Is this invasion justified? The answer of the majority of people seems to
be a clear "No", although President Bush and his closest advisers
go on saying that Iraq is building a biological, chemical, and nuclear arsenal.
There are no proofs that this is the case, as there is no evidence that Saddam
Hussein's regime is linked in anyway to al-Qaida. More and more people see
it as a kind of revenge of the Bush family for three reasons:
- To vindicate George Bush senior who stopped the Gulf War too early. This
cost him his re-election as US President.
- To punish Saddam Hussein for trying to kill George Bush Senior in visit
to Kuwait in 1998.
- To make George Bush re-election more probable.
- To control the Iraqi oil fields.
In August 2002, some British ministers are frustrated at the lack of a clear and coherent US policy towards Iraq. This anxiety has been increased by the results of some private polling that show that Bush is unpopular among British voters -but there was no need for a poll. In every country with the exception of the USA, Bush is unpopular. Some people, who saw the results, say that Bush is even less popular that the Conservative party! The British cabinet, like many Arab countries, believe that the US should make Israel, and not Iraq, its first priority.
In the middle of August, while Mr Blair was on holiday in the south of France, newspapers said that he had refused a request by his senior ministers to have a Cabinet debate on a possible war in Iraq. According to him it was too early, as no decision has been made yet. Of course, 10 Downing Street denied the information, but there is little doubt that it is true, and the backbenchers are not very happy about it. An ex-minister, Gerald Kaufman, said that there would be resistance at Westminster if Mr Blair follows "the most intellectually backward American president of my lifetime" into the looming conflict.
More and more influent people in Britain, but also in the USA and at the UN, are urging Bush not to attack Iraq. After all this country has not been linked to al-Qaida, and there are no real evidences, but only presumptions, that it is building an arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It would be the first time that a war is started on suppositions that the other part could use weapons that it is not certain they have.
In a press conference in his Sedgefield constituency, Tony Blair went on saying that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power and that Iraq poses a real and unique threat to the security of all the world, and not only to the Middle East. He added that his government would soon publish a dossier showing the scale of the threat. However, he refused to promise that the US and Britain will not act without a new UN resolution authorising an attack on Iraq. The general reaction of the British media is that Blair made a poor case for war, and is loosing the political argument over Iraq. He even had to recognise that the majority of the British people are against US policy on Iraq while Blair, always the puppet, is committed to back whatever Bush decides to do.
On September 24, 2002, Al Gore, the former US vice-president, attacked the Bush administration on the possible war with Iraq. He said that this could derail the war on terrorism by alienating allies. According to him, the war on terrorism and the destruction of the people behind September 11 should have priority. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, would be seen by many other nations as based on internal American political motivations, not to mention the wish of the American oil men to put their hands on the Iraqi oil fields. At the same time, the leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, Charles Kennedy, said that the US doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence, and their wish to change the Iraqi regime, smells of imperialism. He did not rule out military actions to impose arm inspection, but only if it was decided by the UN.
On September 28, 2002, between 150,000 and 300,000 people demonstrated in the streets of London to protest against a war with Iraq. Tony Blair does not take any notice of the increased internal opposition to the war (according to a pool, 75% of the British are against it) and still insists that "Saddam Hussein has a choice, or he accepts to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, or he will face war, because he is a threat to the whole world, and he must be disarmed". Other similar anti-war rallies took place in Portland, Oregon, in New York City, and in many other towns and cities all over the world.
In the UK, public support for a war with Iraq remains low at the beginning of October 2002. Only 32% of the people approve a military action, 41% disapprove, and 27% "do not know". At the same time the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, told the prime minister that an armed strike on Iraq aimed at changing the regime would be unlawful. International law experts back this opinion. Jack Straw failed to win France's support for a single UN resolution to clarify what is expected of the weapons inspectors, the timing of their intervention, what is expected from Iraq as well as an authorisation for a military action if Saddam Hussein does not comply. At the same time, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is expected to order defence chiefs by the end of the month to prepare a British force for an attack on Iraq. This force would be substantial, and include heavy armour.
Ex-US President Jimmy Carter received the 2002 Nobel Prize for Peace for his activities since he was voted out of the White House. It is well known that he opposes an American-only attack on Iraq. This international recognition of his efforts to bring peace all over the world is seen as a rebuke to Bush's war plans for Iraq.
On January 18, 2003, Saudi Arabia increased its campaign to incite the Iraqi security forces to depose Saddam Hussein if he refuses to step down and go to exile, to avoid a war. Other Arab and Muslim states agree with Saudi Arabia's proposal and Turkey has already sent a similar suggestion to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein and his extended family would receive immunity. The Foreign ministers of Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan met in Ankara on January 23 and 24, 2003 to discuss how to avoid the war. They urged Saddam Hussein to collaborate more positively with the UN inspectors but there was no mention of a request for the resignation of Saddam Hussein.
On Saturday January 18, 2003, there were a lot of new protest marches against a war with Iraq in many cities in the USA, and all over the world. The demonstrators will not change Bush's mind, but it is now clear that not everybody agree with him, not even in his country. According to a recent pool most Americans (60%) want the US to take more time seeking a peaceful solution in Iraq, rather that invading the country. But, if there is war and the intervention is made in agreement with the allies, and after approval of the UN Security Council, Bush will have the support of 81% of the US population. On the opposite, the majority would oppose it, if the US acted without the agreement of the UN, and with no more than one or two allies.
On February 12, 2003, the polls in the USA showed that 57% of the American people would back president Bush if he decided to invade Iraq without UN approval, if some allies such as Britain, Australia, Italy, etc are following. Without any allies, 50% of the Americans would still be backing the invasion. Apparently Colin Powell's intervention at the UN was well received in the USA but this was not the case in most other countries. And the right wing newspapers owner, Rupert Murdock, is praising Blair's courage to dare to decide to back up the USA against the majority of the British people! But after all, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is also backing Bush, although his right place should be in jail since he has been condemned for fraud as a business leader but, like in Bush's election, money helps in Italy too!!
Street demonstrations against the war in Iraq took place in many cities all over the world from Australia, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, New York City, San Francisco, etc. It is estimated that more that 100 millions people participated. In London it is believed that above 750,000 took part in a walk in the centre of the town towards High Park where, among others, Charles Kennedy the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, and the American black democrat leader Jessie Jackson, spoke to the public. This is the bigger participation to such an event ever seen in London. It will not change the US/British decision to invade Iraq independently of the result of the inspections, but the message is clear: the majority of the British people, and many others around the world, are against the war with Iraq, and the politicians are less that convincing.
It is now clear that Bush wants the war to enhance his chances of being re-elected, and to grab the Iraqi oil fields. Doggy Blair is just the faithful follower, and nothing else. He later said that he defies the protests of the anti-war demonstrators because he knows better, and "unpopularity is the price of leadership"! Perhaps the electors will remember that when the next elections take place. And, of course, his ministers followed suit and lauded his courage for not changing his views in front of the public opinion. The Labour party is lucky that there is no credible opposition in Britain these days. The same anti-war organisers of the huge London demonstration are now saying that they will try to shut Britain down if Blair goes to war without an UN resolution authorising it. Strikes, walkout, occupations of official building, street demonstrations could take place and, in particular, a complete closedown of Whitehall and of the Ministry of Defence. As a result of this general feeling against war, the popularity of Tony Blair is going down, and so it should. He does not represent anymore what his country wants. An opinion poll made over the weekend of February 16, 2003, shows that the majority of the British public is against the war, and that Blair's personal rating has fallen 20 points. It is Blair and not the Labour party that is loosing ground, and this is good news as the party as such does not deserve to loose the trust of the country, only its present leaders (labour is down 4 points at 39% but well ahead of the hapless conservative at 31%). 52% of the British oppose the war, while 29% support it!!
The heads of state and Prime Ministers of the EU met in Brussels on February 17, 2003. There were strong disagreements on Iraq with Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands and Denmark on one side, and France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, Greece and Austria on the other; Ireland, Sweden and Finland were somewhere in between. A common document was agreed that does not say much, but hide well the disagreements. It warns Iraq that it had a final opportunity to comply with the UN resolution, and avoid war. The participants also agreed that the UN weapon inspectors must have reasonable time and resources to finish their job, but that this cannot go on forever. They also agreed that war should be the last resort. However France president, Jacques Chirac, also said that France would oppose a second UN resolution with its veto and that the eastern countries that will soon be part of the EU lost a good opportunity to shut up instead of supporting the US/British position on Iraq. Perhaps, if it is still time, one should not let them join as they will create big problems. It was probably a mistake to accept them, as they will sell their souls to get money from the USA independently of the consequences on Europe and the EU. Of course, the governments of these eastern countries did not like what Chirac said, and we are told that they are dismayed.
Tony Blair said a few days ago that there was a kind of moral justification to go to war with Iraq. On February 19, 2003, the British church leaders, Rowan Williams for the Anglicans, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor for the Catholics, disagreed completely but they did not go so far as condemning military action. At the same time the British government advised all British people to leave Iraq immediately. It said that this advice was due to increasing tension in the region, and risks of terrorist actions. The fact that Britain intends to invade Iraq was not mentioned. We were also told that same day that President Chirac has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his effort to avoid a war with Iraq. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, repeated on February 21, 2003 that, in his opinion, no war can be said to be holy, and that there is never any moral justification for it, as killing people is immoral, especially when it is premeditated. And Tony Blair is going to Rome to talk with his "best friend", Silvio Berlusconi. A short audience with the Pope on February 22 did not go too well because both men have opposite ideas about the war, and the moral justification -or absence of it- to initiate it. Berlusconi is also a Bush's "lecca piedi" so they should not have any difficulty to agree. It is strange that a person like Blair can find any sympathy for a thief like Berlusconi who, for the way he behaved to assemble his wealth and empire, should be "in gallera" as everybody know. At least the Pope is morally honest, and this explains perhaps why he will only see Blair for about 13 minutes.
There has been many lies said about Iraq:
- Iraq is linked to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. The claim was dropped due
to a complete lack of evidence.
- The war is about Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, two
months of inspection did not show anything significant, and the so-called
"Intelligence dossiers" were shown to be bogus.
- The emphasis then changed to regime change. This was soon met with objection
of legality and was dropped.
- From there the justification became based on moral and humanitarian grounds
and this too seems to be bound to be dropped, as the church leaders -Dr Williams,
Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor and even the Pope- not
only disagreed, but they added that describing a war as moral, or humanitarian,
was ridiculous.
John Major, the former Conservative Prime Minister who led Britain in the Gulf War in 1991, said on February 23, 2003, that Saddam Hussein might create Armageddon by blowing up the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia if attacked by the west. He could also bomb Saudi Arabia or Israel, possibly with chemical or biological weapons. He added that it may prove impossible to create a stable and unified Iraq if Saddam is thrown out. A civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims through the Middle East is more probable.
At the end of February 2003, some polls in the USA show that the American people would support war, but they want international support. It will be difficult to get the approval of the UN Security Council, even with the USA blackmailing -with threat and dollars- the small member countries. Approval of Bush's handling of the crisis is down six points to 55%, and his personal approval rating is down four points to 60%. Only 38% of the population believe that Bush should go to war without any allies.
On March 5 2003, in many cities in Britain, thousands and thousands of school children left their classrooms to protest against the war in Iraq. The protest in front of Downing Street was especially important.
In Britain and Spain, in the middle of March 2003, the majority of the people are opposed to war. There also doubt the legality of invading Iraq without a second UN Security Council resolution. In the USA they do not think about it, as if they could think. Of course, the government lawyers in both Britain and Spain are saying, and will repeat, that the war is authorised by the previous resolution and, if this is not enough, by all the ones before. The problem is they are not convincing the public opinion that has lost faith in their leaders; people just don't believe them anymore.
On March 23, 2003 Colin Powell claimed, that 45 countries approved the US/British
invasion of Iraq. Some participate directly (Australia has sent 2,000 soldiers);
some will help by letting the US and British forces to use their soil, bases,
and or air space. Many others, according to Powell, support the action, but
prefer not to say it now. As there are about 200 countries represented at
the United Nations this means that 155 do not support the invasion of Iraq.
Or is this little calculation wrong or too complicated for the American politicians
to understand?