I would suggest that the anti-war elements within our communities are, despite the quantities of information being rendered by the media, either poorly informed or deliberately ignorant of the actualities of the situation.
UN resolution 1441, the 17th such resolution since the end of hostilities with Iraq 12 years ago, places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi regime. Iraq is no first offender with a right of innocence until proof of guilt, but a convict, one with a thirty year history of re-offence. The role of inspectors is simply to validate the assertions the regime makes, that it has divested itself of those weapons of mass destruction that were prohibited by the UN after Iraqs most recent war of conquest in Kuwait. A regime bent on hiding such weapons however can do so indefinately and under such circumstances, as Hans Blix points out, the number of inspectors is irrelevant. It was because of this fact that the trigger for the "serious consequences" described in 1441 was not the sucsess or failure of the inspectors to find prescribed material, but the success or failiure of Iraq to prove to the inspectors that they have finally "come clean". Anything less than 100% co-operation is a material breach.
In a post 9/11 environment even the most liberal of those marching on Saturday will be unable to deny that there are, without question, those in the world who would use such weapons of mass desruction against us without the least hesitation. If left unchecked the transference of weapons of mass desruction from proliferating rouge states to international terrorists is simply a matter of time. The Iraqi regimes links to terror are without question. The regime pays compensation to the families of Hammas martyrs who kill Israelis. The Iraqi second secretary, Husham Zed Husain, was yesterday expelled from the Philippines for his role in the bombing in Malagutay, Zamboanga City, in October last year. And in so brutal and oppressive a regime as that of Iraq the Al-Zarqawi network, responsible for the recent risin outrages in the UK and Europe, would be unable function without the tacit compliance of that regime. Any of these terrorist networks could be employed to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to a western city if the regime chose so to do, and that weapon could be delivered without a return address.
I feel sure that much will be made during the protests on saturday of the fact that Iraq has oil. I would like to point out that Kuwait also has oil, but at the end of the last gulf war did the west seize that oil from Kuwait? Or did the west invest billions into re-capping the oil wells destroyed by the fleeing invaders from Iraq and re-building programmes, effectively dusting the Kuwaities down and then giving back to them the petro-dollars that were rightfully thiers. The concept that this is about oil is confusion between cause and effect. If America was that desperate over its energy security then would invade Venisualla, rather than undertake a far riskier operation in the Gulf.
Actions by the Franco-Prussian alliance in the UN are not only devisive, but are liable to render the UN as impotent as its predecessor, the Leage Of Nations. The loss of such a platform for the will of the international community would force the kinds of unlitaterel actions that were the pre-cursors of the last world war. Sending mixed messages to Bagdad at such a time can only serve to reinforce the regimes belief that they can slip through the loophole of our divisions. In terms of winning the war The US needs the UN like a man going hunting needs an accordian. But to win the peace, to effect regime change and to bring Iraq back into the international community the UN will be vital. The machinations of the Franco-Prussian alliance can only have the effect of making it more difficult for us to win such a peace for the people of Iraq and deal with other rouge state proliferators.
I would ask those marching on Saturday in favour of appeasment to realise that the consquences of "peace in our time" may lead, as appeasment always has, to a conflict more destructive than one that could be undertaken now.
