America wants war, all the rest is window dressing
16 March 2003
It is very hard to feel anything but cynicism this weekend about the diplomatic posturing that is taking place in the Azores. The leaders of the United States, Britain and Spain are meeting, they claim, to seize the last chance for peace; yet few will see this as anything but the first step to war.
Minds are closing, and positions – rhetorical and physical – are being entrenched. At some point in the next few days, it seems almost certain that a vast aerial assault will descend upon Iraq. Shock and awe, the American military planners call it, and both shocking and awful it will surely be.
We have consistently argued that it would be wrong to go to war. This is not because we believe that war is always wrong, nor because we see any virtue in Saddam Hussein's regime, but because we believe that this is an unjust and unnecessary war.
Mr Blair plainly believes in the justice of his cause, and George Bush frequently reminds us of his own "moral clarity". Yet shabby theatricals and disingenuous nonsense accompany the final steps towards war. When Jack Straw says that he fears conflict is close, this is cant. Of course it is, because Mr Straw and his colleagues are about to unleash it. The air is increasingly thick with this sort of hypocrisy; it is another sign that war is coming. So we will hear talk about the role of diplomacy while the bombs are already falling, and the same spokesmen who now urge the importance of another UN resolution will also deny that it is necessary. This is the war for peace, in which we have to destroy Iraq to save it. And the "peace summit" in the Azores brings together only those countries that back war: the US, Britain and Spain.
Conspicuously absent will be France, the nation that has argued most consistently against the American position. Yet France has played a decisive role in the past week, wielding the threat of the veto to great effect. Its motives have not been entirely pure – France has commercial interests in the current Iraqi regime's survival – but nor are they as shady as its opponents allege. Crucially, Jacques Chirac is responding to French public opinion, which – like that in most of Europe – is absolutely opposed to a rush to war. Whatever the motives he also has a strong case. Why go to war while the UN inspectors are making significant progress?
The feeling in Britain that Mr Blair decided on war long ago has fed a pervasive sense of cynicism. So has the sense that America is dictating the military timetable, and that all the rest is window-dressing. The arguments about weapons of mass destruction have always had an air of unreality – regime change in Iraq has quite clearly been the point from the outset.
It is quite natural to feel cynical in this situation, but it is also dangerous. The protests against the war, the arguments that have been made, the letters that have been written, may have failed; but that does not mean the cause was wrong nor that commitment has ceased to matter. In the days to come, there will be a desperate need for opponents of war to remain engaged – because it is important to work for a more lasting peace in the Middle East, because it is important to care about what happens to those who will suffer, because the war will end and the settlement that follows must be just.
In particular, it is crucial that the US lives up to its responsibilities and its stated intentions, and pushes for a revival of the peace process. Mr Bush's renewed interest in a "roadmap" for peace is encouraging. But he insists that first, the Palestinians must reform their leadership by selecting a new prime minister. It is critical that efforts to restart the peace process do not founder, and all the more so as the region prepares for yet another devastating war.
This is a war in Iraq, about Iraq and its future. Perhaps it will end with a better man in charge in Baghdad, and perhaps peace will indeed be found in Mr Bush's "roadmap". But many innocent Iraqis will die in the coming weeks, and no amount of regime change can justify that. Iraq has suffered so much in the last 20 years, and we cannot turn away from its people now. This war may not be in our name, but we bear the responsibility for it nonetheless.
argument.independent.co.uk |
