[Peace] Fwd: Tony Benn - 'MPs Can End the Iraq Folly'

[Belden Fields]

>X-Original-To: portside at lists.portside.org
>Delivered-To: portside at people-link5.inch.com
>Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
>To: portside at lists.portside.org
>From: moderator at portside.org
>X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:10:42 -0400
>Subject: Tony Benn - 'MPs Can End the Iraq Folly'
>X-BeenThere: portside at lists.portside.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3
>Reply-To: portside at portside.org
>Sender: portside-bounces at lists.portside.org
>
>The Guardian (UK)
>September 22, 2004
>
>MPs can end the Iraq folly
>
>By Tony Benn
>
>The Guardian At the moment when the prime minister has
>announced his decision to intensify the war in Iraq and
>when more British troops may well be sent there, the
>time has come for new policies to be adopted since we
>know, in great detail, all the key facts from very
>authoritative sources.
>
>We know from Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first treasury
>secretary, that the new president took the decision to
>invade Iraq when he entered the White House - almost a
>year before the attack on the twin towers - and that no
>one in Washington or London really ever believed that
>Saddam Hussein was responsible for the atrocity.
>
>The real reason for the invasion was to topple Saddam,
>seize the oil and establish permanent US bases to
>dominate the region. And we know that Tony Blair
>privately shared these objectives, and used the weapons
>issue to persuade parliament and public.
>
>We also know, from the recent report of the Iraq Survey
>Group, that Baghdad did not possess weapons of mass
>destruction. Neither the president nor the prime
>minister has been concerned to discover that they
>misled their own people and the world on this question.
>And it has not led them to reassess their arguments for
>going to war.
>
>No serious thought was given by Washington or London as
>to the likely consequences of the war and what policies
>should be pursued after the war was won. The warnings
>they received that an occupation might lead to chaos
>were dismissed out of hand.
>
>Many Iraqis held in detention have been tortured and
>abused by the forces of those who argued that they were
>there to stop those very practices, introduce democracy
>and safeguard human rights. And no attempt has been
>made to count the number of Iraqis killed or injured,
>which reveals a complete failure of respect.
>
>The supposed transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi
>government has now been proved to be illusory, since
>Ayad Allawi has about as much sovereign control as
>Fidel Castro has over Guantánamo bay, where the US base
>remains against the will of the Cuban government.
>
>Kofi Annan, as secretary general of the UN, has now
>told us that that war was illegal and contrary to the
>provisions of the charter - which only provides for
>military action in self-defence or when authorised by
>the security council - which must mean that those
>Iraqis now defending their own country are acting
>within the law.
>
>Yet, at this very moment, we are hearing threats issued
>against Iran for its nuclear programme, not least from
>Israel, which has a huge nuclear arsenal and might even
>repay its debt to Bush by bombing the Iranian nuclear
>plants, as it did to an Iraqi installation in 1981.
>
>All that is on the record, and we have to decide how we
>should respond. Some are calling for the prime minister
>to apologise, which would be a meaningless gesture,
>while others want impeachment. But whatever political
>impact a short debate on that might have, the House of
>Commons voted for the war and MPs are unlikely to go
>into the lobby to condemn themselves.
>
>The appeal to the international court to rule on the
>legality of the war is more substantial, because were
>the court to decide that it was illegal, it would deal
>with the issue comprehensively and might avert future
>acts of aggression - but it would take years.
>
>Moreover, this is a war that cannot be won - not least
>because it is being seen as a crusade against Islam.
>What is needed now is a vote in parliament to withdraw
>the troops on a fixed date - perhaps the end of this
>year - and for Britain to sponsor a resolution at the
>security council calling on the Americans to do the
>same, and for a genuinely independent UN intervention
>to help with the elections and with the task of
>reconstruction after all coalition forces have gone.
>
>Next week in Brighton the Labour party conference could
>and should demand such a withdrawal, asserting its
>right to compel a change of policy by a democratic
>vote. And Labour MPs should do the same when parliament
>meets again next month.
>
>This might also prove to be the best way of saving the
>Labour party from the folly and misjudgment of New
>Labour and its leader, remembering that Clem Attlee
>dissuaded Truman from using an atom bomb in Korea, Hugh
>Gaitskell passionately opposed the Suez war, and Harold
>Wilson refused to send troops to Vietnam. That is what
>we are entitled to expect from a Labour government.
>
>· Tony Benn's latest book, Free Radical, is published
>by Continuum; he is president of the Stop the War
>Coalition.
>
>tbenn at tbenn.fsnet.co.uk
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1309706,00.html
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>provide varied material of interest to people on the
>left.
>
>For answers to frequently asked questions:
><http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
><http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
>To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
><moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
>For assistance with your account:
><support at portside.org>
>
>To search the portside archive:
><http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>