Blair faces protests over raid on Iraq

Yesterday, however, Blair was forced to acknowledge opposition from China, Russia and France to the attacks; but, he rather unconvincingly insisted that there was “enormous understanding” from Germany, “and the other countries I mentioned in Parliament yesterday.” He also asserted that there was “enormous understanding” from Arab countries of the US-UK action.

In Britain, the Labour government has attempted to silence opposition to the attacks by sabotaging a parliamentary vote on the subject. Saturday mornings newspaper will, however, leave Blairin no doubt that apart from growing international scepticism, popular opposition to the attacks, within the UK, is growing.

The press, whose initial response ranged from unequivocal support and rah-rah reporting about the bombing raids to half-hearted caution about the ill-defined goals has, almost overnight turned sceptical. The Daily Telegraph, voice of traditional conservatism and proponent of military action to remove Saddam Hussein, questions the timing of the strikes. It says, “we are forced to ask why Mr Clinton waited for more than a year while Saddam continued to develop weapons of mass destruction. Republicans in Congress are right to doubt Mr Clinton’s motives.”

In a front page report the Guardian says that there are two Presidents (Clinton and Saddam Hussein) in peril and asks which will be toppled first.

The paper’s own conclusion is that it is Clinton who will go and Saddam who will stay. The Guardian, which for two days said that the validity attacks should be judged by the outcome,asks why the action was undertaken without a UN mandate. The paper says, “If it had been carried out by a broad international coalition including some of Iraq’s neighbours — or if it had at the very least their approval in advance — this action would look much more legitimate.”

The Times draws attention to the fact that in Blair’s public relations blitz has been limited to the international arena and that it is time for him to talk to the nation. “Mr Blair needs to lay to rest any trace of suspicion that he is doing Mr Clinton favours, rather than acting in the principled defence of international security.”

However, if Blair acts on the Times suggestions, he will have to find more convincing explanations than claiming to “diminish” and “degrade” Iraq’s weapons’ of mass destruction. UK radio phone-ins, letters to the editors, and protestors outside Whitehall are asking uncomfortable questions, ones that reveal a greater understanding of international politics than the government appears to creditthem with.

Although not a `scientific’ sample, radio phone-ins across the country have found that a majority of callers, are opposed to the action. Questions about Britain as the US’s `poodle’, the links between the timing of the attacks to Clinton’s domestic woes, the justification of attacking a sovereign country without a UN mandate, have all been raised. Civilian casualties and scepticism about the ability to locate and destroy Iraq’s weapons, given that UNSCOM was unable to locate them over eight years, are other issues of concern.

So far, the British government’s response to UK journalists has been to treat Iraqi reports of casualties with scepticism.