The Gulf War of 1991 took more than 200,000 lives, mostly Iraqi civilians. Since then, sanctions have cost another 500,000 lives, mostly children. Neither war nor sanctions has hastened the fall of Saddam Hussein nor the spread of democracy and peace in the Middle East.
No socialist will deny or extenuate the evils of Saddam's regime. Indeed, it is the left -- not least many of those MPs now opposing military action -- which has been most insistent and consistent in agitating for national rights for the Kurds and for human rights and democracy across the region. But none of the rationalisations for renewed military action against Iraq stand up to examination.
Unlike in 1991, Iraq is not occupying anyone else's territory, which cannot be said of Washington's pals in China, Israel, or Indonesia. Clearly, a loathing of brutal dictators cannot justify a bombing campaign, since both the US and British governments continue to support a wide variety of repressive regimes. Nor can concern for the rights of the Kurds, which are routinely abused by Turkey, a key US ally.
If non-compliance with UN resolutions is the real reason for the current military build-up, why is no action taken against Israel or Indonesia, not to mention the US itself, which refuses to pay its outstanding UN dues? It was revealing that the British attempt to secure support for a resolution at the Security Council authorising military action was rejected by all the Council's other members, including the US, whose position is that such authorisation already exists by virtue of previous resolutions. In a particularly pathetic display of Atlanticist sycophancy, Britain withdrew the resolution and changed its position to accord with that of the US. So, far from being about upholding the authority of the UN, this whole sabre-rattling exercise is about circumventing it.
Nor can military action be justified by the alleged threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The USA's stockpile of chemical weapons and its capacity for biological warfare far exceeds Iraq's, and India, which may be on the brink of electing a dangerous right-wing Hindu communalist government, possesses nuclear weapons. As anyone who has read the fine print of Foreign Office statements will know, the threat from Iraq remains highly speculative. The only certain result of any bombing campaign will be to ensure that the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) is never allowed back to Iraq, a point that has been made forcibly by other governments but brushed aside by the US and Britain.
Why have the US and Britain refused to call Saddam's bluff by withdrawing those members of Unscom to which Saddam has objected? If the aim is to reduce any threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, why have the US and Britain dismissed out of hand Iraq's offer (conveyed by the Russians) to open all its sites for 60 days provided that inspections are carried out by experts accountable to the UN Secretary General and the Security Council? And what sovereign nation -- including the US and Britain -- has ever granted a foreign power the kind of unrestricted access to defence and governmental installations currently being demanded of Iraq?
The people threatened by Saddam do not live in Western Europe or North America, but in his own country. The neighbouring states which Clinton says he is seeking to defend have made it clear they do not want defence of this kind. The brutal truth is that the only people currently threatening to use weapons of mass destruction are the US and their British lapdogs.
Surely the unequivocal opposition of the democratic Iraqi and Kurdish opposition to any new bombing campaign ought to carry decisive weight. Robin Cook's arrogant disregard of their pleas speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of this latest bout of Cruise missile diplomacy.
And let's remember how we were lied to before, during and after the war of 1991. Both the US and British governments sought to conceal the scale of civilian casualties, propagated obscene lies about the targeting of "smart bombs", and grossly exaggerated Saddam's fighting capacity. Back then the public was led to believe this was a war for democracy and against dictatorship -- only to find the West turning its back on the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south while continuing to prop up the tyranny in Kuwait.
As in 1990-91, the war aims remain ill-defined, incoherent and obscured in semantic disingenuousness. No one should fool themselves that this dispute can be resolved by a quick "surgical" strike. The Pentagon has briefed reporters to the effect that a prolonged aerial bombardment will be required. This can only mean loss of life on an unacceptable scale and further misery for millions in Iraq.
Our New Labour Government has given Clinton the kind of unconditional support which even abject client states like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have withheld. The irresponsible war-mongering of George Robertson and the unreconstructed cold warriors in Blair's defence ministry was to be expected. But much better was hoped for from the team at the Foreign Office -- both Robin Cook and Derek Fatchett entered Parliament on the back of their activism in the peace movement. Their conduct in office has turned the phrase "ethical foreign policy" into the latest addition to the degraded lexicon of Orwellian Newspeak.
It is time for the Labour Party to rouse itself and to oppose by any means necessary this entirely unjustifiable and avoidable bloodshed. It is time we acted upon our finest traditions and highest principles -- of internationalism, anti-militarism and common human decency. Not for the first nor last time, it falls to the Labour left to ensure that a rational choice is placed before the British public.
previous article · March '98 index of LLB · write to LLB · LLB home page · next article