Blair tells Pope: 'Only Saddam can stop the war'

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | February 23, 2003 | Colin Brown and Bruce Johnston

[MadIvan]

Tony Blair last night brushed aside a personal plea from the Pope and the growing threat of widespread rebellion by Labour MPs to forge ahead with plans for a war on Iraq.

The Pope urged the Prime Minister to avoid "the tragedy of war" and to "make every effort to avoid new divisions in the world" during their historic meeting at the Vatican yesterday. Although the meeting had been billed as "strictly private", the Vatican later took the unexpected step of issuing a statement to disclose what had clearly been an intense discussion.

The rebuff from the Pope follows last week's joint statement from the leaders of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales doubting the moral legitimacy of a war on Iraq.

In Rome, the Pope and Mr Blair met for 15 minutes. Having initially issued a one-line statement recording the Prime Minister's first audience with the Pope, the Vatican revealed that the Pontiff had urged Mr Blair to seek peace and called for "special consideration" to be given to the Iraqi people, "already tried greatly by long years of embargo".

Downing Street, which had said it would be making no comment on the meeting, responded by saying pointedly that the choice of peace lay not with the Allies but with Saddam Hussein. Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "We acknowledge the Pope's concern and we share the desire to avoid war but ultimately the decision will be a decision for Saddam."

The spokesman added that Mr Blair would "launch a final push for peace" this week but made clear that United Nations resolutions had to be upheld by military action if necessary.

The Prime Minister's statement was a pointed response to the Vatican's decision to part with tradition and reveal the contents of the meeting. After Mr Blair's audience his wife, Cherie, who is a Catholic, and his children also met the Pope.

The meetings was held as diplomats disclosed that Britain and America, backed by Spain, would present a short new UN resolution tomorrow, declaring Iraq to be in "material breach" of resolution 1441, which ordered Saddam to disarm fully or face "serious consequences".

No deadline will be be set for a vote on the resolution but British and American diplomats expect a decision early next month after Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, delivers another progress report.

Yesterday the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said that Iraq was still not co-operating fully with inspectors in their search for weapons of mass destruction. "We have not finished our work in Iraq," said Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We are not getting full co-operation from Iraq but we hope to get it next week."

Mr Blair's latest comments will also be seen as an attempt to face down opposition from within his party ahead of a Commons vote this week, when more than 50 Labour MPs are expected to rebel.

The Prime Minister has called Tuesday's debate and vote in an effort to turn public opinion on Iraq. He will tell MPs: "If we go to war it will not be because we want to but because we have to. Saddam and the world knows what he has to do. The world has been patient. He must take the peaceful way out."

Mr Blair will follow the Commons debate with a special Cabinet meeting on Thursday in an effort to "bind in" potential ministerial rebels and maintain the momentum for military action.

Meanwhile Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the new Chief of the Defence Staff, has said he believes that a war with Iraq could be won quickly and with minimal casualties. In his first interview since taking up the post three weeks ago, Gen Jackson tells The Telegraph that many of Saddam's soldiers would not be prepared to die for their leader, and adds: "The post-conflict situation will be more demanding and challenging than the conflict itself."

[MadIvan]

As a Catholic, I find the Pope's position embarassing. Jesus did not say "Keep in evil dictators at all costs."

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Forming up a ping list here for War_List.

Anyone want on or off send me a Freep mail.
I can see the volume getting high.
I want on anyones bump list for articles going on the War_List

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[Miss Marple]

Ivan, I note Tariq Aziz was in Rome about a week ago. I have been wondering if the Pope was threatened...as in destruction of cathedrals and shrines, executions of Iraqi Christians, terror targets on Catholics, etc.

It seems awfully coincidental, that Aziz visit.

[Miss Marple]

Put me on the War List, Ernest. Thanks!

[Domestic Church]

"It seems awfully coincidental, that Aziz visit."

Aziz is looking at property around Assisi too so he plans to be back in Italy soon.

And I wonder if the Pope knew about the break from tradition in the info leak or whether that was by Cardinal Sodano's staff.

[Land of the Irish]

As a Catholic, I find the Pope's position embarassing.

I agree with you. The Pope should condemn the one man who is responsible for the embargo of his own country. The embargo is U.N. sanctioned and the Pope complains about it. Yet, the Pope tells us not to go to war unless the U.N. approves. The same U.N. that is forcibly pushing abortion and birth control on developing nations. It's a shame he even acknowledges any moral or legal authority to the U.N.

[Domestic Church]

This just came in from ZENIT (Rome)

War in Iraq: No Simple Answers Debates Continue to Rage on Whether an Attack Is Justified

LONDON, FEB. 22, 2003 (Zenit.org).- British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in an address last Saturday to a Labor Party meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, affirmed he still hoped for a peaceful disarmament by Iraq. But he warned that showing weakness would weaken the United Nations' authority "and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody."

The world is faced, explained Blair, with a threat "from countries which are unstable, usually repressive dictatorships which use what wealth they have to protect or enhance their power through chemical, biological or nuclear weapons capability which can cause destruction on a massive scale."

"At every stage, we should seek to avoid war," stated the British leader. "But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored. If we do not confront these twin menaces of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism, they will not disappear. They will just feed and grow on our weakness."

Blair acknowledged that a war will mean some innocent people will die in the conflict. But he insisted that the consequences of letting Saddam Hussein stay in power will lead to an even greater death toll due to the regime's willful neglect of the economic welfare of the population as it builds its military sector. Moreover, Iraq imprisons, tortures and executes large numbers of its political opponents. "This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in," stated Blair.

"Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity," Blair told the Labor Party members. "It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."

For his part, U.S. President George W. Bush, in a Feb. 18 press conference, denounced Saddam "a risk to peace." The Iraqi leader has gassed his own people, has links to terrorists and possesses weapons of mass destruction -- and repeatedly defied the United Nations, Bush said.

"War is my last choice," affirmed the American president. Yet, "the risk of doing nothing is even a worst option as far as I'm concerned. I owe it to the American people to secure this country. I will do so."

A main criticism of the United States has been its unilateralism in dealing with Iraq. On this issue Bush stated his willingness to work through the United Nations, saying that the best way to deal with the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is through international organizations. But he also warned that the United Nations has to show that it can enforce its own resolutions and that it has the capacity to be effective.

The human cost of not intervening

Pro-intervention commentators argue that allowing Saddam to stay in power will only condemn the Iraqi population to further suffering. Others, however, argue that war would be worse.

Andrew MacLeod, an international lawyer and former negotiator for the International Committee of the Red Cross, noted that Human Rights Watch has denounced the systematic eradication by Saddam of the Marsh Arabs, whose population has dropped from 250,000 to just 40,000 in the last 15 years. And this is on top of an estimated 100,000 Kurds who have suffered the same fate, MacLeod wrote Feb. 3 in the Australian newspaper the Age. To these grim numbers must be added other countless victims of the regime's repression, he said.

After last weekend's peace marches, Amir Taheri, writing on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 18, observed that the anti-war lobby had also protested against intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. Giving diplomacy another chance on those occasions led to the massacre of 250,000 Bosnians and up to 10,000 Kosovars.

Allowing more time for U.N. inspections will not achieve anything, argued Taheri, given that Saddam would simply continue to hide his weapons and avoid cooperating. A Journal article on Feb. 11 by Khidir Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, also pointed out the difficulty of finding Iraq's secret weapons. The weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find, said Hamza.

Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly on Feb. 19 went so far as to argue that it would be immoral not to take military action against Saddam. Kelly insisted on the obligation to rescue the civilian population from "one of the cruelest and bloodiest tyrannies on earth."

Allowing nations such as Iraq, which he contends is linked to "state-sanctioned terrorism," to continue on their way only invites another Sept. 11, Kelly said. Moreover, he argued, if the United Nations allows Iraq to continue defying the law, the world will lose any hope of collective security. In this context, he said, continued opposition to a war "is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil."

[Domestic Church]

Worth repeating!

"It's a shame he even acknowledges any moral or legal authority to the U.N."

[MadIvan]

I was curious about that too - why does the Holy Father give any deference at all to a body which perpetrates a policy that goes against many traditional Catholic doctrines. Meanwhile, both Blair and Bush are committed Christians.

Regards, Ivan

[McGavin999]

The holy father is surrounded with corrupt men. I don't believe he understands the entire situation. This "leak" of a private meeting is detestable and I seriously doubt if the Pope knows it even occured.

[all4one]

As a Catholic, if find the Pope's statements appalling. The militant Islamics would like nothing more than to gain ground in Christianity's holiest cities around the world, and the pope is handing them the keys. I may just have a discussion with one of our priests after mass tomorrow....his lucky day.

Also at masses the past few months, there has been an enourmous amount of discussion on why we should not go to war. I swear, at times I want to explode!

[rface]

Although the meeting had been billed as "strictly private", the Vatican later took the unexpected step of issuing a statement to disclose what had clearly been an intense discussion.

[MeekMom]

Way to go Tony!!!
Hope you keep the dogs at bay as well!
God Bless you Tony!!!

btw, thanks for the thread Ivan

[XEHRpa]

As I said on another thread...

< Tinfoil > Call me crazy, but I thought it odd when Tariq Aziz met with the Pope last week, even going out of his way to throw gratuitous anti-Israeli jabs at the press. Aziz is a Christian by the way. And now the Pope meets with Blair.

Maybe the Pope routinely gets personally involved before an outbreak of hostility, but I wouldn't be surprised to read 20 years from now that Aziz was our Baghdad mole who passed vital info through the Pope to the West.

Furthermore, < Double-ply Tinfoil > the Pope would have to take this position to provide cover for Aziz. < /Double-ply Tinfoil> < /Tinfoil >

I'm not Catholic, but I retain my great respect for the Pope, in any case.

[Conservative til I die]

As a Catholic, I find the Pope's position embarassing. Jesus did not say "Keep in evil dictators at all costs."

I respectfully disagree with what you're saying here. I think it's ridiculous to say that the Pope's objective is to protect a tyrant like Saddam Hussein "at all costs." The Pope's is trying to stress that war should be a final option and if possible, find a peaceful way to end this. It's been alluded by the US government that if Hussein were to go into exile, this would be satisfactory. Now I know and you know it's not going to happen, but if it did, wouldn't that be a satisfactory solution? I support the war, but I don't believe that we should go to war just for going to sake of war. If the objective is to remove Hussein so we can keep him from making or using his weapons, that's fine. If he were to step down, I can't see the purpose of going to Iraq other than to look tough.

[Conservative til I die]

I also think the Pope needs to publicly put the onus on Hussein. While I don't have a problem with him stressing peace and alternative means of ending the conflict, he should also let Hussein know that he plays a part in this as well.

[Conservative til I die]

I was curious about that too - why does the Holy Father give any deference at all to a body which perpetrates a policy that goes against many traditional Catholic doctrines. Meanwhile, both Blair and Bush are committed Christians.

I agree with your point, but at the same time, the United States and the United Kingdom, as far as I know both allow abortion. THat said, to hell with the UN.

[prairiebreeze]

saddams henchmen would need to step away too. No point having one despot replaced by another. so that might be a reason to continue with going in even in the remote possibility that Hussein went away.

[prairiebreeze]

Now that is an interesting observation. and likely accurrate.