- Those MPs who shouted "What's next?" during
Prime Minister's Questions on Iraq on Wednesday may have been alarmed by
Tony Blair's reference to North Korea in his reply. But I suspect that
they were also disappointed, since they probably hoped for some indication
that the Government is privy to Washington's real objectives in the Middle
East, in pushing for an invasion of Iraq.
-
- British ministers claim that their sole objective in
sending our Armed Forces to the Gulf is to keep up the pressure on Saddam
Hussein to deal honestly with the UN weapons inspectors on his alleged
holdings of weapons of mass destruction, and that "no decisions have
been taken". But you cannot find a serious figure in Washington who
does not accept that President George W Bush's objective in Iraq is regime
change.
-
- I suppose it is necessary to preface my strong doubts
about the campaign against Iraq by expressing my loathing for the evil
dictator who is now in power in Baghdad. But I have never accepted that
the threat to Europe or the United States from Iraq was either imminent
or real enough to justify the possible loss of lives of hundreds of our
soldiers, and I find the arguments that an invasion of Baghdad will help
the War against Terror singularly unconvincing - indeed, I believe it is
more likely to contribute to the terrorist threat.
-
- Still less do I believe the renewed claims that Saddam
Hussein is seriously linked to al-Qa'eda, since a secular ruler who has
long faced potential threats from extreme Islamists (whether Shia or Sunni)
has no interest in aligning himself with an extreme Islamist movement,
however much he may now sympathise with its anti-American threats.
-
- I shall look with interest at the "evidence"
of Iraqi links with al-Qa'eda, which the Security Council has been promised
next Wednesday from Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, though I note
that those who should know in the intelligence services are already expressing
deep scepticism about this. But there is little purpose in wringing one's
hands about how or why the campaign against Iraq started, though it is
no secret that senior members of the Bush administration were already considering
how to unseat Saddam Hussein before the horrors of September 11. There
are, however, some real questions to be asked - and to which I hope the
British Government knows some of the answers - about what is supposed to
happen after the planned invasion.
-
- We are frequently told by experts (usually in Washington)
that they confidently expect an invasion of Iraq to be "quick and
successful". But what is "success"? What sort of regime
do the Americans expect to put in place instead of Saddam Hussein's Tikriti
clan? Who is going to take on the horrendous task of putting Iraq together
again and relieving the suffering of a divided population? Do the Americans
really have the stomach for a long occupation of Iraq, or will that fall
to their European allies? Have they any understanding (as we once had)
of the difficulties and complications of ruling Mesopotamia?
-
- And what do the Americans mean by saying that, after
Iraq, they intend to "democratise" adjacent countries, such as
Syria, Saudi Arabia and even Iran? Having served as British Ambassador
to the first two of these countries, I have no illusions about the difficulty
of any such attempt - let alone the risks for those who try to bring it
about, or the potential damage to our political and commercial interests.
-
- Just as we have found ourselves "shoulder to shoulder"
with the Americans on Iraq, is the Prime Minister going to find his allies
in Washington pressing us to help remove President Assad of Syria (whom
the British Government received as an official visitor only one month ago)?
And are we going to find our attempts (by the Foreign Secretary and others)
to establish a modus operandi with the Iranian regime - after decades of
virtual stand-off - undermined by aggressive calls for regime change from
Washington? Is it not ironic that virtually the only Arab leader to have
been democratically elected, Yasser Arafat, finds himself sidelined by
both the Americans and the Israelis?
-
- Mr Blair has utterly failed to engage the Bush administration
on the Arab-Israel problem - a situation which poses a far greater and
more imminent threat to British interests in the Middle East than Iraq,
and a much more significant contributor to popular support, in the Arab
and wider Islamic world, for al-Qa'eda.
-
- It may well be too late to revert to a policy of containing
Iraq which we and the Security Council have followed - without undue risk
or alarms - over the past 11 years. But the implications for security in
the Middle East, and for Kurdish aspirations vis-a-vis their populations
in Syria, Iran and Turkey, if we attempt to impose the American view of
history on Iraq and her neighbours, makes this a potentially lethal point
in the history of our own country. I just hope that Mr Blair will have
been persuaded to point out some of these dangers to Mr Bush this weekend.
-
- Lord Wright of Richmond was head of the Diplomatic Service
from 1986 to 1991 and was previously Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia.
-
-
-
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/
|
