The morality of war
From John Jenkins
Sir: Correlli Barnett rests his case against Blair and Bush and the Iraq war partly on the grounds that 'only the Security Council can authorise armed action', that resolution 1441 did not authorise such action and that 'France and Russia would not have agreed to it otherwise' ('Blair and Bush must be held to account', 28 February). The logic is sound but evades the central issue, namely that France, Russia and China would always veto armed action against Iraq: a Security Council resolution supporting armed action against Iraq was therefore never a realistic possibility. These countries will never vote against their economic interests and a vote for war would have severely damaged them. To believe otherwise would be to delude oneself.
From 1981 to 2001 these countries were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq. Further, these same countries, ably supported by Germany, were some of Iraq's most important trading partners. Russia, China and France had also each built a substantial oil business with Iraq worth billions of dollars. If the war was about oil, it was specifically about protecting their oil interests. In short, their objections to a war against Iraq did not arise from altruistic anti-war notions, or even a wish to uphold the supremacy of the United Nations and the Security Council. Their objections were no more than expressions of blatant self-interest, a crude desire to preserve their profitable relationships with Saddam Hussein. The hypocrisy inherent in the stance taken by these countries is breathtaking.
Given these realities, what other course of action was available to Blair and Bush? Another 12 years of Saddam's reign of terror, with even more ineffectual UN resolutions? Save the tears for the victims of Saddam's oppression.
John Jenkins
Farnham, Surrey
Previous page
