|
With
a continuing stream of damaging disclosures about Tony Blair’s deception
concerning the United Kingdom’s participation in the war against Iraq, the
outcome of the election remains uncertain, although a Labour victory with a
reduced majority appears most probable. The Guardian’s
disclosure on Wednesday that the Attorney General’s opinion about thewar was
anything but "unequivocal", as asserted by Blair, has now been trumped
by the Sunday Times’
disclosure that Blair, as suspected, indicated a willingness to go to war in
the summer of 2002 after meeting with President Bush in Texas. Another
year, 1970, and another war, the Vietnam war,
haunts Labour in the final days of the campaign.
During the Presidential election here in the
US readers of the Guardian
tried to persuade
people in Ohio to vote for John Kerry, with comically disasterous results.
At the risk of engaging in a similarly misguided enterprise in reverse, I
hope that UK voters will
support competitive antiwar candidates wherever they can be found. Some
will be Labour dissidents, some will be Liberal Democrats, and still others
will represent smaller regional and fringe parties. It is urgently necessary
that we strip away the participation of other countries in the "coalition of
the willing" created by the US. Spain, and Aznar, have already fallen by the
wayside, and
momentum is building towards forcing Italy, and Berlusconi, to abandon it as
well.
If UK voters rebel, and refuse to hold their nose, and vote for the party of
a Prime Minister that they detest, they can make Peter Oborne’s prediction a
reality. Oborne believes that
Labour will win an unprecedented third term, but that the campaign has
destroyed Blair’s credibility, and a leadership struggle will commence
shortly after the election. According to Oborne, Gordon Brown,
Chancellor of the Exechequer, will, after being rightly credited with
responsibility for the victory, seize total control over domestic policy,
leaving a humbled Blair with ceremonial authority in foreign policy. If
Labour’s margin in the House of Commons is dramatically sliced, with the
loss of many pro-war Blairites, Blair could be replaced by Brown as Prime
Minister within less than a year.
The repudiation of Blair, and his support for the war and the occupation,
would send a shockwave around the world. Few, if any, countries, have
historically supported the US with the consistency of the UK, and the
psychological impact of such a repudiation, both within and without the US,
would be enormous. It would be felt most keenly in countries such as Japan
and, as already mentioned, Italy, where their governments persist in
supporting US policy despite widespread public revulsion. Voters should
strive to set this process in motion, even if the consequence is the
emergence of the Liberal Democrats as a legitimate alternative to Labour and
the Conservatives, and even at the price of replacing New Labour with a weak
Conservative government. Perhaps, it’s all
wishful thinking. Even so, it’s long past time for Tony Blair to depart
the world of electoral politics for something new, perhaps as a newly
announced participant in the
Carlyle Group.
Richard Estes
lives in Northern California, and co-hosts a
radio program, with an emphasis upon peace, civil rights, labor and
environmental issues, on KDVS
90.3 FM in Davis, CA. This article was originally published by
American Leftist.
Recent Related Articles
*
Leaked UK Memo Indicts Blair's Iraq Folly by Joshua Frank
*
What the Pre-War Intelligence Reports Won't Tell You About Iraq's Nukes
by Ken Sanders
*
The AG's Legal Advice, Government Spin & the Iraq War (Part II) by Milan
Rai
*
The AG's Legal Advice, Government Spin & Iraq Weapons Inspectors (Part I)
by Milan Rai
Other Articles by Richard
Estes
*
Voltaire on
Marla Ruzicka
*
The War in Iraq as Imperfectly Envisioned by George Romero
HOME
|
|