Regards, Ivan
Posted on 03/01/2003 4:21:19 PM PST by MadIvan
Lights, camera, action. "Tonight, ladies and gentleman, we are going to put America on trial" (polite applause). The charge: "America's first-strike foreign policy is thinly disguised imperialism, which threatens to fuel another arms race, spawn a new generation of terrorists and destroy international relations (more applause)."
No one bothers to explain the basis upon which these charges have actually been laid. But we are, after all, locked in a BBC studio (the one where they make The Weakest Link), and the majority of those invited to participate in the discussion have little interest in the quality of the debate, or the legitimacy of the accusations. They simply want to shout down anyone who has the temerity to suggest that military action against Saddam Hussein can be justified in any way.
A good example of the crude hostility faced by those of us who believe the world would be a better place if Saddam were to be deprived of his weapons of mass destruction arsenal emerged during a programme in which I participated last week hosted by Jon Snow.
At one juncture I attempted to make what, in my opinion, is the perfectly reasonable point that the main reason for Saddam's current difficulties is his willful disregard of more than a dozen UN security council resolutions that require him to disarm. But it was almost impossible to make myself heard above the din from a significant proportion of the audience, many of whom seem to have made their way to the studio directly from Finsbury Park mosque, chanting: "Israel, not Iraq" and "Liberate Palestine".
The reception I received was in marked contrast to Robert Marshall-Andrews, the left-wing Labour MP and QC who, as he made clear during last week's House of Commons debate, is staunchly opposed to military action against Baghdad. When he made the rather trite comment that, so far as the United Nations was concerned, there was "one law for America and one law for everybody else", he received rapturous applause.
With the prospect of military confrontation with Iraq drawing ever closer, hardly a day passes when, as Saddam's most recent biographer, I am not invited to participate in a radio or television programme to discuss the issues raised by the present crisis. Of course it is only to be expected that, with so much at stake, emotions are running high. Even so it is somewhat disconcerting to find that so many of the arguments advanced by quite intelligent people in debates about Iraq are actually based not only on false premises, but on information that is demonstrably false.
Take, for example, the frequently-made argument put forward by the anti-war lobby that it is hypocritical for Britain and America to pick a fight with Saddam because they created this particular Middle Eastern monster by arming him in the 1980s. In this context reference is generally made to Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq in December 1983, in his capacity as a special envoy for President Ronald Reagan, to restore diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad.
While it is undoubtedly true that there was, from the mid-1980s onwards, a discernible tilt in Western policy towards Baghdad, this was entirely due to the menace posed at that time by the ayatollahs in Teheran who, apart from threatening to overrun Iraq and thereby dominate the West's main oil supplies, were waging a violent campaign of terrorism against Washington, blowing up the US marine barracks in Beirut and holding hostage a number of Western citizens.
As a result of Rumsfeld's visit Washington agreed to provide Baghdad with satellite intelligence and tactical advice to help defend itself against the menace posed by Iran. But no one, Rumsfeld included, who met Saddam in 1983 was under any illusions about the nature of Saddam's regime, and both Congress and the Thatcher government imposed tight restrictions on what could and could not be sold to Saddam Hussein.
Consequently the bulk of Saddam's armaments came not from America or Britain, but from Russia and France - the two countries that are voicing the strongest opposition to a second UN security council resolution authorising military action and Baghdad. It is a simple, and self evident, fact that there are no Tornados or F-16 fighter jets in the Iraqi air force; there are plenty of Russian Migs and French Mirages.
Furthermore it was Jacques Chirac, when serving as France's prime minister in the mid-1970s, who authorised Baghdad's purchase of the Osirak nuclear reactors (the French satirical press renamed Iraq's nuclear facility "O'Chirac") which enabled Saddam to come within months of developing an atomic bomb in the early 1990s. The Germans, meanwhile, another nation that is volubly against war, provided Saddam with his chemical weapons infrastructure.
But try to make any of the above points in a British television studio, as I have repeatedly during the past few months,and you are greeted with howls of derision.
Another specious argument long favoured by America's enemies in this country, and one that is frequently quoted by Harold Pinter, the Left-wing playwright, is that Britain and America are directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children who have been deprived of essential medicines as a result of the UN sanctions imposed, at the instigation of London and Washington, after the Gulf war.
This particular blood libel completely ignores the fact that the UN sanctions specifically stipulate that adequate provision is made for medical supplies to enter Iraq. The grim reality is that, once inside Iraq, these supplies are seized by Saddam's officials and resold on the black market in neighbouring countries such as Jordan, a racket that is directly controlled by Saddam's eldest son Uday.
The profits are then used by the regime for purchasing items such as Russian anti-aircraft missile systems which are then deployed against British and American warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Saddam, of course, does not care how many innocent Iraqi civilians die so long as he has the weapons and the means to keep himself in power.
The real tragedy is that the misconceptions - to put it politely - of the anti-war lobby appear to be playing into Saddam's hands. The more people are led to believe that the current crisis over Iraq has been caused by Washington's desire to grab Iraq's oil wealth, or that the world's sole superpower is intent on world domination, the more likely they are to support the anti-war movement. And the more people support the anti-war movement, the less Saddam feels inclined to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors.
Which, or course, is why the peaceniks' activities will ultimately prove to be self-defeating. Saddam might look at the millions of well-meaning Europeans and Americans taking part in anti-war demonstrations and conclude that he can give Hans Blix a wide berth. But in so doing, Saddam is making a grave miscalculation. As is clear from Dr Blix's latest report to the UN, Saddam's disinclination to cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors only makes the prospect of imminent military action against Baghdad more, not less, likely.
Con Coughlin is the author of Saddam: The Secret Life (Macmillan)
Regards, Ivan
Seems that nobody had the guts - or, more likely, not the brains - to note the irony.
It's an endless parade of Ground Force, Changing Rooms, Father Ted, etc.
If they showed their true colors Americans would be outraged.
In all honesty, it's the most disappointing channel on US cable. We look at it and think, "THIS is all the great BBC is capable of putting out?" Almost total rubbish. And remember, shows like Father Ted and Graham Norton aren't even BBC programs! They're from Channel 4!
Though Carol Smillie is right hot...
I agree but The Office is hilariously original. It's what might be called "wince humor" meaning you can't believe the idiot office manager is that much of a scheming shallow fraud. It may not appeal to most Americans but if you like Brit humor give it a look.
(Although the last episode had an "end of the series" feel to it. Not to worry since they repeat and repeat everything.)
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.