Thursday, July 31, 2003
10:58 pm
Turning back the Clock - 31st July 2003, 22.56
The Foreign Affairs Committee has published its report on the 'war on terrorism' and provides 48 dubious recommendations that will prove unlikely to further Britain's interests. Their analysis of the events leading up to war supports those who argued that Iraq was not given enough time to disarm.
4. We conclude that, according to the timetable for UN weapons inspections agreed by the United Kingdom and other Security Council members in 1999, it would have taken inspectors longer to build up capacity and make clear judgements about Iraqi prohibited weapons and weapons programmes than they were permitted before the war in Iraq commenced. (Paragraph 55)
5. We conclude that it would have been highly desirable to obtain a further Security Council resolution before taking military action in Iraq. (Paragraph 75)
This provides the Committee with its desire to promote the role of the United Nations at the expense of the Coalition and express its desire to return to the status quo ante. Its recommendations involve shoring up the Security Council and restoring its influence, mending fences with France and ensuring that NATO, the EU, the US and the Common Foreign and Security Policy all function without reference to the divisions that severely damaged them during the year.
The strategic incoherence that guides the foreign policy of Blair's administration also afflicts the parliamentary critics within the Labour backbenches and the opposition. By preserving the internationalist aims of the pre-war alliances, and cloaking them in the demands of the 'war on terrorism', they provide little opposition to the government. Instead of meeting the challenges that the weakening of the Cold War institutions brings, they talk up the past and repeat the inane mantra of aiding two groups: Europe and teh United States. Not so different from an executive that disagrees with them.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has published its report on the 'war on terrorism' and provides 48 dubious recommendations that will prove unlikely to further Britain's interests. Their analysis of the events leading up to war supports those who argued that Iraq was not given enough time to disarm.
4. We conclude that, according to the timetable for UN weapons inspections agreed by the United Kingdom and other Security Council members in 1999, it would have taken inspectors longer to build up capacity and make clear judgements about Iraqi prohibited weapons and weapons programmes than they were permitted before the war in Iraq commenced. (Paragraph 55)
5. We conclude that it would have been highly desirable to obtain a further Security Council resolution before taking military action in Iraq. (Paragraph 75)
This provides the Committee with its desire to promote the role of the United Nations at the expense of the Coalition and express its desire to return to the status quo ante. Its recommendations involve shoring up the Security Council and restoring its influence, mending fences with France and ensuring that NATO, the EU, the US and the Common Foreign and Security Policy all function without reference to the divisions that severely damaged them during the year.
The strategic incoherence that guides the foreign policy of Blair's administration also afflicts the parliamentary critics within the Labour backbenches and the opposition. By preserving the internationalist aims of the pre-war alliances, and cloaking them in the demands of the 'war on terrorism', they provide little opposition to the government. Instead of meeting the challenges that the weakening of the Cold War institutions brings, they talk up the past and repeat the inane mantra of aiding two groups: Europe and teh United States. Not so different from an executive that disagrees with them.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
July
(66)
- Turning back the Clock - 31st July 2003, 22.56 Th...
- Following Saddam's example Another way in which t...
- How unreasonable is Red Korea? Close your eyes an...
- Why Hutton? - 30th July 2003, 22.50 The name of L...
- Robertson goes bonkers What is George Robertson, ...
- Brits do it better At least according to Salam Pa...
- Carving "4REAL" on their arms - 28th July 2003, 22...
- Euro-sense What the hell, here's another site on ...
- And this is how they did it in Romania This nice ...
- Is the Beeb the main story? The main fight on the...
- Pointing the Finger - 25th July 2003, 12:04 Some ...
- Gilligan's Island Boris Johnson writes in defence...
- The Heart of Europe - 23rd July 2003, 23.54 Once ...
- Why the Yanks should never run an Empire Excuse m...
- Have you seen this man? Poor old Ali Campbell...
- Between the Lines "I did not authorise the leakin...
- Sack Bernard One odd thing in all this Dr Kelly s...
- Too wide for handshakes... - 21st July 2003, 23.05...
- Compare and Contrast "In the meantime, our attitu...
- Cack handed Query I'd be interested to know if an...
- Of Little Note Isn't it funny how they've not fou...
- Hit counter Is there any package out there that c...
- Why don't they love us? The War Nerd writes a goo...
- Courtesy of Steve Sailer: "If the French were our...
- Damaged Goods - 19th July 2003, 23.15 Some are ca...
- Best of British? Samizdata moans that the Guardia...
- Questions on Kelly I am neither a medical man, so...
- Plagiarising the War Powers Act - 18th July 2003, ...
- Nary a Hint... - 18th July 2003, 22.48 Perhaps it...
- Conspiracy Corner It seems that the body is David...
- Out of the Blue Dr David Kelly, the man erroneous...
- Who needs a trial? Toby Studabaker is to be extra...
- Post-Libertarianism This article in Samizdata is ...
- Liberal Liberal Democrats? Lack of consistency m...
- Last year's war, ctd It looks like Pakistan have ...
- The Strong or the Weak? Our friend Christopher Mo...
- Where's Osama And where's Saddam? And what happe...
- So where are our chips? Anne Applebaum says that ...
- Zimwatch: Mugabicle Chairs Just a thought. Does ...
- Roots of the Right This column from George Monbio...
- Under Scrutiny - 13th July 2003, 20.33 Parliament...
- How many reasons do you need? Junior minister Mic...
- Aren't bald men supposed to be evil? - 12th July 2...
- New Links Another pot pouri of new links: Anthro...
- Burying Shaka Gene Expression wonders whether Tha...
- From Baghdad As the man who missed Salman Pax I'm...
- Are they serious? After sniping at the unoriginal...
- Why the Bloggers won't inherit the earth The Spec...
- The Benefits of leaving the EU This was originall...
- The Spanglosphere Yes, beating the Anglosphere is...
- Quitting Time And now an old column from Peter Hi...
- Surprised? According to the Torygraph: Germany a...
- We Object - 8th July 2003, 22.40 On the question ...
- Not in the Clear The government are furiously spi...
- Bae's Future Prospects - 7th July 2003, 23.01 Lik...
- Now we bribe them The Afghan provinces are going ...
- America's Peacekeepers - 6th July 2003, 23.03 Mar...
- Evidence emerges that the British Army was unprepa...
- The real face of the Guardian The Guardian longs ...
- Brer Tory Christopher Booker speculated a month a...
- When the chips are down With the Yanks planning t...
- The Western European Union - 5th July 2003, 14.25 ...
- Warmed up Leftovers - 5th July 2003, 11.27 David ...
- Kraal Watch Troops may still be in danger in Meso...
- Into Africa: Now the Yanks want to join the party ...
- Zimwatch: The Grind - 1st July 2003, 23.21 Zimbab...
-
▼
July
(66)
0 comments:
Post a Comment