Tony Blair: The price of my conviction
The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 02/16/03 | Tony Blair
Posted on 02/15/2003 4:51 PM PST by Pokey78
Tony Blair tells critics of war that leaving Saddam in power has a 'blood cost'
I continue to want to solve the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction through the UN. Dr Blix reported to the UN yesterday and there will be more time given to inspections. But let no one forget two things. To anyone familiar with Saddam's tactics of deception and evasion, there is a weary sense of déjà vu. As ever, at the last minute, concessions are made. And, as ever, it is the long finger that is directing them. The concessions are suspect; unfortunately, the weapons are real.
The time needed is not the time it takes the inspectors to discover the weapons. They are not a detective agency. We played that game for years in the 1990s. The time is the time necessary to make a judgment: is Saddam prepared to co-operate fully or not? If he is, the inspectors can take as much time as they want. If he is not, if this is a repeat of the 1990s - and I believe it is - then let us be under no doubt what is at stake.
By going down the UN route, we gave the UN an extraordinary opportunity and a heavy responsibility. The opportunity is to show that we can meet the menace to our world today together, collectively and as a united international commu nity. What a mighty achievement that would be. The responsibility, however, is indeed to deal with it.
Remember: the UN inspectors would not be within 1,000 miles of Baghdad without the threat of force. Saddam would not be making a single concession without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him. I hope, even now, Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, with or without Saddam. But if we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, it will not only be Saddam who is repeating history. The menace will grow, the authority of the UN will be lost and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody.
11 September did not just kill thousands of innocent people. It was meant to bring down the Western economy. It did not do so, but we live with the effects of it even today. It was meant to divide Muslim and Christian, Arab and Western nations, and to provoke us to hate each other. It didn't succeed, but that is what it was trying to do.
States developing weapons of mass destruction, proliferating them, importing or exporting the scientific expertise, the ballistic missile technology, the companies and individuals helping them don't operate within any international treaties. They don't conform to any rules.
And with terrorist groups already using chemical and biological agents with money to spend, do we really believe that if al-Qaeda could get a dirty bomb they wouldn't use it? Think of the consequences. Think of a nation using a nuclear device, no matter how small, no matter how distant the land. That is why Saddam and weapons of mass destruction are important.
At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored.
Al-Qaeda attacked the US, not the other way round. Were the people of Bali in the forefront of the anti-terror campaign? Did Indonesia 'make itself a target'? The terrorists won't be nice to us if we're nice to them. When Saddam drew us into the Gulf war, he was not provoked. He invaded Kuwait.
No one seriously believes Saddam is yet co-operating fully. In all honesty, most people don't really believe he ever will. So what holds people back? What brings thousands of people out in protests across the world? And let's not pretend that in March or April or May or June people will feel different. It's not really an issue of timing or 200 inspectors versus 100. It is a right and entirely understandable hatred of war. It is moral purpose, and I respect that.
But the moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience.
Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die, and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.
But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being.
I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process. But I ask the marchers to understand this.
I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction.
If there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.
So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen, never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist none the less.
I want us to be a Government which has the intelligence, the vision and the foresight to see that there is nothing inconsistent in saying that we will increase our aid to development and give hope to Africa, yet be prepared if necessary to fight to defend the values we believe in.
This is the testing time, the difficult, the tough time, but if we come through it the prize is not just a Government able to carry on; it is far more important than that: it is a signal that we will have changed politics for good.
This is an edited extract of the Prime Minister's speech to delegates at the Labour Party's spring conference in Glasgow yesterday.
1 posted on 02/15/2003 4:51 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Posted here
Anybody who Saddam didn't have these weapons has been listening to Michael Moore and Sean Penn too long
Um, last time I checked, the people who were claiming there are no WMDs are the media. Bush et al has been carefully wording his statements, and has said several times that there are weapons and that he can prove it. There could well be strategic reasons not to lay them out for a photo op just yet. Certainly, we'll soon find out. The drumbeat to put his cards on the table is reaching a crescendo. However, and I've said this before, it's my opinion that much of it has already been revealed, not that the media cares to cover it.
Perhaps they prefer the justification used to initiate the Kosovo operation under the esteemed Clinton administration. Holding back information is NO LIE (mobile labs anyone?).
Whether or not WMD was the primary motive for regime change is a ridiculous argument posited by those opposed to the Administration. Ask the tongueless Iraqis, the raped mothers, the residents of the numerous mass graves, the graduates of the torture chambers, the exploded, shot, hanged, shredded and acid bathed corpses if they feel the LIES of the Bush Administration should be trumpeted across the pages of FReeRepublic.