meantime they made six months' publicity value out of media reportage of the fact that they were saying something different from the big two, which was simply interpreted as opposition to the war.

8. Another important factor is that the media let them get away with it. "Media balance" is far more to do with the size of the parties than the strength of the viewpoints. We Greens have always found it frustrating that ninety-nine per cent of the political media coverage is of three neoliberal parties whose policies, from our perspective, differ only in detail around a core agenda of privatisation, globalisation, militarisation of foreign policy and a tokenistic approach to the ecological crisis. But where Iraq was concerned, this was maddening. The public were to a large extent shielded from the truly anti-war political choice simply because the "balancing views" broadcast and published were mostly those of a pro-war party that merely expressed itself differently, or of anti-war views not connected with a political party.