The 'Great Debate'
A backbencher rebellion in the British House of Commons made for highbrow entertainment, but cannot sway a prime minister who has already set his course, writes Nyier Abdou
It lasted for six hours and it had a stunning finale. It's not a new Scorsese flick, but last Wednesday's protracted, often impassioned debate on war in Iraq in the British House of Commons. At the end of it all, 121 Labour MPs rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for UN-backed military intervention in Iraq -- the largest "revolt" within the ruling party for over a century.
Keeping a stiff upper lip, Blair has brushed aside the staggering lack of confidence, but the implications of the vote are certainly not lost on him. A recent poll put out by the Mori Social Research Institute indicates that 61 per cent of the almost 2,000 adults questioned were not "satisfied" with Blair's performance, with 31 per cent saying they were satisfied. The 30-point approval-rating gap is among the lowest the prime minister has suffered and marks a significant diversion from the popularity Blair enjoyed at the time of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the US. In an interview with The Guardian, Blair remarked, "I am sufficiently well versed in politics now to realise the strength of the opposition and the difficulties it can put me in. I am not oblivious to that."
"This is absolutely a real test of Blair's premiership, as he himself has said a number of times," says Steven Everts, senior research fellow at the London-based Centre for European Reform (CER). But Everts told Al-Ahram Weekly that in the short run, the implications of the Commons vote are likely to be "limited". Despite the weighty revolt, the majority still backed the government. Everts suggested that if the US and UK can secure a second Security Council resolution authorising the use of force in Iraq, "Blair will be alright -- especially if a war is relatively short."
While the Commons vote has been used by the anti-war camp as irrefutable evidence that Blair is increasingly isolated, it is still important to note that the prime minister still managed a majority within his own party -- a point underscored by Terence Taylor, president of the US offices of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Taylor, who is currently in London, told the Weekly that despite a "significant rebellion" of Labour Party backbenchers, Blair still received a "substantial majority" on the vote and his cabinet is secure. Blair is in mid- term, Taylor notes, and he is "gambling on some time passing before facing re-election".
Conceding that there was certainly some "anti-US sentiment" at play in the vote -- "more prominently within Labour" -- Taylor maintains that Iraq remained a significant issue in the Commons debate. Many MPs are simply "not convinced" that the case has been made for military action at this time, while a marginal few would actually say they support Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Taylor also noted that he felt the issue of human rights, which has been a principal argument employed by Downing Street, has not been sufficiently taken into account.
"I would say that the debate was around 60 per cent about Iraq and the case for war -- the rest was about how we relate to the US," suggests CER's Everts. A lot of the "viciousness" in intra-European rows, said Everts, stems from diverging views on whether the US is to be trusted and how the trans- Atlantic relationship should be shaped. Much of the tension, says Everts, comes down to "whether you are convinced or alarmed about a generalised doctrine of preemptive strikes -- whether you can afford to oppose inevitable US action or not."
Commenting on those MPs who support a closer alliance with mainland Europe, IISS's Taylor stressed that the situation is "very complex", noting that there are significantly different views on Iraq among European nations. Because of this, he suggested, Blair has the strength to go ahead with what he clearly thinks is right.
In his comments to The Guardian, Blair rejected the prevalent accusation that he is "George Bush's poodle", claiming: "It's worse than you think. I believe in it. ... If the Americans were not doing this, I would be pressing for them to be doing so." In The Guardian interview, as well as during press conferences last Friday in Spain, following talks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and in the Welsh capital of Swansea, where he faced more anti- war demonstrations, Blair controversially compared the anti-war movement to appeasers of the 1930s. "A majority of decent and well- meaning people said there was no need to confront Hitler and that those who did were war-mongers," he said. "When people decided not to confront fascism, they were doing the popular thing, they were doing it for good reasons, and they were good people ... but they made the wrong decision."
In a commentary on the heated Commons debate published in The Independent, Andrew Rawnsley declared that "the House of Commons has made itself matter again." Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has secured assurance from Downing Street that there will be more votes before a war, but it is hard to imagine that anything more could be said than was already said. Many analysts feel that even without a second resolution, the UK will be pulled into a US- led war, which means in the larger picture, the "Great Debate" was more showmanship than democracy in action.
Blair's conditions for entering a war with Iraq are on a slippery slope. Starting with a firm Security Council resolution, Blair watered down his conditions to say he would defy an "unreasonable" veto, and now seems to be drifting towards ignoring a veto altogether. Everts argues that the real significance of the Commons vote is that, for the first time, Labour MPs are starting to think about "life after Blair".
"There was never much love lost between Blair and the party -- both tolerated each other," Everts said. But he added that despite rumblings that Blair's leadership may be in jeopardy, a change in leadership is not realistic any time soon. Still, while Blair seemed "unassailable" until recently, "he now at least seems on the defensive."
Both Everts and Taylor acknowledge that what the result of the US-UK diplomatic offensive to sway the crucial nine votes in the Security Council will be is anyone's guess. Taylor admits that it is "tough to say which way they will go", while Everts underlines the role of "momentum", saying that if it looks like some countries are falling behind the US, "others will follow."
"Of course there is a real dilemma here," Everts said. "Knowing that the US will attack no matter what the UN decides could also encourage people to vote against a second resolution, in a 'not in my name' exercise." Everts said this is likely for France and Germany, but he pointed to the downside of this tactic. "If that happens, it would also be the last time that the US would ever take an issue to the UN," he suggests. "Hawks in Washington can barely conceal their pleasure at Iraq bringing about the end of all those cumbersome international, multilateral organisations: the UN, NATO and the EU."
