Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 2003, pages 38-39

European Press Review

 

Did Blair Knowingly Mislead Parliament Over Iraqi WMDs? Asks The Economist

 

By Lucy Jones

The European press questioned in June whether the dossiers publicized before the war on Iraq by British Prime Minister Tony Blair which were said to contain evidence of Saddam Hussain's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program would lead to his—Blair's, that is—downfall.

The first dossier, published in September 2002, contained allegations including the now notorious claim that Iraq could deploy weapons within 45 minutes. This is the dossier which a source quoted by the BBC said had been "sexed up" at the request of Downing Street.

The second document—the "dodgy dossier"—was issued in February 2003. Drawing on a thesis by California postgraduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi, it gave details about how Baghdad allegedly was misleading weapons inspectors.

The London Times, which supported the decision to go to war, said on June 16 that Blair must not lose his nerve, and restate the case for war following the "dodgy dossier" fiasco. "Britain is and should be in Iraq for the long haul," the newspaper said. "Ministers must be honest about that fact and then hold their nerve."

Asked The Economist on June 28: "Did Mr. Blair knowingly mislead Parliament and the country over the threat posed by Iraq's WMD, believing he was nonetheless acting in the national interest? Or did he believe, on the basis of the intelligence reports and his discussions with President Bush, in the imminence and danger of the threat as passionately and sincerely as he claimed at the time?

"Without access to Mr. Blair's mind," the magazine noted, "all that's left is speculation."

"Distressingly for Mr. Blair," it continued, "that speculation is likely to hang around him for a great deal longer, perhaps until he finally quits Number 10. If everything in Iraq had gone swimmingly, or even quite well, the chances are that most people would be untroubled about the reasons for Britain's being there. But the murder of six British military policemen on June 24 at the hands of Iraqi civilians was a brutal reminder of just what it is that Mr. Blair, for the best of reasons, has got the country into," it concluded.

An independent inquiry is needed to establish whether or not Blair knowingly exaggerated the Iraqi threat, Germany's Der Tagesspiegel said on June 5. Citing two former ministers—ex-Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short and former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook—who have called the prime minister's integrity into question, it says: "If Clare Short and Robin Cook speak of 'deceit' and 'monumental blunders,'" the paper warned, "then Downing Street dossiers are not enough." It concluded, "What is at stake is trust in Blair—and not just at home."

 

"What is at stake is trust in Blair—and not just at home."

On the same day, however, Die Welt gave Blair the benefit of the doubt. "The prime minister's word against 'anonymous sources'—whom would you rather believe?" it asked. "In any case," the paper continued, "the existence of weapons of mass destruction as well as Saddam's non-compliance with the requirement to disclose them, had all been known to the United Nations for 12 years." This "was not something made up in Washington or London," it argued.

Italy's La Repubblica on June 25 predicted that Blair likely will not be re-elected, given the Labor Party rank-and-file's disapproval of his pro-Washington stance.

 

Downing Street, BBC Go to War Over Dossiers

Downing Street and the BBC subsequently became engaged in a ferocious row over the dossiers after the prime minister's spokesman, Alastair Campbell, denied an allegation reported by the news organization's defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan that Campbell had "sexed up" the government's September dossier.

"The enduring problem about the Iraq war is not the particular use to which Mr. Campbell put his often exaggeratedly demonized black arts," said a June 26 editorial in The Guardian. "The problem is the cost to Iraq and the world of the reckless, premature and misjudged decision to wage the war in the first place."

Writing in the same edition of the newspaper, columnist Jackie Ashley noted that the question of whether or not the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was strong enough to justify war "was always going to be controversial." "It's been given added piquancy," she continued, "by the disturbing events in Iraq over the last few days, with UK soldiers killed in the resistance to coalition forces. Suddenly the whole adventure doesn't seem such a huge success. Now, surely, someone's head has to roll, and Campbell's looks about the right size."

 

Middle East Cease-Fire Seen as "Substantial Progress"

There was a round of violence following the Israeli-Palestinian summit chaired by U.S. President George W. Bush at Aqaba, Jordan on June 4. Even as the American president was returning to Washington, Israel assassinated two Hamas militants. Four Israeli soldiers then were killed in Gaza, followed by Israel's attempted assassination of Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, Hamas's top political leader. A suicide bomb then killed 16 people in Jerusalem.

"Is there any way out?" asked The Economist June 14. "Maybe not. Mahmoud Abbas, the leading peace-seeker on the Palestinian side, is terribly vulnerable. He understands very well that he must end Palestinian violence against Israelis if America is to stay engaged in the effort to end Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. He is repeatedly undermined by Palestinians who do not share his logic. What he may not have expected was that he would be done down even more thoroughly by Ariel Sharon, his fellow peace-seeker, whose hand he had just been shaking at Aqaba."

The June 11 London Times was equally pessimistic. "The strike against a symbol of Hamas violence will be popular with the Right," it noted, "and is meant to show that the road map will not weaken Israel's resolve. It will, however, make it hard for Mr. Abbas or any Palestinian to push ahead with talks or to sideline Mr. Arafat, who continues to have a malign presence in the Palestinian administration."

However, following the June 29 truce announcement by the militant Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad and by Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, and as Israel began withdrawing from the northern Gaza Strip, there was some optimism. Britain's Daily Telegraph the following day described the truce as "the most substantial progress in the Middle East peace process since the Aqaba summit."

As BBC Middle East analyst Sebastian Usher wrote June 30, however, both sides remain skeptical of each other's motives. "The Israelis have already dismissed the militants' cease-fire as a worthless tactical ploy," he noted, "while the Palestinians say the partial Israeli withdrawal does not go anywhere near far enough."

 

Iraqi Reconstruction Gone "Spectacularly Wrong"

The debate over the reconstruction in Iraq rumbled on in June. Writing in the June 19 Guardian, Seumas Milne said, "It would have been hard to predict in advance that the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq could go so spectacularly wrong so quickly." He elaborated: "More than two months after the collapse of Saddam Hussain's regime, Iraq is sinking deeper into chaos and insecurity, as U.S. forces lash out at the Iraqi resistance, which is now killing an average of one American soldier a day. The country's first Burger King may have opened at Baghdad airport and the Queen's birthday may once again be celebrated on the banks of the Tigris, but the impact of war and regime collapse on essential services and infrastructure, on top of the havoc wreaked by the first Gulf war and 13 years of grinding sanctions, has been devastating."

 

U.S., Turkey on "Collision Course" Over Iraq

Turkey and the U.S. are on a collision course after the arrest of 11 Turkish troops by U.S. forces in northern Iraq, commented Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung on July 8. The soldiers have since been released, "but Turkey will continue to want a say in what happens in northern Iraq and is prepared, if necessary, to risk the very foundations of its foreign policy," the paper noted. "The possibility of autonomy for the Kurds and the U.S.'s plans in northern Iraq feed the paranoid fears and obsessions of the Turkish authorities. And," continued the newspaper, "the joint interests binding Ankara and Washington over the past years have mostly disappeared. Sometime and somehow the Turks and Americans will make up again," it stated. "But the relationship will rest on a different basis—distrust will have replaced trust."

Turkey's continuing defiance of the U.S. was praised by Eric Hobsbawn, writing in the June Le Monde diplomatique. "Will some countries, like Britain, back anything the U.S. plans?" he asked. "Their governments must indicate that there are limits. The most positive contribution has been made by the Turks, simply by saying that there are things that they are not prepared to do, even though they know it would pay."

Hobsbawn continued: "There was a time when the U.S. empire recognized its limitations, or at least the desirability of behaving as though it had limitations. This was largely because the U.S. was afraid of somebody else: the Soviet Union. In the absence of this kind of fear, enlightened self-interest and education have to take over."

 

Chechnya "Like Palestine"

Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung said on July 7, two days after the suicide bombing at a Moscow rock concert, that the conflict in Chechnya has become comparable to the Palestinian intifada. At least 13 died and more than 50 were injured when two Chechen women blew themselves to pieces. "The Chechens have learned from groups like Hamas," the paper said, "that although terror draws worldwide condemnation, it puts the issue in question on the global agenda." According to an editorial, the fact that young women acted as suicide bombers shows that the entire Chechen society is filled with hatred. "All this is the consequence of a brutal war which Moscow could have avoided," it said.

In London, a Russian expert on Chechnya told The Times on the same day that: "Despite several suicide bomb attacks in the last eight months, the authorities in Moscow are in denial over the Palestinization of the situation in Chechnya. This is the result."

Also on July 7, Germany's Die Welt said: "On the one hand the Chechens are fighting for greater independence and against a brutal Russian occupying army, but on the other hands they are opting for the weapon of terror."

"Vladimir Putin has the right to fight suicide bombings and attacks like Americans, Germans and Britons do in Afghanistan or elsewhere," it argued.

According to the paper, it would be possible to defuse the crisis if Moscow chose to grant the Chechens more independence.

Lucy Jones is a free-lance writer based in London.

< Prev		Next >