Contact Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
Tel 020 7561 0282, Fax 020 7272 6653, email
media@greenparty.org.uk
Introduction
"The Liberal Democrats remain the positively pro-UN
party. We are not the all-out anti-war party"
Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, March
2003 [1]
The Liberal
Democrats have gained a reputation for opposing the Iraq war. It is a
reputation that is undeserved.
What Charles
Kennedy and his party deserve credit for is the skilful manipulation that
created a strong impression that the LibDems were opposing the war – a stance
known to be very popular with the public – while in fact they made no such
commitment.
The LibDems did
make clear statements of the conditions in which they would support the war.
Those conditions were never met, but they supported the war anyway.
This briefing
charts the slippery meandering course of LibDem pronouncements about Iraq from
their conference decision to support the war in certain circumstances, through
Kennedy’s failure to condemn it even when he addressed up to two million people
at a Stop the War rally, to their eventual support for the war once the
shooting started.
The Green Party
hopes that any voters for whom the war on Iraq is a significant factor in
deciding their vote this year will cease to be misled. The only major party
that opposed the war last year and is opposing it still is the Green Party.
The Liberal Democrats did NOT oppose the war.
September 2002
“…the dossier does not constitute evidence of immediate
threat and therefore is not justification for precipitate military action…”
The Liberal
Democrat conference in Brighton in September 2002 passed a resolution about
Iraq. It was not a resolution to oppose the impending war, but a resolution
setting out the circumstances in which the LibDems would support it (see
Appendix A).
But even then,
when it came to the fighting, the LibDems supported the war against all the
reservations they had carefully agreed at their conference.
The resolution
“Welcomes the publication of the Assessment of the British Government of Iraq's
Weapons of Mass Destruction as a carefully presented catalogue of Iraq's WMD
capabilities, but believes that the dossier does not constitute evidence of
immediate threat and therefore is not justification for precipitate military
action.” Yet the LibDems supported the war anyway.
The resolution
“Calls on the UK Government to participate in military action against Iraq only
as a last resort…” Yet we all know that inspections were not given the time
they needed, and the war was not a last resort, but the LibDems supported it
anyway.
The resolution
didn’t just say war would be acceptable as a last resort. It laid down further
conditions:
a.
The 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.” This didn’t happen,
but the LibDems still supported the war.
b.
The LibDems insisted that 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.” It wasn’t. But they
supported it anyway.
c.
They said war should only follow if “Such
evidence has been placed before Parliament with full and intensive debate…” It
wasn’t, but they supported the war anyway.
d.
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.” It wasn’t, but they supported it
anyway.
21 January 2003
“…participate in military action only as a last resort …
if clear and uncontrovertible evidence emerges … after a full and intensive
debate in Parliament…”
On 21 January
2003, almost exactly two months before the war started, the Liberal Democrat
Federal Executive reiterated the party’s reservations about the impending war
[2]. In a decision passed without opposition, the Federal Executive asserted:
a.
That it supported “the line being taken by
the [Liberal Democrat] Parliamentary Party that there remains no compelling
argument for military action to be taken against Iraq at the present time.”
Once again avoiding explicit opposition to the war, the LibDems nonetheless
stated that there was no compelling argument for war at the time. In fact the
arguments for war remained unchanged later – and were still not compelling –
but the LibDems supported the war anyway.
b.
That it supported the policy adopted at the
Brighton conference, “that the UK should participate in military action only as
a last resort” – “if clear and uncontrovertible evidence emerges to show that
Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them” – “after
a full and intensive debate in Parliament” – AND “with an explicit mandate in
the form of a UN resolution or in accordance with international law”. None of
this came about, yet the LibDems decided to support the war in the end
regardless.
10 February 2003
“…demonstrating our opposition to this war on the
current discredited evidence…”
Britain’s biggest
ever anti-war demonstration was planned for Saturday 15 February 2003. LibDem
Leader Charles Kennedy was invited and decided to accept the invitation to
speak. In the week leading up to the march, Donnachadh McCarthy, the LibDems’
coordinator of its part in the march – and Deputy Chair of the Liberal
Democrat Federal Executive – said in
"A message from the Federal Executive" [3] that his party must
“ensure that the Liberal Democrats form a visible presence, demonstrating our
opposition to this war on the current discredited evidence.”
Note that the
“opposition to this war” was only “on the current discredited evidence.” But in
any event, the evidence remained discredited, and the LibDems supported the war
anyway.
11 February 2003
"France and Germany have made their point and
should back down now."
In February 2003
it became clear that the NATO allies were divided over the proposed war against
Iraq. The division became most apparent on 10 February when France, Germany and
Belgium blocked a move to send Nato missile batteries to defend Turkey in the
event of a war.
Far from asserting
an anti-war position in support of those countries, Liberal Democrat defence
spokesperson Paul Keetch insisted that "France and Germany have made their
point and should back down now". [4]
13 February 2003
"The party isn't anti-war.”
On 13 February the
Green Party asked the Liberal Democrat policy unit for clarification of their
party’s stance. The policy unit said: "The party isn't anti-war. The
position at the moment is that the weapons inspectors haven't given their full
report. We favour the continuation of inspections over military action at this
stage."
Note the clear
statement that the LibDems were not anti-war. Note also that they only favoured
inspections over military action “at this stage.” Time would show that at
another stage they would favour war over inspections.
The policy unit confirmed that LibDem Leader Charles Kennedy intended to speak
at the anti-war march. The Green Party put it to the LibDem policy unit that
the march was titled Stop the War, and surely to attend the march was to be
anti-war. They said Charles Kennedy was going on the march "to give peace
a chance" and to "give support to all Liberal Democrats who are
against the war." Asked if he was representing the party therefore, they
said that "he is going as Leader of the Liberal Democrats" and will
be "representing the party" but that "it's his decision to do
it".
It was made clear
at the rally that Charles Kennedy was speaking in a personal capacity. But even
then – even at a Stop the War rally – he didn’t say he opposed the war.
15 February 2003
“We are not the all-out anti-war party.”
Having decided to
attend the anti-war march – albeit on the basis of a “maybe-war” policy –
Charles Kennedy put a personal message on the LibDem website. He encouraged
people to attend the march, though he avoided calling it a Stop the War march.
He said there were “real concerns among the British people that the case for
war and the reason why British troops should participate has not been
adequately made.” He said “The Liberal Democrats have repeatedly pressed the
Prime Minister for a vote in the House of Commons on the deployment of British
troops ahead of any military action.” He said “vast numbers of people feel
powerless to influence the government and make their voices heard and […the
Prime Minister…] must listen.”
He said “The
Liberal Democrats have been prominent in the debate over Iraq, asking the
questions that many people in this country want answered about the possibility
of military action.” He said he wanted “to articulate the concerns which have
driven the Liberal Democrats throughout this debate.”
But at no stage
did Kennedy express opposition to the war. Indeed, he actually said: “The
Liberal Democrats remain the positively pro-UN party. We are not the all-out
anti-war party. I believe that the United Nations is the proper place to make
the decisions.”
But this part of
what he said seems to have been missed by most people, who gained the
impression the LibDems were opposed to the war.
However, Kennedy
went on to say a number of things that he would later contradict in his
decision to support the war.
a.
He 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 decided to support the war anyway.
b.
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
went against his public pronouncement about the UN being the place to make the
decisions, and sided with Bush and Blair.
c.
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.
d.
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. And Kennedy supported the war.
26 February 2003
“…the case for
military action is as yet unproven...”
In the Commons on 26 February, the LibDems
voted for an amendment to a government motion. The motion said that the House
“reaffirms its endorsement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441,
as expressed in its Resolution of 25th November 2002; supports the Government's
continuing efforts in the United Nations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass
destruction; and calls upon Iraq to recognise this as its final opportunity to
comply with its disarmament obligations.”
The LibDem amendment merely sought to
delete the call on Iraq to regard this as the final opportunity, and replace it
with "but finds the case for military action against Iraq as yet
unproven."
When they voted for the amendment, the
LibDems were merely saying once again that the case for war hadn’t been proven.
The case would ultimately remain unproven, but they would support it anyway.
17 March 2003
“…very difficult indeed to support a war in which there is no mandate from the UN and no sense of legitimacy…”
Still avoiding
explicit opposition to the war, Charles Kennedy nonetheless continued to give
the impression that the LibDems were the ones urging restraint. A statement
appeared on the LibDem website alongside Kennedy’s picture: "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.
“…the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established … but, in the
event that hostilities do commence, … total support for the British forces
engaged in the Middle East…”
It is commonly
supposed that “the LibDems voted against the war” on 18 March. In fact they
voted for an amendment to a government motion. The amendment was not passed, and
the LibDems then voted against the motion.
But the LibDem
amendment was not a motion against the war. It sought to replace part of the
government motion with the words: "believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been
established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations
authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its
total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its
admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their
tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides."
That is, it reiterated that the case for
war had not yet been proven – but
went on to give “total support” to the armed forces who would implement
government policy. This was as good as saying “we give total support to the
prosecution of a war that has no legitimacy and the case for which has not been
proven” – or, simply, “we don’t believe in this war but we’re going to support
it anyway.”
18 March 2003
“…the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins.
Let us hope … that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as possible, with
the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among our forces…”
Originally Charles
Kennedy could only support the war if a string of conditions were met. They
weren’t met. So he said he’d “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." Difficult it may have been, but
he did it.
In the House of
Commons on 18 March, the day before the war began, his earlier reservations
evaporated. There was no more talk of forcing the Prime Minister to prove the
unproven case for war: now Kennedy’s view was 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.
Kennedy did
express a desire for minimum casualties “among innocent Iraqi civilians, with
whom none of us have ever had any quarrel,” but his hope for minimum casualties
was “first and foremost, clearly, among our forces…” (See Appendix C.)
19 March 2003
“That attack is almost certain to kill many Iraqi
civilians – and more than half the Iraqi population consists of children …
Thousands more innocents will die … But 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.”
The war started,
and the Liberal Democrats at last came down off the fence and supported it.
LibDem peer
Shirley Williams’ speech in the House of Lords, publicised by the LibDem press
office, continued the pattern already seen. (See Appendix D.) It agonised over
the “catastrophe” and the “unpredictable” nature of the war. She mentioned the
“emphasis on regime change by the Bush administration” which was “an objective
not recognised in international law.” She said the attack was “likely to knock
out the key elements of Iraqi’s ramshackle infrastructure – transport links,
power stations, bridges and dams.” She said that “If that infrastructure
collapses, the oil for food programme which feeds 60% of Iraq’s people will
halt, untreated sewage will flow into Iraq’s rivers, and clean water will be
unavailable.” She said: “Thousands more innocents will die. And from their
ashes thousands more terrorists will spring up.”
And she said: “But
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.” She said:
“We owe them more than our support. We owe them the judgement and wisdom to
conduct this war in a way that there is not only military victory but a lasting
peace in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole.”
None of the
conditions laid down in the LibDems “maybe-war” policy had been met. None of
the things that would legitimise the war in the eyes of the LibDem conference
and Federal Assembly and Charles Kennedy himself had been achieved. But none of
it mattered. On the pretext of supporting the troops, the LibDems had swung
into line behind the government and supported the war.
20 March 2003
“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.”
LibDem MEP Emma
Nicholson went further. She stated unequivocally that “the legitimacy of our
cause ... “is not in doubt.” She said: “There has been much debate, quite
rightly, on the legal and political legitimacy of war. But let us unite behind
one fact. 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.” (See
Appendix E.)
This, of course,
contrasts markedly with all the reservations articulated by the Liberal Democrats
hitherto. One may speculate as to what had actually passed through the minds of
Charles Kennedy and his colleagues. Were they ever really sincere in saying
they would oppose the war unless certain conditions were met, or was it mere
spin? Were they being blatantly dishonest in pursuit of votes? Or did Tony
Blair persuade them that they had been wrong to entertain doubts?
But the following
are certain facts:
a.
The Liberal Democrats managed to sustain an
impression that they were against the war despite repeated pronouncements that
they would support it under certain circumstances.
b.
Having clearly articulated the conditions in
which they would support the war, the Liberal Democrats supported it
unconditionally in the end.
c.
Whatever they may have said before or since,
the Liberal Democrats supported Tony Blair’s war against Iraq.
Appendix A
Liberal Democrat conference resolution on Iraq, September 2002
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jamesgraham/stopwar/policy.htm
Conference:
1. Unreservedly condemns the appalling human rights record of the Iraqi regime
and notes the human rights failings of other regimes in the Middle East.
2. Is committed to a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
calls upon the UN to put pressure on all states in the Middle East to abandon
WMD programmes.
3. Notes that existing United Nations Security Council resolutions placing
obligations on Iraq to respect human rights, and eliminate its chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities, in particular resolution 660
(1990), 687 (1991) and 1284 (1999) remain unfulfilled.
4. Believes that the priority of the United Nations Security Council and all of
its members should be to achieve the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq.
5. Notes Iraq's stated willingness to readmit UN inspectors unconditionally,
urges it to do so without delay and without placing any obstacle in the way of
the inspectors and to fulfil all its obligations under relevant UN resolutions.
6. Welcomes the publication of the Assessment of the British Government of
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction as a carefully presented catalogue of Iraq's
WMD capabilities, but believes that the dossier does not constitute evidence of
immediate threat and therefore is not justification for precipitate military
action.
7. Calls on the UK Government to participate in military action against Iraq
only as a last resort and if:
a) Iraq's agreement to the return of weapons inspectors without conditions has
been violated by the Iraqi Government or shown to be deceptive.
b) 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.
c) Such evidence has been placed before Parliament with full and
intensive debate and that Parliament continues to monitor the situation and has
authorised any action through its votes.
d) New UN resolutions are in place providing a clear mandate, or
action is taken in accordance with international law.
e) Full consultation has taken place with our European partners,
if possible to achieve a unified European position.
f) Military action is designed to avoid as far as possible
civilian casualties. Conference further believes that military action should
not be taken without careful consideration of the consequences for
international stability and security including the impact on the Middle East
peace process; and that clear and coherent plans be in place, and the necessary
resources committed, for its aftermath.
The full is below. It has been separated
here into parts for ease of understanding the LibDem amendment.
1. “That this House notes its decisions of
25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003
to endorse UN Security Council Resolution
1441; …
2. “…recognises that Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance
with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and
security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has
not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons
inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further
material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security
Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her
Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution
in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in
public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the
opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq
being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach,
the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues
today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United
Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and
therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United
Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women
of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; …
3. “…in the event of military operations
requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new
Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity,
ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible
lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use
of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an
appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative
government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and
also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a
significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between
Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses
the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between
Israel and Palestine.”
The amendment selected, tabled in the name
of Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, was to delete part 2 above and replace it with:
"believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established,
especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in
the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the
British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their
courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly
concluded with minimal casualties on all sides."
The LibDems voted for the amendment, which
fell, then voted against the motion.
Appendix C
Statement by Charles Kennedy in the House of Commons, 18
March 2003
“…Given the events of the past few days and the last few hours, there has been
much understandable comment about the drama of the situation. In the next few
hours and days, however, we are liable to see even more drama and trauma when
what appears to be the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins. Let us
hope, as we all agree, that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as
possible, with the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among
our forces, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians, with whom none of us
have ever had any quarrel and who have suffered terribly under the despicable
regime of Saddam Hussein.
“As for those of us who remain unpersuaded as to the case at this time for war,
and who have questioned whether British forces should be sent into a war
without a further UN mandate having been achieved, there stands no
contradiction—as the former Leader of the House and former Foreign Secretary
put succinctly last night—between giving voice to that legitimate anxiety and,
at the same time, as and when exchange of fire commences, looking to the rest
of the country, and to all of us in the House, to give full moral support to
our forces. They do not take the civilian political decision in relation to
what they are being asked to do, but they must carry out that task in all our
names. The shadow Leader of the House expressed that well last night, but,
equally, Church leaders, who earlier expressed profound opposition to war in
this way at this time, are making the same point. If, later tonight, at the
conclusion of this debate, 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.
Appendix D
Extracts from the speech by Baroness Shirley Williams to
the House of Lords on Iraq
“War is always a
catastrophe. Its course is unpredictable. No one can say what the effects of
the imminent war on Iraq will be.
“Thousands of young men and women in the armed forces have now been sent to the
Gulf or are on their way there. We owe them more than our support. We owe them
the judgement and wisdom to conduct this war in a way that there is not only
military victory but a lasting peace in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole.
“Politicians may disagree as to the necessity and legitimacy of this war. But
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.
“Despite Tony Blair’s efforts, no second Security Council resolution was
passed. Many here blamed France. But France believes she has been
misrepresented. She indicated that she would veto the second resolution as
tabled by the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain even if it achieved a
majority in the Security Council. But this was a judgement on the timescales
envisaged by that resolution, and the necessity for the inspectors to judge for
themselves that they had run out of options. France accepted, according to what
I have been told by the French Embassy this morning, that serious consequences
would follow for Iraq if the Inspectors said they could make no further
progress .
“Without that second resolution, the legitimacy of our action will continue to
be disputed. The doubters will point to the emphasis on regime change by the
Bush administration, an objective not recognised in international law.
“Last night, in his speech to the nation, President Bush said he had no quarrel
with the Iraqi people; indeed he welcomed their cooperation. If that
cooperation is to occur, much will depend on the conduct of the war – on
proportionality and fairness, to mention two of the principles of a just war – Ius in Bello.
“Yet US military plans are for a massive air attack on Iraq. That attack is
almost certain to kill many Iraqi civilians – and more than half the Iraqi
population consists of children. That attack is likely to knock out the key
elements of Iraqi’s ramshackle infrastructure – transport links, power
stations, bridges and dams. If that infrastructure collapses, the oil for food
programme which feeds 60% of Iraq’s people will halt, untreated sewage will
flow into Iraq’s rivers, and clean water will be unavailable. Thousands more
innocents will die. And from their ashes thousands more terrorists will spring
up.
“There has been little preparation for a parallel humanitarian programme to
alleviate the suffering of Iraq’s wretched people. There has been little
discussion with NGOs and little money has been pledged for the purpose. Iraqi
oil cannot cover the whole costs of relief, reconstruction and a new
administration. Yet Donald Rumsfeld, on March 11, made it plain that the US
would not bear the full costs of its own action. Some in the United States hold
the UN in contempt, yet they are happy for the UN to pick up the pieces,
alongside potential donors who may actually oppose the war.
“In Afghanistan, President Bush said he would not walk away. He has tiptoed
away, allocating a derisory sum for reconstruction in Afghanistan, a country
falling back into chaos. It is not a happy precedent.
“When will the necessary UN resolution for humanitarian action referred to
yesterday by the Foreign Secretary be tabled? Who will administer the country
after a military victory? How will a new administration be staffed, and will
the government consider offering an amnesty to Iraqi civil servants willing to
work with them?
“Finally, the road map on which the Prime Minister sets such store – rightly
so. The demands on the Palestinians are being met, such as the appointment of a
new Prime Minister. It is equally important that Mr. Sharon contributes to a
new negotiation for peace. That must mean an immediate halt to the settlements
that are gobbling up the land on which a Palestinian state can be built.
“There will now be military action. We deeply regret it is happening without
the authority of the Security Council. That is now water under the bridge. What
matters now is that the war – and its essential humanitarian complement – is
conducted in such a way that the people of Iraq, and of the Middle East
benefit, and do not have to sustain yet more suffering.”
Appendix E
Article by Baroness Nicholson, 20 March 2003
The right war
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1071.jsp
A Member of the European Parliament with long-standing interest in
the fate of the Marsh Arabs sees their terrible fate as only one piece of
evidence for the morality and legitimacy of war against the Saddam regime in
Iraq.
“As I write this,
thousands of men and women in our armed services will be preparing for
hostilities in the Gulf. As a Member of the European Parliament for the
south-east of England, I know that many of them will be my constituents.
“Conducting a war
is, by its nature, uncertain and unpredictable. What is not in doubt, though,
is the legitimacy of our cause.
“Saddam and his
regime constitute one of the worst dictatorships the world has ever seen. Even
by the standards of tyranny witnessed in the last century, few can equal the
magnitude of Saddam’s crimes. He has presided over the deaths of millions –
many of them his own people.
I have been
especially concerned with a catastrophe that has been unfolding over the last
two decades.
The Marsh Arabs of
southern Iraq are a proud and ancient people, whose existence in the region
dates back 5,000 years. Since the beginning of Saddam’s rule, they have been
the victims of a systematic campaign of genocide.
“Thousands have
been killed and thousands more have been forced to flee their homeland. 95,000
now live in makeshift camps on the Iranian side of the border. As part of a
deliberate programme of environmental sabotage, 75% of the marshlands of the
Euphrates–Tigris river basin have been drained. Amid incalculable human
suffering, a world heritage and ecological treasure is soon to be lost forever.
This is the work
of Saddam, and tragically it is only one example of the many crimes his regime
has committed.
“There has been
much debate, quite rightly, on the legal and political legitimacy of war. But
let us unite behind one fact. 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.”
1.
Found at http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.iraq/section.home
– but this statement subsequently disappeared from the LibDems’ website.
2.
See http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jamesgraham/stopwar/fe.htm.
3.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jamesgraham/stopwar/.
4.
“Tories force questions on Nato crisis,” The Guardian, Tuesday February 11, 2003,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,893397,00.html.
Published and promoted by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon for The
Green Party,
both at 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.