As the final preparations for an Anglo-American aggression against Iraq are
put into place, Tony Blair has stepped up his efforts to provide this crime
against the peace with justifications. With endless phone calls and visits to
heads of states around the world, he has shamelessly turned himself into the
international salesman for Anglo-American war and aggression, while in Britain
he is losing no opportunity in trying to overcome the mass opposition of the
people to his warmongering plans.
On January 29 and February 3, Blair appeared in Parliament to argue once more
for the "necessity" of launching aggression against Iraq. The extremely
dangerous course on which the government is proceeding was made clear when Blair
in response to a question as to which country would be next, answered "we
have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme". When asked when
this would all end, he added: "When the threat to our security is properly
and fully dealt with [!]" It is clear from these responses that the planned
aggression against Iraq, following on from the aggression against Afghanistan
and Kosovo, is part of a broader plan. The almost hysterical justifications
for endless war and aggression are put forward against all reasonable evidence
and in the face of the will of the vast majority. It is becoming increasingly
plain that such a plan will bring disaster not only to the people of Iraq but
itself presents a grave threat to world peace and security. While Bush and Blair
are insistent on war and international gangsterism almost to the point of insanity,
not only is such insistence being resolutely opposed globally, but the widespread
conclusion is being drawn that the alternative must be brought into being, that
the world order which Bush and Blair represent must itself be opposed and one
based on the people's will and the concerns of human beings established in its
place. This is a critical time in world history, it is widely acknowledged,
in which the momentum of the people's movement is reaching a take-off point,
but in which also the lawless authority of the administration of the United
States of America is aiming to impose its interests and values globally by dictate.
This is the context in which Blair's justifications take place.
The Prime Minister once again repeated that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction
and as such poses a threat to the world. He failed to explain why Britain's
huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction do not pose a threat to the world,
especially in light of his earlier declaration that he intended to confront
various countries. He further stated that Iraq is in breach of its UN obligations,
from Resolution 687 which ended the last Gulf War in 1991 to Resolution 1441
which was passed in November last year and that this was a sufficient justification
for war. He did not explain why Israel's violation of numerous UN resolutions
did not provide ample justification for the UN to declare war on that country.
Nor did he address why he would want to push for another UN resolution that
would itself be a violation of international law, if such a concept has any
meaning beyond what Britain and the US assert as its meaning. Nor, indeed, did
he refer to the unending loss of life through Anglo-US bombing in the "no-fly
zones" which have no international authority despite all the disinformation
to the contrary. Tony Blair claims that the genocidal effect of the sanctions
is Saddam Hussein's responsibility, but if the Anglo-Americans had any humanitarian
concern they would end the sanctions. This shows that they themselves are the
guilty parties.
As evidence to support his claims about Iraq violations, Blair resorted to the
discredited disinformation about the so-called "chemical warheads",
"classified documents in a scientist's home" and a sentence in Hans
Blix's January 27 report to the Security Council that "the rocket warheads
could be the tip of an iceberg". Recognising the flimsy character of his
"evidence", Blair protested that it was not "for us to come along
and prove that Saddam is a guilty party". He did not clarify whether or
not this new standard of guilty until proven innocent (an assumption which Mohamed
ElBaradei, the UN chief nuclear weapons inspector, has made clear is implicit
in Resolution 1441) should apply to all countries including Britain and the
USA.
Instead he cited the example of how the South African government closed down
its nuclear programme, as the model that Iraq should follow. He failed to say,
however, as the leader of one of the nuclear powers, whether or not it was his
intention to get Britain to follow the South African model of disarmament which
he was recommending to Iraq. Finally he stated that war should be declared on
the basis of whether or not "co-operation is forthcoming from Iraq".
He did not make it clear whether or not any country which failed to "co-operate"
with the UN should be subject to military attack. On February 3, while making
his statement on his trip to Washington, he declared "we are entering the
final phase of a 12 year history of the disarmament of Iraq". On the questions
of who has decided that this should be the "final phase" and on the
basis of what authority this decision had been made, Blair was absolutely silent.
Turning to his declared intention to seek a second UN resolution, Blair declared
that this must be "a way of resolving the issue, not delaying or avoiding
dealing with it". In other words, the UN must violate its charter and endanger
world peace by giving the Anglo-US imperialists the green light to attack Iraq,
if not it would have "avoided dealing with the issue". He praised
the UN process as "having integrity" while refusing to be bound by
any UN decision not to attack Iraq. He failed to mention that this "process
of integrity" is one in which the vast majority of the 191 member states
of the UN are held hostage by the five veto-wielding members of the organisation
who marginalise the majority and make all the decisions themselves. He made
no mention of the fact that in October last year at the only debate in which
the member states of the UN have had a chance to give their views on the Iraq
crisis, the overwhelming majority rejected outright Anglo-American plans for
aggression against Iraq. Further, Blair declared that "nations which defy
the world over weapons of mass destruction" must be confronted. Who would
decide who these nations were, was not made clear by Blair. He did not see fit
to explain whether it would be the member states of the UN through the General
Assembly or the five big powers through pressure and blackmail in the Security
Council.
Tony Blair's attempts to justify the unjustifiable do not wash. They reflect
the deep crisis of justification which the Anglo-American plans for war and
aggression are mired in. The need of the times is to step up the opposition
to imperialist wars, with or without UN backing, and to build the alternative
to end war and aggression.