HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/opinion.cfm?id=305452002 The Scotsman March 20, 2002 Kirsty Milne: A wartime windfall for the �peace party�? IN THE pale and undistinguished ranks of the parliamentary Labour party, Chris Mullin is a man worth listening to. A former investigative journalist who fictionalised the dirty ways of the establishment in A Very British Coup, the Sunderland MP values his independence so much that he resigned from a government job at the last election, preferring the bleak freedom of the back benches. It was characteristic of Mr Mullin that on Monday, as Geoff Hoon announced the dispatch of 1,700 marines to Afghanistan, he gave the Defence Secretary a warning wrapped up in a vote of confidence. Welcoming the deployment as evidence of Britain�s commitment, Mr Mullin added: "The lesson of the complications that we are encountering in Afghanistan surely is that we will not have resources available for any adventures in other parts of the Middle East, such as Iraq." The word "adventures" was pronounced with the slightest intonation of disdain. Though Mr Mullin did not say so, the timing of Monday�s statement could not have been more convenient for Tony Blair. A US request for help has been in the offing for weeks. But just as Labour rumblings of worry about a possible war with Iraq were getting noisier, just as Cabinet ministers were expressing unease and military men were counselling caution, the surprise Commons announcement switched attention from Saddam Hussein back to the al-Qaeda network. Mr Hoon, who refused to answer questions on Iraq, did not quite say: "Now here�s a war we can all agree on," but he might as well have done. Despite their doubts about "exit strategy" and "mission creep", most Labour MPs support action against al-Qaeda and will stay loyal in today�s emergency Commons debate. Besides, sending British troops to fight abroad prompts patriotic reflexes that overwhelm dissent. The very word "marine" brings newspapers out in ecstasies. "In we go," was the headline in the Sun. "A job for the very best," declared the Daily Mail (though not in its Scottish edition). It may be too conspiratorial to detect the influence of Tucker Eskew, the White House press aide who has spent several months in London co-ordinating media strategy between the Prime Minister and President Bush. But it is not too cynical to suggest that spin-doctors in London and Washington are trying to soften up public opinion for another war. If there is to be an attack on Iraq later this year, with the UK taking part, "linkage" will be crucial. War on Afghanistan must somehow be linked with war on Iraq, even without a proven link between Saddam Hussein and 11 September. Critics of more military "adventures" will be trying to maintain a strict separation between the Afghan campaign and any strike against Baghdad. Mr Mullin�s was an early attempt to draw a demarcation line. But he will not be alone. Plenty of Labour politicians are querying President Bush�s military ambitions, and they are not the usual suspects. David Blunkett warns the Cabinet of possible civil unrest among Muslim communities. Mo Mowlam, once a party heroine, complains of Mr Blair�s "reckless attitude". The growing list of names attached to a Commons motion against military action in Iraq now includes Chris Smith, the former culture secretary, and several Scottish MPs not usually given to rebellion. One of the signatories, Joan Ruddock, who chaired the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the Eighties, must be experiencing a sense of d�j� vu as she hears casual talk of "mini-nukes" coming out of Washington. In this strange atmosphere, simultaneously war-hungry and war-averse, post-Cold War certainties are cracking fast. The effects are perceptible even at the level of domestic politics. A few months ago, the news that the Scottish National Party is likely to stick with its non-nuclear, non-NATO policy would merely have made the party look old-fashioned and irrelevant - committed to "a brigadoon republic", as George Kerevan wrote in these pages shortly after 11 September. At a time when east European countries and Baltic states are queuing to join NATO, he argued, an independent Scotland would be turning her back on international solidarity and co-operation. Six months on, the SNP does not seem so much backward-looking as forward-looking. The aftermath of 11 September has kickstarted a debate about whether NATO has a future at all. Anatol Lieven, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, calls the alliance "half-dead" and "completely worthless" in the fight against terrorism. A recent pamphlet from the Centre for European Reform maintains that NATO is "marginal" to US strategy. "The Americans have won this war themselves," writes Charles Grant, the centre�s director, "and it is unlikely that they will ever again wish to use NATO to manage a serious shooting war." The tenor of these arguments is that the European Union should get its military act together, learning to specialise in peacekeeping and Balkan civil wars. No wonder Lord (George) Robertson, NATO�s secretary-general, has been touring the think-tanks of Europe to insist on its continued relevance. The SNP has been wavering over its stance on NATO, nervous of being portrayed as extreme and isolationist. A review group chaired by the deputy leader, Roseanna Cunningham, was asked to examine the issue and reported back to party members last week. While its conclusions have yet to go to the ruling national council, the group is adamant that an independent Scotland should withdraw from NATO and start negotiations to get rid of Trident as part of "a fundamental and unshakeable commitment" to a nuclear-free country. By contrast, the review is positive about a European rapid reaction force - making the assumption that Scotland would still be a member of the European Union. It suggests that the most potent threat to Scotland is not from a conventional military attack but "from other dangers, such as those posed by terrorism, the drugs trade, human trafficking and other forms of organised crime". By standing still, the Nationalists could be said to have caught up with history. Their timing may be fortuitous but, with a new poll showing half of UK voters opposed to an attack on Iraq, it could prove politically apt. Suppose British troops stay in Afghanistan for what Geoff Hoon conceded yesterday would be an "open-ended" tour of duty. Some are wounded, some die. There ensues a delayed, much riskier and more unpopular attack on Iraq, which could mean the use of chemical and biological weapons, retaliation against Israel, and further tensions in the Muslim world. Fear of nuclear attack becomes real as it has not been since the Eighties. By this time, we could be well into the winter of this year or the spring of next. There is a Holyrood election scheduled for May 2003. It would be a strange thing if the SNP, which suffered from being the peace party during the war on Serbia, gained from being the peace party during a war on Iraq. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
