![]()
President Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave the country
|

|
TONY BLAIR March 19, 2003 -- Adapted from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's remarks in the House of Commons yesterday. This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set. I believe we must hold firm. The question most often posed is not "Why does it matter?" But: "Why does it matter so much?" Why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalized by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the pattern of international politics for the next generation. In a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life. There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. But with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say, "There's the time; that was the moment: When Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis - that's when we should have acted." But it wasn't clear at the time. In fact, many people thought such a fear fanciful. Worse, put forward in bad faith by war-mongers. Listen to this editorial written in late 1938, after Munich: "Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the Continent to confuse us." Naturally, should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history doesn't declare the future to us so plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight. So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it. It is not the threat of the 1930s. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically. But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order. The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam. Let me tell the House what I know: * I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear-weapons technology. I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programs, selling their equipment or expertise. * I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear-weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing. * We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them. The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror. Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa. These two threats have different motives and different origins, but they share one basic, common view: They detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life. At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening. And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgment, a real and present danger. And let us recall: What was shocking about 9/11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing. Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometer of a city. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one liter of anthrax; 10,000 liters are unaccounted for. 9/11 changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course, Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously. To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years - to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions - is a worse outcome than never speaking at all. When the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? If this House now demands that at this moment, British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then? What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannize their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble. Who will celebrate and who will weep? And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be? In this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal. But on this decision hangs the fate of many things. Of whether we summon the strength to recognize this global challenge of the 21st century - and meet it.
|


|
Photograph of children's bodies, found dead where they had been playing in their village of Halabja. It was bombed by Iraqi warplanes in March 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people. "In places," the dossier says, "streets were piled with corpses." |
|
The Ibn Sina Company and Tarmiyah, one of a number of centres which the dossier says are "dual-use facilities, which are capable of being used to support the production of chemical agent and precursors". |

|
Project Baiji in north-west Iraq at al-Sharqat which, the dossier says, is a former uranium enrichment facility which was damaged during the Gulf War and rendered harmless under supervision of the IAEA, but part of which has been rebuilt as a chemical production complex. |

|
The dossier says that Iraq has attempted to modify the L- 29 jet trainer to allow it to be used as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) which "is potentially capable of delivering chemical and biological agents over a large area". |




Pray for our Troops

More than 220,000, including more than 130,000 in Kuwait

Let Freedom Ring
