The LibDems did NOT oppose 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 myththat keeps reappearing in political media coverage, and a myth that couldmislead millions on polling day. So it's time we exposed the facts.
The scene was set by a decision of the Liberal Democrat conference inSeptember 2002. It didn't oppose the war. It simply simply set out theconditions that would make war acceptable to the LibDems. In the end none oftheir conditions were met, but they supported the war anyway. (1)
The LibDem Federal Executive didn't oppose the war. In January 2003 itsimply reiterated the conference decision and supported LibDem MPs' linethat there was "no compelling argument" for war "at the present time." What's significant here is that the argument never became compelling by theLibDems' previously expressed criteria, but they supported the war anyway.(2)
LibDem Leader Charles Kennedy didn't oppose the war - not even when headdressed a Stop The War rally. He spoke of "real concerns" and the"powerlessness" of "vast numbers of people" to whom Blair "must listen." Buthe didn't say, as Green MEP Caroline Lucas said at the same rally, that thewar would be illegal, unjust and counter-productive. Indeed, Kennedy said onthe party website at the time: "We are not the all-out anti-war party. Ibelieve 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 gavea clear mandate. But it never did. Unlike Blair, Kennedy never even claimedthere 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 wouldstart the war. But paradoxically, even as they voted against the government,they fell into line behind the government. It was that very day that theyabandoned their previous talk of forcing the Prime Minister to prove theunproven case for war. There were no more LibDem conditions about a clear UNmandate and clear proof of a threat from Iraq. Kennedy's view was now simplythat the decision had been made, and the LibDems must give it their "genuinesupport." (5, 6)
Effectively the LibDems were saying they didn't believe the war wasnecessary but they would support it anyway once it started. I wouldn't callthat opposing the war. In fact I can think of no more unprincipled a stancethan 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 tosay one thing and do another. We watch them do this all the time overroadbuilding, aviation, GMOs, incinerators. We watched them after September11th position themselves carefully as the party of the measured response,but then support the bombing of Afghanistan anyway just as Labour and theTories did. Now Shirley Williams in the Lords provided a superb example ofthe fudged and smudged nature of Liberal Democrat politics. She agonisedover the "catastrophe." She mentioned the "emphasis on regime change by theBush administration" which was "an objective not recognised in internationallaw." She alluded to attacks on civilian infrastructure, saying the bombingwas "likely to knock out the key elements of Iraq's ramshackleinfrastructure" and said how devastating all this would be.
She said: "Thousands more innocents will die. And from their ashes thousandsmore 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, andsaid we must support it anyway because "our troops are not politicians andthey deserve to be supported in the professional job they are asked to do byHer Majesty's Government." On that logic, anyone who opposes any unjust warshould turn their coat and support it on the grounds that their governmentdoes. It's like saying "I'm opposed to the invasion of Poland/East Timor/theFalklands but I'm going to support it because the troops are only doing whatHitler/Suharto/Galtieri told them to do."
On this pretext of supporting the troops, the LibDems now supported thegovernment and supported the war. And whilst Kennedy had only ever skirtedvaguely around the word "opposition" he now gave his "genuine support" tothe invasion. But some LibDems went further. Emma Nicholson, their SouthEast Euro-MP, said "This conflict has one of the strongest moral and ethicalmandates since the second world war. It is a just war which we know to beright."
One may speculate about the origins of the myth that the LibDems opposed theIraq war. (7, 8) But certain facts are undeniable. Firstly, the LibDems werewidely perceived as being against the war despite their repeatedpronouncements that they would support it under certain conditions.Secondly, having clearly articulated the conditions under which they wouldsupport the war, they supported it unconditionally in the end.
And finally, whatever they may have said before or since, the LiberalDemocrats 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 andincontrovertible 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 belegitimate if "New UN resolutions are in place providing a clear mandate, oraction is taken in accordance with international law." None of theseconditions were met, but they supported the war anyway.
2. Motion of 21 January 2003. In mid-February a message from theFederal Executive on the party's website spoke of their "opposition to thiswar on the current discredited evidence." Note the qualifier about "thecurrent discredited evidence." And note that although the evidence remaineddiscredited, any appearance of "opposition" would evaporate a month later.
3. Kennedy said "We need to be certain that, after hearing from the UNSecretary General and the weapons inspectors, the Security Council is surethat military action is the only way to make Saddam Hussein disarm." Itnever was, but Kennedy supported the war anyway. He said "It is UNresolutions which have been flouted and it is the UN which must decide whatthe next step should be." But the UN didn't decide on war - George Bush andTony Blair did - and Kennedy sided with them. He said "Ideally this requiresa second resolution, but above all it requires a clear UN mandate." Therewas no second resolution, there was no clear UN mandate, but he supportedthe war anyway. He said "If it is impossible to persuade (Saddam Hussein) toget rid of his weapons of mass destruction by peaceful means, then militaryaction 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 couldstart. But Kennedy supported the war.
4. The closest Kennedy came to opposing the war was when he said, about15 March, "I find it personally and politically very difficult indeed tosupport a war in which there is no mandate from the UN and no sense oflegitimacy on the international stage." Yet that is exactly what he was todo.
5. Kennedy said that if "under the democratic procedures that we enjoyin this House, that is to be the decision, it is important that the wholeHouse unites in that genuine support." No longer did Kennedy subscribe tothe 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 UNmandate" - now he merely gave "genuine support" to Blair's decision.
6. The Liberal Democrats had sought to amend this motion. But eventheir amendment didn't say "we oppose the war." It said the case for war wasnot yet proven, but should it start, the LibDems would pledge their "totalsupport."
7. The LibDems are adept at positioning themselves as distinct fromLabour and the Tories. When it came to action, they would support the war asLabour and the Tories did; but in the meantime they made six months'publicity value out of media reportage of the fact that they were sayingsomething different from the big two, which was simply interpreted asopposition to the war.
8. Another important factor is that the media let them get away withit. "Media balance" is far more to do with the size of the parties than thestrength of the viewpoints. We Greens have always found it frustrating thatninety-nine per cent of the political media coverage is of three neoliberalparties whose policies, from our perspective, differ only in detail around acore agenda of privatisation, globalisation, militarisation of foreignpolicy and a tokenistic approach to the ecological crisis. But where Iraqwas concerned, this was maddening. The public were to a large extentshielded from the truly anti-war political choice simply because the"balancing views" broadcast and published were mostly those of a pro-warparty that merely expressed itself differently, or of anti-war views notconnected with a political party.
