Seems like Tony Blair came to realise that a war now would cost him much, including his job. What are the chances that the UK will not participate in this war? I hope, ofcourse, they won`t. It`s already too late for Tony, his carreer is dead, but he can still do a last gesture, and save his country from total isolation in Europe. He owes it to the British people.
I`ve read in the newspaper this morning that if the UK goes to war, it would be impossible for Blair to stay longer in office than one week. After this he would have to resign.
UK plays down US rift
UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has sought to dispel speculation that American troops might go to war with Iraq without British involvement.
On Tuesday US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting the US had alternative plans if there was no second UN resolution and the UK decided not to go to war with Iraq.
The remarks – later retracted – caused shock and surprise in Downing Street, which chose to focus on continuing efforts to secure a new United Nations resolution.
Mr Hoon told the BBC on Wednesday morning that Mr Rumsfeld had been referring to a “theoretical possibility” that British troops might not be involved.
He added: “He has every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the UK.”
Mr Hoon also suggested that there might not need to be a second United Nations resolution to give the go ahead for war.
Asked if the existing resolution 1441 could in itself provide the authority to go to war, he said: “Certainly it is possible to read 1441 in that way”.
Downing Street
Rebel Labour backbenchers seized on Mr Rumsfeld’s remarks and are expected to urge Tony Blair at House of Commons question time on Wednesday to withdraw British military involvement.
The diplomatic flurry came as the prime minister said he was willing to work “night and day” to secure enough common ground among UN security council members for agreement on a new resolution.
They (the US) can do it without us and give Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes
Graham Allen MP Labour rebel
Mr Rumsfeld told reporters the UK’s role was “unclear” because of Tony Blair’s difficulties in convincing a rebellious Parliament of the need for military action.
Asked if he meant the US would go to war without its closest ally, he added: “That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.”
A Downing Street spokeswoman insisted: “This has not changed anything. We are still working to get a second resolution. We are not at this stage (war) yet.
“But there has been complete cooperation throughout between the United Kingdom and United States on the military planning.”
Weapons tests
Within the hour, Mr Rumsfeld tried to clarify his comments with a statement saying he had “no doubt” in “a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom.”
But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell told BBC’s Newsnight that Mr Rumsfeld’s comments appeared to “devalue Britain’s military contribution and hence its political influence”.
Labour MP Graham Allen said: “The cat is out of the bag. They can do it without us and give Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes.”
I don’t think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of concern about the illegality of what is proposed
Tam Dalyell
The prime minister’s frantic international negotiations continue on Wednesday at dinner with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at Downing Street.
After talks with the Portuguese and Romanian prime ministers on Tuesday, Mr Blair warned that Saddam Hussein will be “let off the hook” if France or Russia uses a veto over a further UN resolution.
UK diplomats at the UN have proposed a series of tests they say Baghdad should fulfil within a set time to prove that it is ready to hand over its weapons.
The proposals are part of an attempt to win wider support for a new UN resolution that gives the Iraqi leader a deadline to disarm before war.
Mr Blair hopes the plan will break the UN deadlock and ease mounting political pressure at home following an attack on his strategy by Clare Short, the international development secretary.
Mr Blair knows the risks he is taking
Nick Assinder
BBC News Online political correspondent
On Tuesday, six undecided UN members – Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan – suggested a 45-day deadline for Iraq to disarm.
But this was rejected by America, which is insisting that a UN vote on war against Iraq will happen this week.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence has denied claims by the Public Accounts Committee that it has not learned enough from mistakes made during a large desert exercise in Oman two years ago.
More than 20,000 troops were put through their paces amid criticism about the equipment used.
By: ELP - 14th March 2003 at 03:03
Garry,
Please explain to me in detail how the Korean situation is similar to the Iraqi situation. I am curious.
By: SOC - 13th March 2003 at 18:34
Jonesy hit the nail on the head. Rumsfeld’s comments were in direct response to a question asked by one of the reporters, something to the extent of “could we do it without Britain”. Rumsfeld was being honest folks, just answering he question. He was in no way trying to undermine or brush aside the stalwart support we’ve been getting from our most excellent ally. However, in a business where the majority of news media has a liberal bias to it, that of course meant it would be reported in the fashion that it was.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th March 2003 at 03:18
“Blair may loose political support on this one, but at least he isn’t spineless like some other countries leaders I could think of. “
Spineless. Why? The US is not currently going to war with North Korea… is it spineless too? How about China, Iran, Indonesia… they must have done something wrong as well when are they to be invaded?
Democracy seems to be doing what the US says, not listening to the will of your own people.
By: ELP - 12th March 2003 at 23:44
I have never liked labor ( socialist ) politics but as for a PM when there is a crisis, Tony Blair has what it takes to be decisive. You see, while the occassional Chamberlin does crop up, the U.K. actually has a long history of PMs that were decisive in crisis. Not many other countries can claim that by a long shot.
Churchill was axed after WWII. Blair may loose political support on this one, but at least he isn’t spineless like some other countries leaders I could think of. Not today’s French Military which I have confidence in, but if I was in a battle and needed help and knew Greens, Socialists ( and some other “ists” ) were my backup; I’d worry.
By: Jonesy - 12th March 2003 at 13:35
Ben,
I don`t think Tony Blair was thinking of these kind of anti-war reactions in his own country and in Europe, when he lined up with GWB a year ago. And honestly I don`t think that he would do the same if he had another chance.
I wouldnt agree with that to be honest. I’ve NEVER been a Blair fan, I was calling for him to be lynched in the Fuel Tax protests a couple of years back, but he has impressed me with the consistency of his statements in the face of potentially catastrophic public opinion over Iraq.
I dont think that there is enough “in it” for the UK financially or politically to justify the risks (to his own position) that Blair is taking now so I am left with the conclusion that the PM does actually believe in the correctness of the action being taken. That being the case I think he’d make the same decisions over and again.
Wheter you are pro or anti-War, Jonesy, you have to admit that this British administration made a mistake following the Americans blindly. Blair is still a ****ing socialist. I think he had good intentions trying to influence GWB so that the latter would become more multilateral. But it was the other way around, it was GWB who poisened Tony`s ideas.
No I wouldnt admit that Ben because I feel that your assessment is incorrect. Britain HAS made a difference in coaxing the US position around to a more moderate one than existed 12 months back. I know a lot of continentals like to gloss over that but who else could have done it?
The net result of that being UN1441 which everyone accepted as necessity – again another positive step in global integration and international cooperation. The “poisoning” or increasingly hardline stance from Tony Blair didnt start until signatories to 1441 started to drift away from their stated commitments. Therefore, far from the Bush camp seducing Blair towards its interventionist rhetoric, its more like Chirac has pushed Blair there as Blairs only alternative is to renege on his international declarations like the French, Germans et al.
Glenn,
I am sure that the US probably has brain-stormed that very contingency for some time now. I am for one confident the US could do it alone but they may need to call up more reserves, in fact IIRC they have done so very recently, including another tank division from Texas I think.
125% Agree!. It would be inexcusable to play at these stakes and them NOT to have made plans for any conceivable contingency. I also have little doubt that they could go alone but I’m pleased that they’re not.
By: Glenn - 12th March 2003 at 12:28
With the prevarication in the UK House of Commons its simple prudence for the US to make a plan that includes the possibility of that 25% becoming suddenly unavailable.
I am sure that the US probably has brain-stormed that very contingency for some time now. I am for one confident the US could do it alone but they may need to call up more reserves, in fact IIRC they have done so very recently, including another tank division from Texas I think.
By: Geforce - 12th March 2003 at 11:53
I don`t think Blair will walk away from this that easily, Jonesy. This is the first time in post war history that western allies openly opposed eachothers (in)actions. France can not turn back, especially since most of its people back the gov`t. Same for Germany, which had elections recently, and Belgium, which will hold elections in May.
I don`t think Blair would survive this war. Labour-MP`s already announced that they will hold a special meeting IF a war is to start. The Anglo-Saxon system allows ministers and MP`s from the same party to have different opinions, on the continent, the complete gov`t would already have collapsed, once it was clear that not all MP`s of their own party back the gov`t.
I don`t think Tony Blair was thinking of these kind of anti-war reactions in his own country and in Europe, when he lined up with GWB a year ago. And honestly I don`t think that he would do the same if he had another chance.
And there are already huge differences in this broad coalition of the US and the UK. Jack Straw still thinks war can be avoided, but American troops are already breaking through the fences of the DMZ between Iraq and Kuweit.
Wheter you are pro or anti-War, Jonesy, you have to admit that this British administration made a mistake following the Americans blindly. Blair is still a ****ing socialist. I think he had good intentions trying to influence GWB so that the latter would become more multilateral. But it was the other way around, it was GWB who poisened Tony`s ideas.
By: Jonesy - 12th March 2003 at 10:47
Stuff and nonsense Benjamin.
The article you posted is Rumsfelds response to being asked what the US would do if the UK suddenly pulled-up at the last fence to which he answered honestly that Bush will have to examine that scenario and quickly. Big suprise there!
I’ve heard it discussed by political commentators that if, in two weeks, the “war” has been won and there are tens of millions of Iraqi’s rejoicing at being free of Saddams regime Blair will be able to walk across the Thames without using a bridge. He has a conviction to see this through to a resolution which is apparent in all the interviews he’s given and I really can’t see the man blinking when public opinion in the UK is now starting to shift behind him.
Finally as to Rumsfelds “We don’t know what their role is yet” comment its quite true. The problem is that we have contributed about 25% of the combat power in theatre which is a very much different proposition to just sticking a British division into a US Army Corps structure. With the prevarication in the UK House of Commons its simple prudence for the US to make a plan that includes the possibility of that 25% becoming suddenly unavailable.
Sign In
March 12, 2003 at 8:43 am