'No support for war'
Veteran British leftist fireband and former parliamentarian, Tony Benn, 77, left the cosy comfort of his home in the London district of Notting Hill Gate to take part in the huge anti-war demonstration that rocked the British capital. Benn's fact-finding mission to Baghdad, unauthorised by the British government, was something of an eye-opener. Benn spoke to Assem El-Kersh Al-Ahram's London Bureau chief, about his trip to Iraq, the ramifications of a United States war on Iraq and about prospects for peace
Tony Benn
|
What do you think your trip to Baghdad accomplished?
Well, I was able to meet not just the president but [Prime Minister] Tareq Aziz and other ministers, to talk to them, which was useful. But the main purpose was to have an interview with President Saddam Hussein and make his views known to the world. I put five questions to him: Have you weapons of mass destruction? What are your links with Al-Qa'eda? What is the problem with the inspectors? What about the oil? And what is future of the United Nations?
I did not go as a journalist I went as a politician -- an old experienced statesman -- so that the world could hear his point of view and make a decision. The question becomes one of how to assess what he said. That's for everybody to decide, but I came away persuaded that there are prospects for peace and we should pursue them.
Did your trip help move things in this direction?
Well, I think there was an expression of a link between the international peace movement -- which is very strong in America and the rest of the world -- and the president [of Iraq] I think is useful for both sides. We hear from [US President George W] Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair every day, but we haven't heard from Saddam for 12 years! And we are just about to go to war.
Is the war, now, more or less likely?
That's a very simple question. When you say 'is it more or less likely' you end up really asking a different question, [which is] whether President Bush will launch a massive attack on Iraq. All the statements he has made suggest that within a very short period there will be a huge air attack, followed, perhaps, by a military invasion.
How soon do you think the attack will happen?
I'm not a military expert, but I think the president who demanded the inspectors return was very angry when Iraq agreed and now he is very angry with the inspectors because they are delaying the war. Someone said that President Bush is a man who will not take yes for an answer. The situation is that he is prepared to wait only until his troops are in position. So the extra bit was just to allow the armed forces of the USA and a few British troops to be ready for the war.
Is there a way to stop a war from happening?
I think it is difficult for Mr Bush to take America to war without a British contribution -- not the military contribution, that's of course not important -- but the political contribution is very important. So, if Mr Blair could be persuaded to say to the [US] president, 'I'm sorry, I'm not going along with it', the president would be in a difficult situation. So, almost uniquely, Britain has something like a veto on President Bush, because the Americans remember the Vietnam War, and are not willing to do it alone. That means a part of the key lies in London, and the PM is in terrible trouble here with no support for the war, or very little support for it. So he has to calculate, and if he goes without a UN resolution, then I say, truthfully, the Labour Party will simply reject it as a block. Many people here and in the world at large oppose it. There is no support for war amongst serious people.
In practical terms, can Blair make such a move?
Everybody is asking me, 'why does he want a war?' My best answer is twofold: Britain had an empire and lost it, and if you get close to a new empire and become a vice-president of the USA, you look powerful without any military hardware to justify it. The other thing is that if Blair breaks with Bush, maybe Bush would want a regime change in London. So it is a positive and negative argument. Anyway, for whatever reason, he has made a political mistake.
But could he break with Bush? Is it not too late?
I don't know. It's never too late; nothing is inevitable except death.
What will happen if he goes along Bush's road? Or, if he doesn't?
I remember Suez very well; I was in parliament. Sir Anthony Eden made war on President [Gamal Abdel- ] Nasser of Egypt [in 1956]. We were told Nasser was another Hitler. I remember being bitterly attacked for opposing the war and even being called "Nasser's Puppet". It was [US President Dwight] Eisenhower who stopped it, because the Americans wanted to move in. They did not want the British to remain in the Middle East, they wanted to move in just as they did in Abadan [Iran] earlier on. There is no equivalent to President Eisenhower now because Bush, of course, is doing it [threatening war]. Eden lost his job. Maybe the PM will find he is replaced, but perhaps he wouldn't mind being a PM for only five years.
Isn't he endangering whatever friendships he has in the Arab world?
I don't know what calculations he's making; the Foreign Office in Britain always understood the Arab world -- liked the Arab world -- yet we appear to have thrown that away completely and that's very sad, because even with Iraq we had tremendously warm relations and, of course, there are the consequences in the Middle East, whereby [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon wants the war to extend to Iran. Maybe a number of Arab governments will be destabilised by the war; then there is the long-term impact of this on relations between Christians and Muslims; there will be hostility and bitterness. [Going to war] would be a very foolish thing to do -- and it has nothing to do with Saddam. It is power and oil. I was in Egypt until the end of the war [World War II], I have my ID card picturing a young pilot aged 20. It says 'this man is exempt from Egyptian law', why? Because Britain occupied Egypt.
Would a war not also lead to more terrorism -- more violence?
Undoubtedly, the hostility and bitterness generated by this will remain for years. There will be all sorts of consequences. I think, really, Mr Bush and Mr Blair are recruiting agents for Al-Qa'eda. Who funded Bin Laden to go to Afghanistan as a terrorist? The Americans, to get rid of the Russians. I think the hypocrisy and the double standards -- the utter contempt for the Palestinians, and [the ignoring of] Israeli nuclear weapons, the thing is totally hypocritical, but people understand that quite well.
If Blair doesn't go Bush's way, wouldn't he be jeopardising his relations with the Americans?
Bush's father fought the Gulf War, and [former British Prime Minister] Harold Wilson would not send troops to Vietnam when asked by US President Lyndon Johnson. He [Wilson] said Vietnam was a disaster. The Americans have bombed 19 countries since 1945. [The US] is the one who has weapons of mass destruction.
What does Britain stand to lose if Blair does go along with the American plan?
He will lose the friendship of the Iraqi people, many Arabs, and Muslims around the world, and be seen as a puppet of Bush.
And, if he doesn't?
This will be an assertion of independence and bring him respect. Many of those who aren't going along with US plans, like [French Prime Minister Jacques] Chirac and [German Chancellor Gerhard] Shroeder may have more influence.
Would he also risk losing his prestige in the USA?
The US is very isolated. I know it is very big, but it is also very isolated, and millions of Americans are against a war. Blair said the other day, 'this is all due to anti-Americanism'. Well, would you call former President Jimmy Carter anti-American for his hostility to the president's policy?
Do you personally think that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction?
I don't know whether to believe Saddam or not. The one thing I do know is that I don't believe [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell.
We now know that some of the evidence produced came from a Phd student in 1992. [A report by the British government issued in January contained extracts from a thesis by an Iraqi student]. I recall other lies, too. The stories of Iraqi soldiers going into Kuwaiti hospitals, picking up babies, throwing them on the floor and taking the incubators to Baghdad. These were massive lies invented by public relations companies in New York. Do you remember when [former US President Bill] Clinton bombed a factory in Sudan. It was not a chemical factory, it was a pharmaceuticals factory recognised by the UN.
I'm an old man. I've been in parliament half a century. It is difficult to say, but I don't feel obliged to believe anything the British government says or even Saddam. I believe the inspectors, they are not saying anything other than that they have not found anything and that they are not getting the cooperation they want, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraqis deal with that.
After meeting Saddam, are you convinced by things he has said?
Yes. I think what he said about Al-Qa'eda was correct. I don't see any link between their two totally different philosophies. On the question of weapons, I would prefer to believe [Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans] Blix, but I don't believe Colin Powell.
Did you ask Saddam to verify his denials?
I was not there as a journalist or a lawyer to interrogate him, I was there to ask the questions that everybody wanted to know the answers to so we could hear what he had to say. I had no intention of going there and putting him on a trial for his life. I went there to give him an option. During my life I have engaged in many high-level meetings. Diplomacy requires a courtesy to find out, to understand and that helps you to decide what to do.
But you haven't said what you felt about the
whole encounter?
I was not in a position to double check. I had my own ideas. I mean, I'd met him before; I recognised him and he recognised me. He didn't seem very different from 1990, a little bit older, but so am I. He didn't have a script, he didn't want to know the questions [in advance].
Like last time, you were criticised for going to Baghdad. This time people have said your questions were too gentle and that you were used by Saddam. How do you respond to this?
If I were to see President Bush, I'd address him the same way; I'd ask him questions, listen politely and thank him. Mind you, it is more difficult to meet Blair than Saddam. I asked to see the PM twice -- before I went and after I got back -- so he is a difficult man to meet. Maybe he didn't like the idea of me going there. If you talk to somebody, you try to find out what they think; the purpose of the interview was not to interrogate, but to discover, listen and then later think about it.
You seem to have ignored the criticism in the newspapers.
I think it is very interesting that they want to fight Saddam without even hearing what he has to say. Even in American courts if you are sentenced to death, you say something before you leave the courtroom. But they don't want that.
Did you have the chance to have a personal conversation with Saddam away from the cameras? If so, did you express any concerns about the situation?
We had a short talk before and afterwards. He knows that they are about to destroy Baghdad and kill perhaps half a million people.
Did you ask him to take any initiatives?
It was not for me to negotiate, because I had no negotiation power, and even if I asked him to do this or that, there would be those who would say, 'Who gave you permission to suggest this or that'. I didn't want that, I wanted to have the opportunity to learn and to hear what he had to say. When I saw him in 1990 he released all the hostages -- a 100 per cent success.
If we are going to have inspectors in the Middle East, let us, as well, have inspectors in Israel and on American bases in Britain. If we really are moving towards a world where the danger is weapons of mass destruction, we need the UN to inspect military bases everywhere, we need human rights monitors everywhere and a Middle East conference to deal with the rights of Palestinians as well as the problems which may exist with Saddam. The reality is that many people will be killed.
How did Saddam change in the last 12 years? What are your personal impressions about the encounter?
Well, he was very polite, he is a lawyer. When I first met him, I thought that he was a soldier. As you would expect our relationship is a formal one, we shook hands. I asked my questions politely, listened, said good-bye and left.
Were any of his answers edited? Did he decline to respond to any of your questions?
No, he answered every question, and the whole interview lasted for about an hour, but, of course, the interpretation cut it to half an hour. As far as I know the whole interview was fully filmed and shown on [Britain's] Channel 4.
What argument should be used to dissuade Blair from going to war?
First of all it's wrong. The right and the wrong are the basis of religious education and it is wrong to kill for such a purpose. Second, it will have a very serious impact on lives and property, and many will be killed. Third, it will do long-term damage, so it is totally wrong. That's what I have to say. Whatever your religion is, there is an idea of right and wrong at the heart of all religions, they all teach us to do what's right, I mean what's the basis of a peaceful world? That applies to everybody, justice for Palestinians and minorities, internationalism. You don't want to go back to the conflict of nations and democracy. There is no democracy in Britain, because the PM won't even allow elected members of parliament to vote on whether they agree with him. He is behaving like a dictator and if he goes to war without the UN and parliament, it will be a personal act that could lead to British soldiers being ordered to commit war crimes. If I were to send Blair a personal message, I would tell him, 'What you are doing is wrong', but I think he knows that; he must know it.
What -- if any -- are Saddam's options in the forthcoming showdown? Is there any way out for him?
I don't know how he will respond, but it seems to me that he is determined to preserve what he sees as the interests of Iraq. I can't anticipate whether he might leave. I didn't raise that with him.
Did he seem worried when you met him?
Not really, he looked very normal, and if he sleeps as well as he says, he is luckier than I am. Life in Baghdad is normal and without extra security. It's an extraordinarily relaxed atmosphere. [It seems that behind the mood] is the feeling [among Baghdad residents] of 'We are an ancient civilisation; we had the Moghuls under Genghis Khan, now there are the new barbarians with GW Bush.' There could be a way out. If the Americans let the inspectors continue, these things could sort themselves out.
In Australia, the Senate passed a motion of 'no- confidence' with respect to PM John Howard's deployment of troops to the Gulf. Is a similar move likely here?
I'm not a member of parliament anymore, but I'm amazed that the MPs of all parties don't say to the PM, 'we are going to decide'. He would probably have a majority for the war, but in the end it would be a decision by an elected parliament instead of one by an individual .
Is a second "fig leaf" UN resolution enough? If Bush does not obtain a resolution, do you think he will go ahead anyway?
Even if you are in favour of a war, you should insist on voting on the issue not to have it done without your consent.
Blair actually said that he wouldn't accept an "irresponsible" veto by any of the other permanent members of the Security Council...
Well, the Americans have used 80 vetoes to protect Israel -- 80! I can't forecast what the outcome of the vote will be, but if there is a war without a UN resolution, I don't think the Labour Party will go along with it. Without a resolution, it is a war of aggression. With a resolution, it is legal but wrong; that's my argument.
What's your next move? Do you plan to follow through with your idea of sending a high-level delegation to Iraq?
If Nelson Mandela [former president of South Africa] were to take a group of Noble peace prize winners to Iraq, it would be a very powerful statement. It would be very difficult for Bush to bomb Baghdad if there were Noble peace prize winners there -- not as human shields, but their presence would have a strong influence on public opinion.
