Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Menzies Campbell: Quick march to war. Whatever happened to Britain's third way?

Our chance to lobby in Europe was forfeited by taking sides with the US

Sunday 16 February 2003 01:00 GMT
Comments

It would not be surprising if this morning the Prime Minister asked himself how did we get here, and where do we go from here. Answering his first question is self-evidently easier than the second. Mr Blair's strategy has throughout been to stay close to President Bush in public in order to influence him in private. He can plausibly claim that the approach was successful to the extent of persuading the US President to go to the UN Security Council. But I doubt that he will have much credit in Washington following the apparently scholarly, but in reality deeply political, presentation of Hans Blix to the Security Council on Friday. For the mild-mannered Dr Blix and his diffident confrère Mohamed al-Baradei have exposed the inherent ambiguity between the White House and Whitehall.

The Americans want regime change. The British Government cannot publicly go beyond disarmament. Mr Blix's implied request for more time for inspections makes no sense if what you want is the removal of Saddam Hussein. If he is going to go, the sooner the better – the only constraint being the time taken to assemble the force to drive him out or kill him. But Britain is not the hyperpower that is the US. The British cannot ignore the fact that there is no principal of international law that authorises regime change by use of military force. Nor can it justify pre-emptive action on an interpretation of the self-defence provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter that only the Bush administration would share.

When Mr Blair expressed unqualified support for the US in the aftermath of the Twin Towers, he had a choice. He could sign up for the campaign against terrorism or he could sign up for the whole voyage. By choosing the latter, he sought to maximise his influence but, in truth, irretrievably circumscribed his freedom of action. Mr Blair's bargain with George Bush is truly Faustian.

There was another way – a third way, even. Having been so staunch on 9/11 and effective in Afghanistan, Britain could have tried to forge a position on Iraq and the Middle East that would have kept Europe together – multilateral, operating through the UN, eschewing unilateral action and committed to a resolution of the Palestinian conflict. But to have any chance of getting off the ground, it would have required the Bush administration's blessing – hardly likely. However, once the bond with Mr Bush was established, Mr Blair was without wriggle room.

None of these considerations occupied the minds of the hundreds of thousands who marched yesterday. But that does not mean they do not understand why they were marching. They were most certainly not marching because of any regard for Saddam, a brutal dictator steeped in the blood of his countrymen. Nor does anyone realistically believe he has not tried to squirrel away chemical or biological weapons. He may have got an unexpected clean bill of health on the nuclear front from Mr Baradei, but does anyone really think that he will have abandoned the habits of a lifetime?

No, most of those who were marching almost certainly understand the deception and ambition of Saddam. What they don't accept is that military action is justified. They are not persuaded that containment and deterrence need to be abandoned. They do not accept that all diplomatic and political alternatives have been exhausted, to the point that military action as a last resort is legitimate. They fear the consequences of war in the Middle East and they want justice and a homeland for the Palestinians. In short, public opinion in this country has arrived at a credible foreign policy. This is not anti-Americanism, but a lack of confidence in the Bush administration – and a fear that the United Kingdom might end up acting like the 51st state of the Union.

The Prime Minister's sincerity in the matter is beyond challenge. In his Newsnight exchanges with Jeremy Paxman and the public, none could doubt the extent of his emotional and intellectual engagement. These were the attitudes of the conviction politician, shrewdly identified in recent weeks by Michael Portillo as having replaced the focus-group-led manager of Labour's first term.

But in that very conviction lies risk. The world of relative values that is foreign affairs is an uncomfortable place in which to try to introduce evangelical certainty. Indeed, it is that very certainty that makes public opinion in Britain so uncomfortable with George Bush. The British are not natural crusaders.

Throughout Labour's first term, the Prime Minister enjoyed phenomenal ratings, even when the rigorous standards of public life that he had proclaimed in 1997 were not matched by individuals in government. It is ironic that as Mr Blair has moved towards government by conviction, his popularity has diminished. It is not that the British electorate is always unhappy with conviction politicians, as Margaret Thatcher eloquently demonstrated, but when it believes that the conviction is wrong, it withdraws its support. Mr Blair has chosen the wrong issue upon which to take a stand. The British public is not yet persuaded.

To take a country such as Britain into war with all its uncertainty and perils, there has to be an overwhelming sense not only of right, but also of confidence. Margaret Thatcher had this over the Falklands conflict, John Major possessed it during the Gulf War, and the Prime Minister himself benefited from it when he deployed force in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. It is not enough that our leaders believe that the cause is just – they must persuade the British people that this is the case.

Those who marched yesterday could hardly be more representative of our country. They are not to be dismissed easily. MPs talk of postbags filled with letters from every social and economic background. The Government has mobilised inadvertently a mass popular movement of opposition. No voter apathy was on display in Hyde Park yesterday.

Mr Blair faces a series of agonising choices. But so long as Mr Blix and Mr Baradei are still willing to assure the Security Council that there is mileage in the inspection process, he cannot contemplate military action without a new UN resolution. There is an argument that, taken together, resolutions 687 and 1441 provide a legal basis for action without a further mandate. But politically, a fresh resolution would be essential – 687 and 1441 might satisfy the lawyers, but not the British public.

The nightmare for Blair would be if US patience ran out, under domestic pressure and logistical imperatives. Would he go with the Americans and without British public opinion, or would he bow to popular sentiment and decline to commit British forces? President Bush could have a disproportionate influence over Mr Blair's future.

The talk now in New York is of a new resolution, but what would it contain? For the moment, no one seems willing to guess; a form of words has to be found that maintains the pressure on Iraq to comply with its obligations and allows the inspectors to continue for as long as they are effective. In spite of Mr Blair's repeated and justified attack on Saddam's inhumanity, the Security Council cannot pass a resolution for his removal. To do so would be to ignore the UN's own Charter.

It would be a surprise if the Prime Minister has much time for reading these days or is familiar with the writings of Oliver Cromwell. But as he contemplates what comes next, he might care to reflect on the Protector's Message to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in August 1650.

"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." It is no more than the marchers were saying yesterday.

Menzies Campbell is the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in