Issue No. 603
Region
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
12 - 18 September 2002 Issue No. 603 Region |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Britain is not the 51st state
After examining the relationship between the United States and Britain Linda Heard* asks if the wishes of the people are being ignored
British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently agreed that a price in blood may have to be paid by the British people for standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States over Iraq. He expressed similar sentiments during his meeting with the American President George W Bush last week.
According to a poll sponsored by a British tabloid, 71 per cent of British people are against any military adventures in Iraq. Blair's gung-ho rhetoric is perceived by many as total disregard for the views of the British.
Blair talks in terms of "Britain's duty towards the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom." Mr Blair also has a duty towards his own cabinet, not to mention to his backbenchers (his party), the EU and most importantly to the British public, which voted him into office.
The mandate given to Blair by the British voters does not include their lives being offered on a platter to the deity of American hegemony.
Naturally, the British Prime Minister is free to offer his own blood, although, in the extremely unlikely event of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on London -- Mr Blair will, no doubt, be safely ensconced in a secure bunker, as was the American president on that fateful day last year. The rest of us will not be as fortunate.
General Anthony Zinni, the White House's special envoy to the Middle East, has noted that the 'doves' advising caution on Iraq, such as former generals Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft and Norman Schwarzkopf have all seen the carnage entailed by war up close and personal. Strange to say, the 'hawks' -- Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz have never experienced hands-on conflict, neither has Tony Blair.
In an effort to corroborate the claim of his counterpart in the White House that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq is a menace to the world, Blair talks of a dossier containing evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It has yet to materialise.
Former US Marine and member of UNSCOM Scott Ritter would argue with the alleged contents of this mysterious dossier. During a visit to the Iraqi capital Baghdad on 8 September, Ritter stressed that Iraq was currently incapable of producing weapons of mass destruction. He, if anyone, should know.
However, like Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, Ritter urged Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to continue their job in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Both Amr Moussa and Scott Ritter feel that by doing so, the US case for a regime change in Iraq would be weakened.
It is hardly surprising that Iraq is prevaricating on whether or not to allow the inspectors back. Inconsistent rhetoric from both Bush and Blair is to blame for this. Both Western leaders have made it clear that they will accept nothing less than a regime change, while at times they insist that the inspections should resume. These muddled statements are hardly an incentive for the Iraqi leadership to re-open its doors and give up its sovereign integrity.
Smarting from unflattering nicknames awarded to him by his own public in connection with his unswerving loyalty to George W Bush, Blair has said: "Britain decides its own policy and although I back America, I would never back America if I thought it was doing something wrong."
Well I've got news for you Mr Blair. Most of the world agrees that America's aggressive policies in the Middle East and the Gulf, and that of its satellite, Israel, are very wrong indeed, including members of your own cabinet.
Then there are the flagrantly dishonest attempts at linking Iraq with the perpetrators of 11 September. While all these empty accusations have been debunked, Bush and Blair are still making veiled, unsubstantiated hints at Hussein's links to terrorist groups, and even to the attacks on America.
One of the arguments put out by Bush and Blair for a preemptive strike on Iraq is that if America and Britain had known in advance that members of Al-Qa'eda were about to attack the US, they would have destroyed Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts well before 11 September.
In this case, they say, why should we wait for Saddam Hussein to attack us before acting? Again, these poor arguments are attempts to fudge two very different issues so as to confuse the public, and gain its support.
For years, Saddam Hussein has been trying to get the sanctions lifted and to re-join the community of nations. Over a million of his people have died due to the sanctions from lack of food, medicine and clean water. Surely his main concern is the betterment of life for the Iraqi people. What does he have to gain from leading them into an unprovoked Armageddon-type scenario?
Blair does his best to rally the British people to George Bush's war on terror by saying that 11 September could have happened anywhere -- in London, Berlin or Paris. He says that it was an attack on democracy and freedom. Someone should tell Mr Blair that the British people aren't buying this argument.
As brutal and horrific as it was, the attack on America was largely a response by fanatics to perceived unjust US policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Britain, Germany and France are not the targets of extremist groups, although the way that Blair is heading, Britain could certainly represent a target in the future.
Many Britons, including myself, are angered by the prime minister's slavish support of the US, and his reluctance to condemn America for opting out of the jurisdiction of the new international court, while others are puzzled.
A British poster, on a Guardian message board asks: "Is Tony Blair being blackmailed? Nothing else appears to explain his behaviour."
Another responds humorously with: "...cut to footage of Cherie, bound and gagged, dangling over a shark-infested pool inside a fake volcanic island."
The British people will have the opportunity to make themselves heard and ask these kinds of questions at an upcoming TUC (trade union) conference from 11 to 14 September, a Labour Party conference from 29 September to 3 October, and a major anti-war demonstration planned for 28 September in London.
We can only wonder whether Tony Blair will listen. If the prime minister wants to be a real friend to the US, then he should speak out before history has an ugly tale to tell. He should speak for the British people; those of us who remember Britain's shameful role in slicing up the Middle East in the first place and its backing, starting with Lord Balfour, of Israel.
On the other hand, France has learned important lessons from its imperialist past, with French President Jacques Chirac vehemently opposed to any invasion of Iraq. The same can be said of Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Imagine the outcry there would be if Chancellor Schroeder decided today that he didn't like the government of Poland and planned an invasion. Or President Chirac began sabre-rattling against Algeria. Those of us who cringe at the thought of Britain's imperialistic past are, frankly, embarrassed.
A growing school of thought believes that the US designs on Iraq are less about self-defence and more about domination over the region's natural rich resources. Other pundits accuse the US of wishing to remove Saddam Hussein and impose a regime, friendly to the West, in order to protect Israel. Yet others speculate that America wants to re-design the Middle-East map for its own -- and Israel's -- benefit.
Not content with beating the war drums against the Palestinian people and pressing Bush to invade Iraq, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is now trying to implicate Libya. Sharon maintains that it, too, is renewing its efforts to produce a nuclear bomb in cooperation with North Korea and Pakistan (with help from Iraqi nuclear experts). Worse, according to a report in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the US agrees with the Israeli claims. This begs the question: who's next?
According to US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Hizbullah is on the list. "Their time will come. There is no doubt about it," he has said. "They have a blood debt to us." Sounds to me as though he's been watching too many re-runs of The Godfather.
The British may indeed feel an affinity with their American cousins but make no mistake -- Britain is not the 51st state and the British people do not share the same values as the US and Israel. Not if those values include threatening the disenfranchised and the weak.
Tony Blair is in the unique position of being able to tip the balance. If he has the courage to say "no" then Bush and his administration 'hawks' will have a lonely road ahead.
We can only hope that you will see reason Mr Blair, and listen to the warnings of your friends in the Middle East. Including warnings of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah of Jordan. The alternative could be catastrophic for all of us.
* The writer is a British columnist currently based in Athens.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
