Pro-War: I would try to find a transcript of a Blair speech, columnist Charles Krauthammer, or columnist Christopher
Hitchens.
Sunday, April 20, 2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
U.S. forfeits claim to moral authority
By BOB RANDOLPH
GUEST COLUMNIST
The Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive first strike represents a radical departure from previous U.S. national security doctrine and national values. Non-aggression had been the guiding beacon in the United States' relations with the rest of the world.
Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war.
Even during the darkest hours of the Cold War, when the United States was confronted by an enemy of unequaled strength and determination possessing weapons of massive destruction capable of annihilating our country and its people, America held fast to the doctrines of deterrence and no "first use."
Only once before in American history have Americans fired first, and, on that occasion, the Confederacy's pre-emptive attack on Fort Sumter ended in disaster for the aggressors, enabling Lincoln to rally the United States behind defense of the Union and the ultimate abolition of slavery
As a practical as well as moral matter, the principles of non-aggression and no first strike provide a bright line rule for when armed force as an instrument of national policy can be justified under international law -- when a country is attacked as this nation was on Dec. 7, 1941. Those principles have been codified in international law, as evinced by the U.N. Charter, and were a basis for the prosecution of German leaders at Nuremberg and Japanese leaders in Tokyo after World War II.
Under the doctrine of pre-emptive first strike, however, there is no bright line "trip wire" or trigger to justify military action. President Bush asserts the right to launch pre-emptive war whenever he thinks a country might pose a threat to the United States. The administration's concept of "might" is not constrained by any need to provide a factual basis for the threat or to show some probability of harm to the United States to justify military action. Thus, the administration does not have to demonstrate that there is "clear and convincing" evidence of threat or probable proof of threat or even some evidence of threat; it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike whenever one can argue that a country poses a hypothetical threat to the United States.
This is not to say that the United States has never intervened in the affairs of other nations. We have, of course, intervened early and often in the Western Hemisphere under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, usually under the guise of restoring order to a country such as Haiti.
We also have launched military campaigns during the past 50 years under the aegis of the United Nations to confront invaders that, unprovoked, had attacked other nations in violation of the U.N. Charter and international law (Korea 1950, Kuwait 1990); and have intervened in civil wars under the justification of protecting local populations from subversion, violence and terror (Vietnam) or from ethnic cleansing (Yugoslavia 1991).
At no time had the United States launched an unprovoked attack on another sovereign nation that had not done us harm or threatened us with imminent harm. Our actions on March 19, 2003, put us in the company of the some of the most loathsome imperialists, dictators and tyrants of the 20th century.
The president is fond of saying that the attack on Iraq is exemplary of the first war of the 21st century, but it is more exemplary of the first global war of the 20th century. In July 1914, Austria-Hungary, in circumstances eerily similar to the present, used the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo as a pretext for a pre-emptive strike against little Serbia, thus igniting the cataclysmic 1914-18 war.
The world paid dearly, as the general conflagration extinguished the old empires and led directly to the rise of communism, fascism and Nazism.
The pre-emptive attack became the modus operandi of 20th-century dictators, especially the charter members of the first Axis of Evil: Mussolini, Hitler and Tojo. Mussolini struck first with the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Hitler honed the national security justification further by launching a pre-emptive strike against Poland in 1939 and against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Finally, and ironically, we have embraced Japanese Prime Minister Tojo's infamous doctrine of pre-emptive attack. Not long ago, the United States would act forcefully to oppose pre-emptive military action by both its Cold War enemies and its allies. The arguments made by the United States and Britain to justify attacking Iraq are markedly similar to those made by Britain and France in 1956 to justify their pre-emptive attack on Egypt and its strongman, Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Nasser, it was said, was a megalomaniac who wanted to control the Suez Canal, dominate the Middle East, destroy Israel, block Western access to Middle East oil and bring the West to its knees. When Britain and France attacked Egypt, President Eisenhower mobilized American policy to oppose the invasion and forced the British to abandon their Suez misadventure. Eisenhower understood, as the Bush administration does not, that a nation cannot simultaneously oppose aggression by other nations while reserving the right to wage pre-emptive war against those whom it believes constitute a threat to its national interests. Now the United States has chosen a different course. When it became clear in March that the United States would lose a vote in the Security Council on a second resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq, the United States and Britain abandoned the United Nations route, along with the rule of law, and attacked Iraq in the face of almost universal condemnation.
In so doing, the president of the United States defied and mocked the United Nations, likening it to the League of Nations in terms of irrelevance. The irony of this comparison is that the league was crippled at its birth by the United States' refusal to participate in post-World War I efforts at collective security. And now the United States has dealt the league's successor, the United Nations, a near-mortal blow .
With "shock and awe" felt by the rest of the world, the United States has turned its back on the teachings of Washington, Lincoln and Eisenhower, pulled down the pillars of the international system that Roosevelt and Truman helped build in 1945, substituted the rule of force for the rule of law in international affairs and forfeited its claim to moral authority in the world.
The ultimate question is the final price the American people will have to pay for a foreign policy that in all probability will mobilize the rest of the world in opposition to American power and that will, ultimately, make Americans less secure in their homeland, not more.
As this country veers wildly off the course set by our founders, the United States and the world desperately need new leadership who, like Eisenhower, understand that the United States cannot assert moral leadership in the world if the rest of the world perceives that it has abandoned a foreign policy premised upon respect for the rule of law and established international norms.
Bob Randolph was Washington state trade representative from 1994 to 1997 and a member of the Clinton administration's foreign-policy team with overall responsibility for U.S. foreign assistance programs in the Middle East and Asia.
BBC Newsnight Interview with Tony Blair:
JEREMY PAXMAN: Good evening, welcome to a Newsnight special in which we'll be cross-examining the Prime Minister on the confrontation with Iraq.
After yesterday's performance at the UN America looks more determined than ever to go to war.
Our government is George Bush's closest ally yet many here and around the world would not believe the case for war has been made.
Tonight in the Baltic Centre in Gateshead we've invited the Prime Minister to face an audience of ordinary people from here in the north-east, all of whom are sceptical about the arguments for war with Iraq.
Facing them is the Prime Minister. He has confessed himself worried he has not yet made the case for war.
Tonight, taking questions from our audience and from me he'll have the chance to do so.
Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country - what is it?
TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait.
JEREMY PAXMAN: But right now there is no danger, it's a danger some time in the future.
TONY BLAIR: I've never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain but if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein there is absolutely no doubt at all that he poses a threat to his region.
If he was to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the rest of his region, there is no way that Britain could stand aside from that, or indeed the rest of the world.
And that is precisely why we have had 12 years of United Nations resolutions against him.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Well you said of those UN resolutions and the sanctions which followed them in the year 2000, you said that they had contained him. What's happened since?
TONY BLAIR: I didn't actually, I said they'd been contained him up to a point and the fact is - ¿
JEREMY PAXMAN: I'm sorry Prime Minister - we believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein in the last ten years, you said that in November 2000.
TONY BLAIR: Well I can assure you I've said every time I'm asked about this, they have contained him up to a point and the fact is the sanctions regime was beginning to crumble, it's why it's subsequent in fact to that quote we had a whole series of negotiations about tightening the sanctions regime but the truth is the inspectors were put out of Iraq so -
JEREMY PAXMAN: They were not put out of Iraq, Prime Minister, that is just not true. The weapons inspectors left Iraq after being told by the American government that bombs will be dropped on the country.
TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, that is simply not right. What happened is that the inspectors told us that they were unable to carry out their work, they couldn't do their work because they weren't being allowed access to the sites.
They detailed that in the reports to the Security Council. On that basis, we said they should come out because they couldn't do their job properly.
JEREMY PAXMAN: That wasn't what you said, you said they were thrown out of Iraq -
TONY BLAIR: Well they were effectively because they couldn't do the work they were supposed to do
JEREMY PAXMAN: No, effectively they were not thrown out of Iraq, they withdraw.
TONY BLAIR: No I sorry Jeremy, I'm not allowing you away with that, that is completely wrong. Let me just explain to you what happened.
JEREMY PAXMAN: You've just said the decision was taken by the inspectors to leave the country. They were therefore not thrown out.
TONY BLAIR: They were effectively thrown out for the reason that I will give you. Prior to them leaving Iraq they had come back to the Security Council, again and again, and said we are not being given access to sites. For example, things were being designated as presidential palaces, they weren't being allowed to go in there.
As a result of that, they came back to the United Nations and said we can't carry out the work as inspectors; therefore we said you must leave because we will have to try and enforce this action a different way. So when you say the inspectors, when you imply the inspectors were in there doing their work, that is simply not the case.
JEREMY PAXMAN: I did not imply that, I merely stated the fact that they were not thrown out, they were withdrawn. And you concede they were withdrawn.
TONY BLAIR: They were withdrawn because they couldn't do their job. I mean let's not be ridiculous about this, there's no point in the inspectors being in there unless they can do the job they're put in there to do.
And the fact is we know that Iraq throughout that time was concealing its weapons.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Right.
TONY BLAIR: Well hang on, you say right, they were concealing their weapons, they lied both about the existence of their nuclear weapons programme and their biological weapons programme and it was only when people were interviewed, when they defected from the Iraq regime and were interviewed, that we discovered the existence, full existence of those programmes at all.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Has not Colin Powell demonstrated yesterday, quite conclusively, that a regime in which those weapons inspectors are back in Iraq is one in which it is impossible for Saddam Hussein to continue developing weapons of mass destruction?
TONY BLAIR: No, because what he is doing is engaging in a systematic campaign of concealment and what Colin Powell was doing yesterday was giving evidence, for example, intelligence evidence and other evidence, of direct conversations which are evidence of the concealment is happening.
We still don't know, for example, what has happened to the thousands of litres of botulin and anthrax that were unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 1999. So, you know, the idea that -
JEREMY PAXMAN: And you believe American intelligence?
TONY BLAIR: Well I do actually believe this intelligence -
JEREMY PAXMAN: Because there are a lot of dead people in an aspirin factory in Sudan who don't.
TONY BLAIR: Come on. This intelligence is backed up by our own intelligence and in any event, you know, we're not coming to this without any history. I mean let's not be absurdly naïve about this -
JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence of hiding of weapons.
TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, what Hans Blix has said is that the Iraqis are not cooperating properly.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence, either of weapons manufacture, or that they had been concealed.
TONY BLAIR: No, I don't think again that is right. I think what he said was that the evidence that he had indicated that the Iraqis were not cooperating properly and that, for example, he thought that the nerve agent VX may have been weaponised.
And he also said that the discovery of the war heads might be - I think I'm quoting here - may be the tip of an iceberg. I think you'll find that in that report.
JEREMY PAXMAN: You produced a dossier last September in which you outlined Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. All the sites in that report were visited by UN inspectors who found no evidence of the weapons or no evidence of there having been hidden.
TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, it is absolutely clear what has been happening over the past few months, which is of course, I mean the moment we mentioned those in our intelligence reports we were aware of the fact that the Iraqis would then have a significant period of time in which they could conceal these weapons.
But, you know, if this were some country that we had no history of this problem with and this was the first time anyone had ever raised the issue, there might be a point in what you're saying. It is absurd in the case -
JEREMY PAXMAN: But you concede it's true -
TONY BLAIR: I don't concede it's true at all. It is absurd¿
JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, your own foreign minister Mike O'Brian said it is true.
TONY BLAIR: It is absurd to say in a situation where Iraq has definitely had these weapons, developed them over a long period of time, concealed them, that there is nothing to be suspicious of when they can't even account for the weapons that we know were there when the Inspectors left in 1999.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, let's hear from our first member of the audience. Lesley Farrow, what do you make of the evidence?
(Male 1) I don't think there's sufficient evidence at the moment, like when Mr Bush yesterday come out with this supposedly new evidence I don't think there was anything there.
TONY BLAIR:
Well what there was, was evidence, I mean this is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up or this is what they are telling me, as the Prime Minister, and I've no doubt what the American Intelligence are telling President Bush as well.
And that is that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we know they were there before, but the Iraqis are now trying to conceal those.
But although they're allowing the inspectors access to sites they're not actually fully co-operating with inspectors, for example, they're not allowing the experts that worked on these programmes to be interviewed properly by the inspectors, and what Colin Powell was talking about at the UN yesterday was the systematic attempt to try and conceal this, to disperse it into the country so that it couldn't be found by the inspectors.
So, we're faced with a situation where, I mean, here am I as Prime Minister, this is the evidence that's coming to me day in, day out, and I think it would just be wrong of us and irresponsible of me not to act on that.
Now, if Iraq wanted to co-operate with the weapons inspectors they could do it perfectly easily.
They could say here are all the experts that have worked on our programme, come and interview them free from Iraqi minders, not in designated places, this is what has happened to the stuff that was left over from the inspectors before.
If they did all that they would be co-operating, and then I agree with you, it would be a different situation.
(Male 1) So how come America has got spy satellites and they can't seem to pick anything up.
TONY BLAIR: Well they are of course picking things up.
(Male 1) They don't seem to be picking any mass weapons up of anything other.
TONY BLAIR: Well they're picking up certainly movement of material and one of the things that Colin Powell was talking about yesterday was the movement of material shortly before an inspection took place. So, you know, you've got to put it all together and make a judgement.
JEREMY PAXMAN: The gentleman next to you.
(Male 2) Prime Minister, you must see the evidence that was presented yesterday as laughable, it was Morecambe and Wise-esque - the warhead sketch. It was just absolutely laughable what Colin Powell put in front of the UN yesterday.
TONY BLAIR: Well I don't think it was laughable at all.
JEREMY PAXMAN: You've put your point of view, the Prime Minister has said that he accepts the evidence. Monica Frisch.
TONY BLAIR: Well can I just deal with this for a moment. Look, leave aside what's been happening in the last few months and all the debate about whether we have a war in Iraq or not. I mean, you wouldn't dispute with me that this is a barbaric and appalling regime.
(Male 2):
I would say to you Prime Minister that the war is to get rid of a despotic dictator who has no real democratic mandate, who's very destabilising, who commits human rights violations. Is Mr. Bush next perhaps?
TONY BLAIR: Well, you think Saddam's the same as George Bush.
(Male 2) I'm saying Mr. Bush has a lot of comparisons.
TONY BLAIR: I think that's a bit unfair you know. I don't think George Bush has quite done that.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Right Monica Frish.
Female 1: I'm totally opposed to anyone having, or developing nuclear weapons.
But that goes for British and American nuclear weapons as well.
This country has lots of nuclear weapons and the United States has nuclear weapons.
The United States has dropped nuclear bombs, don't let us forget that.
How can we possibly justify criticising Iraq for developing nuclear weapons when we're doing so little to get rid of our own. Isn't it incredibly hypocritical?
JEREMY PAXMAN: Prime Minister?
TONY BLAIR: I don't believe so for two reasons. First of all we're obviously part of a whole lot of agreements to do with nuclear weapons.
Secondly, Britain has not menaced and used external aggression with these types of weapons against our neighbours.
You know, Saddam, every time he has been allowed to do so has started a war with the countries around him. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians some years ago. He invaded Kuwait shortly afterwards.
I mean he is, you know, in a sense I can totally understand the argument about whether the war is right or wrong and I understand the concerns that people have, I genuinely do, which is one of the reasons I wanted to do the programme tonight - to try and answer some of those concerns.
But the one thing I hope we can all agree on is that Saddam Hussein is in a different category from virtually any other regime in the world in terms of his use of appalling repression against his own people, external aggression against other people and the fact is, he is the one power in this world that has actually used chemical weapons against his own people.
JEREMY PAXMAN:
Prime Minister, if you're looking at countries in the Middle East that have got arsenals of chemical weapons, I mean what about a country like Syria which has the biggest chemical weapons arsenal in that part of the world, and whose president you invite to this country to have tea with the Queen.
TONY BLAIR: But he has not started a war with his neighbours, using those weapons.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes - well - not using those weapons - he's had wars with Israel.
TONY BLAIR: Well, I mean, look, well there is a real issue to do with Syria and terrorism which is important. -
JEREMY PAXMAN: It's a state sponser of terrorism
TONY BLAIR:
Hang on, Syria has not started a war with its neighbours. Saddam twice, in fact every time he's been allowed to. First of all the war with Iran in which a million people died. Secondly, the invasion of Kuwait.
Now Syria is not in that category. I'm not saying there aren't issues to do with Syria.
There are issues to do with Syria and we can get on to those. But the one point that I'm simply making to you is that this is not an issue that comes with no history and a history particularly relevant to the nature of this regime - that's all I'm saying.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Is there one more person from the audience? Yes.
Female 2: Yes, I think we should be adopting a policy of contain and deter with the Iraq conflict.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Contain and deter?
Female: Yes, and I'm very concerned that we're following the US along a line of conflict and war and I don't understand why we're taking that line.
TONY BLAIR: Well, let's go back to this issue of containment, because I agree of all the arguments against this, this is the best one.
I mean, OK Saddam's a bad man, he's a terrible man, he's got these weapons but can't we work out a policy of containment.
Now the reason I was saying to Jeremy earlier, containment worked up to a point is this, that there were two methods that we had to contain him.
One was the method of sanctions which, because of the way he implements those sanctions is actually a pretty brutal policy against the Iraqi people.
Sixty per cent of the Iraqi people need food aid in order to survive, even though it's actually a wealthy country and the fact is, with a different regime, without these weapons, sanctions could be lifted and the Iraqi people would in fact be far better off.
But anyway, that's one element of the containment which is sanctions. But what we were finding, really in the year 2001 when we were trying to negotiate a new sanctions regime, was that those sanctions were no longer working properly.
What the sanctions were supposed to do was to stop him selling oil except for food and medicine. But we were finding, and I think in 2001 round about $3 billion worth was being leached away through illicit sales of that oil. So the sanctions weren't working that well.
The second part of it was the inspectors, and as we were saying earlier, I mean you can split hairs about did they leave or were they thrown out. But the fact is they couldn't do their job.
And therefore, the second part of containment we weren't able to do. Now the reason for going back down the UN path, some people wanted to go to war last year.
I said no, we have got to go down the UN path. Put the inspectors back in there because we could have then, if the inspection regime was working properly we could have made the policy of containment work. But the inspectors can only do their work with the co-operation of the Iraqis.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, you said of those weapons inspectors that they needed time and space to be able to do their job. How much time?
TONY BLAIR: The time to make a judgement as to whether Iraq is co-operating or not, because the inspectors aren't there as a detective agency, it's not a game of hide and seek. What is supposed to happen is that the Iraqis are supposed to co-operate, actively, as Kofi Annan said, with the inspectors. They're not doing that at the moment.
JEREMY PAXMAN: OK, so they report back next week. Will you give an undertaking to this audience, and indeed to the British people that before any military action you will seek another UN Resolution, specifically authorising the use of force.
TONY BLAIR: We've said that that's what we want to do.
JEREMY PAXMAN: But you haven't given an explicit commitment that those are the only circumstances under which British forces will be used.
TONY BLAIR: I haven't but what I've said is this - those are the only circumstances in which we would agree to use force except for one caveat that I've entered.
And I'll explain exactly why I've done this. If the inspectors do report that they can't do their work properly because Iraq is not co-operating there's no doubt that under the terms of the existing United Nations Resolution that that's a breach of the Resolution. In those circumstances there should be a further Resolution.
If, however, a country were to issue a veto because there has to be unanimity amongst the permanent members of the Security Council. If a country unreasonably in those circumstances put down a veto then I would consider action outside of that.
JEREMY PAXMAN:
But Prime Minister, this is, you say, all about a man defying the wishes of the United Nations. You cannot have it both ways.
If one of the permanent five members of the Security Council uses its veto and you, with your friend George Bush, decide somehow that this is unreasonable, you can't then consider yourself absolutely free to defy the express will of the Security Council. What's it for otherwise?
TONY BLAIR: First of all, let me make two points in relation to that.
Firstly you can't just do it with America, you have to get a majority in the Security Council.
Secondly, because the issue of a veto doesn't even arise unless you get a majority in the Security Council. Secondly, the choice that you're then faced with is this. If the will of the UN is the thing that is most important and I agree that it is, if there is a breach of Resolution 1441 which is the one that we passed.
If there is a breach and we do nothing then we have flouted the will of the UN.
JEREMY PAXMAN: We have flouted the will of the UN.
TONY BLAIR: If we don't act in those circumstances. Look ¿
JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you saying there's already an authorisation for war?
TONY BLAIR: No, what I'm saying is this. In the Resolution that we passed last November we said that Iraq, it's actually interesting to look at the Resolution. Iraq had what was called a final opportunity to comply.
The duty of compliance was defined as full co-operation with the UN Inspectors. The Resolution then goes on to say "any failure to co-operate fully is a breach of this Resolution and serious consequences i.e. action, would follow". Now, we then also put in that
Resolution that there will be a further discussion in the Security Council. But the clear understanding was that if the inspectors do say that Iraq is not complying and there is a breach of that resolution, then we have to act.
Now if someone comes along and says, OK I accept there's a breach of Resolution 1441 but I'm issuing a veto I think that would be unreasonable. Incidentally I don't think that's what will happen. I think that we will, if the inspectors do end up in a situation where they're saying there is not compliance by Iraq then I think a second resolution will issue.
FEMALE: Do you not agree that most of Britain don't want us to act alone without the United Nations, and do you not agree that it's important to get France, Germany and Russia on board with support to help us?
TONY BLAIR: Yes I do. I agree with that. That's what I'm trying to get. So¿
JEREMY PAXMAN: Why not give an undertaking that you wouldn't go to war without their agreement.
TONY BLAIR: Because supposing one of those countries - I'm not saying this will happen, I don't believe it will incidentally. But supposing in circumstances where there plainly was a breach of Resolution 1441 and everyone else wished to take action, one of them put down a veto. In those circumstances it would be unreasonable.
Then I think it would be wrong because otherwise you couldn't uphold the UN. Because you'd have passed your Resolution and then you'd have failed to act on it.
JEREMY PAXMAN: And who are we to say it's "unreasonable" as you put it?
TONY BLAIR: You say that, if in circumstances where the inspectors - not us - have come back to the UN and said we can't do our job. Now look - I think it's a perfectly simple way of putting this thing and incidentally, I don't believe we'll get to the stage of vetoes and so on. I think we'll be in the position that you're talking about. Now the reason I wanted this to go down the UN path last year. I mean, in the summer people were thinking you were about to start the war.
Myself and other people said, no, we've got to take this back to the United Nations and go through the UN route. And I think we will be in circumstances where the UN passed the second Resolution and I take it in the sense from what you're saying I think this is where the majority of people are. Is that if the UN did pass a second Resolution people would support it.
LAURA SEWELL: I'd like to know if the UK and the US just ignore the UN, just go ahead with war without a UN Resolution. How can you expect any other country to listen to the UN in the future?
TONY BLAIR: Well, that comes back to the point that we're making. The first thing is that it would be odd to say that we'd ignored the UN since ¿
LAURA SEWELL: What if you go against a UN Resolution, are you not ¿
TONY BLAIR: We mustn't go against the UN Resolution.
SEWELL: If you go without the UN Resolution.
TONY BLAIR: The point that I'm making is this. There are only one set of circumstances. I mean the reason I won't give the absolute undertaking that Jeremy was asking me to give, is because of this one set of circumstances where Resolution 1441, the one that has been passed, where everyone's agreed on.
If that is breached and the inspectors say, no I'm sorry we can't do our job and in those circumstances the Resolution 1441 effectively says well then a second Resolution issues. If someone then at that point vetoes wrongly, what do we do?
FEMALE: It's only you that thinks it's wrong, like George Bush thinks that they're doing that unreasonably.
TONY BLAIR: No, no ¿
FEMALE: It's the point of the veto, not that that can happen in that sort of situation.
TONY BLAIR: What happens is that there are 15 members of the Security Council, there's five permanent members and the five permanent members have got the veto. The other ones don't. Now, the issue of a veto only arises if we've got a majority of people on the Security Council with us, so there's not - Britain and America that would be doing this on our own in any event.
JEREMY PAXMAN:
Who else is concerned about this business of the UN. Yes, you sir, right in front there.
MALE: Prime Minister - do you not think that this war could cause even more conflict in the Middle East in that this could cause other rogue states to actually go and sit behind Saddam and actually support him - countries like Syria that Jeremy mentioned before. Iran, countries like that.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes, I think we're going to come to that point and some of the broader possible implications later on but, yes, you sir right in the back row.
MALE: I agree with something that the Rt. Hon Member for Texas North said a few minutes ago,
TONY BLAIR: I gather you're not wholly in favour then.
MALE: ¿which was that there is not likely to be a veto in the Security Council because when Bush (sic) comes to shove I think everybody will fall in line. But aside from that, on the point of the inspectors - isn't it strange, Mr. Vice President that with the information that was displayed to the world by Colin Powell yesterday, that the video evidence, the photographs taken from satellites, why is it then that if this information was available to the US way back in November, December, that it was not given to the UN inspection team to give them some pointers as to where to look at.
Because, one of the things that was said there was the topsoil was removed to take away all traces of chemical agents. So why wasn't that information given to Hans Blix and his team, to say go and look over there>
TONY BLAIR: There's a very simple explanation for that. In respect of much of this information it's only coming to light now. Some of the intelligence about what has happened earlier has only come to light now. In respect of other stuff however, we are co-operating with the inspectors. We are trying to give inspectors the whole time to allow them to do the work.
JEREMY PAXMAN: These were satellite photographs that were taken before, and in one case during, and other cases after, UN inspections. So they could have been made available to them at any time. Did they lose them? TONY BLAIR: No we do make the information available to the inspectors but where, for example, you have evidence that they're moving stuff before the inspections, obviously then there's not much point in the inspections taking place in those circumstances.
Now in fact I think in this particular instance they did do the inspection but you know, don't be under any doubt at all, we are trying the whole time to co-operate with the inspectors and give them what intelligence we can.
But there isn't really much doubt about what is going on inside Iraq. They tried to conceal the stuff.
JEREMY PAXMAN: The question referred to you by the way, Prime Minister, as Vice President and Honourable Member for Texas North. But it's not just him. I mean, when a great world figure like Nelson Mandela calls the British Prime Minister the American Foreign Minister - don't you feel embarrassed?
TONY BLAIR: I've huge respect for Nelson Mandela. But I don't feel that I'm doing the wrong thing and I may not be doing the easy thing but I do believe I'm doing the right thing.
JEREMY PAXMAN: So when people say you're a poodle..
TONY BLAIR: Yeah, well you know, you can do that and be the Right Hon Member for Texas and all that. Look, it depends whether you want to deal with this at the level of humour and satire or whether you want to try and make sense of what are difficult issues.
Now, look, I'm faced with a situation here where you know, we know the history of Iraq, we know these weapons of mass destruction. We can see in our own country for example what is happening with the problems of international terrorism. I simply tell you, you can believe it, don't believe it.
Now hang on a minute. I just want to finish this thing. Because this is the reason I'm doing what I'm doing, even though I know that it is difficult and unpopular in certain quarters.
It is a matter of time before these issues of chemical biological nuclear weapons which are now increasingly easy to get hold of with irresponsible, unstable states proliferating them.
It is a question of time before that comes together with international terrorism in a devastating way for this country and other countries in the world.
And, I've said this before, it may be, even if I'm the only person left saying it, I'm going to say it. It's a threat and a danger that we have to confront and there's no reason for these people to have
This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.