Blair's Blueprint To Strike At Terror

Tony Blair called yesterday for a change in international law to legitimise pre-emptive military action against rogue states that developed weapons of mass destruction, co-operated with terrorists or brutalised their people.

He said the "global threat" posed by Islamic extremism and global terrorism meant it was time to rethink the centuries-old rule that the only clear case for armed intervention was "self-defence in response to aggression".

Mr Blair in Sedgefield yesterday After months of controversy over the legitimacy of the Iraq conflict, Mr Blair embarked on the most detailed explanation of why he took the country to war a year ago.

He admitted that it had been - and remained - the most deeply divisive decision he had made as Prime Minister. Mr Blair called on his critics to stop attacking his integrity and accept that the decision to go to war was a matter of judgment.

But he acknowledged that arguments that the war was a "gigantic conspiracy" would continue to dog his premiership. As soon as the latest row over the Attorney General's advice on the legality of the conflict died down "another will take its place and then another and another".

In a speech at his Sedgefield constituency, Mr Blair said it was his duty, whatever the political cost to his reputation, to expose the threat posed to Britain and the rest of the world by global terrorism. He underlined the difficult decisions he had to make to protect national security.

A decision to increase the police presence at Heathrow airport in response to a warning of an attack had been criticised as an attempt to frighten the public. "To this day, we don't know if it was correct and we foiled it or if it was wrong," said Mr Blair.

"But sit in my seat. Here is the intelligence. Do you ignore it? But, of course intelligence is precisely that: intelligence. It is not hard fact."

Mr Blair accepted that opponents of the war had been buoyed by the fact that no physical evidence of WMD had been found in Iraq in the 11 months since the war.

However, he said, the issue was the changed nature of the "threat" that Saddam had posed after the September 11 attacks. It had been a "declaration of war" by religious fanatics prepared to wage war without limit.

"Here were states whose leadership cared for no one but themselves; were often cruel and tyrannical towards their own people; and who saw WMD as a means of defending themselves against any attempt external or internal to remove them."

A Q Khan, a former Pakistani nuclear scientist, was involved in selling nuclear weapons technology secretly to states wanting to acquire it. Plants in Malaysia, the near East and Africa were planning to develop nuclear weapons equipment.

Osama bin Laden had called it a "duty" to obtain nuclear weapons. "His [al-Qa'eda] networks have experimented with chemicals and toxins for use in attacks. He received advice from at least two Pakistani scientists on the design of nuclear weapons."

Mr Blair argued that failing to take a stand on Iraq would have shown the international community's will to act over rogue states and WMD was weak.

But it would be "monstrously premature" to think that the threat had passed. It was not a time to err on the side of caution, particularly when terrorists were "pouring into Iraq".

Mr Blair claimed that "containment" would not deal with the threat. The terrorists had no intention of being contained, and there needed to be a global response.

In what appeared to be an acceptance of the controversy over the legality of the Iraq war, Mr Blair questioned whether the world view of justification for military action should now be updated.

He said that even before September 11, he had been reaching for a "different philosophy" in international relations from the traditional one that had held sway since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This ended the Thirty Years' War, with a declaration that a country's internal affairs were for it "and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance".

He said the notion of intervening on humanitarian grounds was gaining in currency following the Kosovo war and Britain's intervention in Sierra Leone.

Under international law as presently constituted a regime could systematically brutalise and oppress its people, and there was nothing anyone could do, unless it came within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe. "This may be the law, but should it be?" he said.

Not every situation would lead to military action. "But we surely have a duty and a right to prevent the threat materialising; and we surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's."

Mr Blair said Britain and the United States were worried that if the United Nations remained "paralysed" because of disagreement in its councils, then threats would go unchallenged.

The UN had to be reformed so that its Security Council "represents 21st century reality" and had the capability to act effectively.

Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, welcomed Mr Blair's speech. He said where the Government took effective action to deal with the threat from terrorism, "we shall give them our full support".

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, who opposed the Iraq war, said successive British governments had signed up to the UN approach to international affairs. It would be a major departure if Mr Blair's administration signed up to a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

Tam Dalyell, the anti-war Labour MP, described the Prime Minister's speech as "passionate, self-justifying drivel". He said the Iraq war had been illegal and Mr Blair was "in the position of a war criminal".

Tony Blair and GW were bond by 9/11.

Blair's speech to Parliament on September 12th 2001 was an impassioned plea for the world to wake the hell up. To Blair's credit, he hasn't kept his eye off the ball for a moment in spite of the incessant carping from his back benches.

I still believe that 9/11 was a seismic event that shifted public opinion considerably.

Bush will roll.

2 posted on 03/05/2004 9:07:11 PM PST by zarf (..where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment?)

I agree with Tony Blair for taking such a strong stance on terrorism. I have a lot of admiration for him. I can't understand what he's doing in the Labour Party. What a mis-match!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.