First British Cabinet Minister Resigns Over Iraq Crisis
Robin Cook, the Leader of the House of Commons, one of the highest profile figures in the Labour Party, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857637.stm"; target="_blank">resigned from the Labour government</a> this afternoon after the breakdown in diplomacy and Tony Blair's continued committment to back a war against Iraq.
Word has it this won't be the last.
Word has it this won't be the last.
Comments
<strong>
Word has it this won't be the last.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good. The government in the U.S. should step aside.
The US should have been more forcefully in supporting the British in the last week and Rumsfeld ****ed things up- again- with his inane remarks. Ideally Rumsfeld would spontaneously combust but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. But that is a tiny part of the issue. The resolution was still not going through probably, the British public was still opposed and some of the MPs were opposed.
But Blair can still recover. A quick war, some WOMD found, lots of stories of Saddam will change things. We'll see how the Iraqi people respond. For the most part they are the ones who can help him best politically. Blair will take the short term hit but he can still win the long term.
Contrast that with Chirac who has won the short term with huge home popularity. On the other hand, he has taken a course that will result in less of use of hte Security Council for serious issues in the short term, a lesser likelihood for a strong EU, annoyed Eastern European countries, and seriously strained relations with the US and the UK. He has made a bigger risk in the big picture than Blair IMO.
Putin looks to win either way, as he appeased on the home front without becoming the magnet for blame that the French have become. And the non-permanent members won in that they did not have to vote either way.
<strong>It's seems that this Iraq war brings a lot of problems to Tony Blair. He is pissed by the french and he is pissed also by the bush admin who did not give him some air by rejecting the latest english proposition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Tony Blair is going to suffer the most out of the leaders involved in the Iraqi crisis, atleast in the short term. He's done his best to bring the pro war Americans and anti war Europeans together, and keep the UN process alive, but hasn't succeeded in either. At the end of the day he's been put in an impossible situation, with the French threatening to veto any resolution that may lead to war and the Americans running out of patience. I guess he's made his choice and gone with the Americans, and will have to suffer the consequences. Personally I think he should have gone with the will of the UK public, who after all elected him to represent them, and who in general are against a war at the present time.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>
. Personally I think he should have gone with the will of the UK public, who after all elected him to represent them, and who in general are against a war at the present time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Sad day. EU buggered, NATO finished, France / Germany both hating us ... and the moment there's an important difference between the US and UK, and the US tells the UK to go stuff itself (which it will) poor old Britain won't have a friend, or rather won't be at "the heart" of anything.
It could well be over Israel, where the US has already said the settlements (which are illegal and a cause of great tension) won't have to stop until there's peace from the Palestinians. Which isn't going to happen.
<strong>
The US should have been more forcefully in supporting the British in the last week and Rumsfeld ****ed things up- again- with his inane remarks. Ideally Rumsfeld would spontaneously combust but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. But that is a tiny part of the issue. The resolution was still not going through probably, the British public was still opposed and some of the MPs were opposed.
But Blair can still recover. A quick war, some WOMD found, lots of stories of Saddam will change things. We'll see how the Iraqi people respond. For the most part they are the ones who can help him best politically. Blair will take the short term hit but he can still win the long term.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The main problem of Blair is that he is in conflict with his own party : the labor party. A good war, will help him certainly. The questions are :
- is this war will be short ?
- is this war will make the less death possible especially for the UK soldiers ?
- is this war will be selective, and thus like you said how will respond iraqi peoples ?
- Is there will be more terrorism from Islamists in a mid long term in UK ?
- Is this war will not be too expansive for UK ?
- is the economic crisis , will only last during the war, and things will be much better quickly after it ?
In short , only a very strong support of the UK population after the war will be able to save Blair.
[quote] Contrast that with Chirac who has won the short term with huge home popularity. On the other hand, he has taken a course that will result in less of use of hte Security Council for serious issues in the short term, a lesser likelihood for a strong EU, annoyed Eastern European countries, and seriously strained relations with the US and the UK. He has made a bigger risk in the big picture than Blair IMO. <hr></blockquote>
Quite true, especially for UK and US. The bad relations between UK and France will not last very long indeed, because both public opinion of France and UK where against this war. The actual crisis is build upon governement leader and do not have deep roots.
The problem with US is more acurate and it will last longer. This crisis will last for a long time, with a bad public opinion of France in the US and a bad opinion of the Bush admin in France. To my advice it will take years to disapear, perhaps a decade or two, or a new common ennemy .
The crisis with eastern countries is very limited and it will disapear quickly. These countries need the support of France, and Poland is a friend of France since centuries.
Chirac will win also in the long term, a great support of many countries. Anyway to my opinion exchanging the love of these countries by the love of US is not a great deal. But it's live, there is nothing i could do for it.
This Iraq war was a diplomatic failure, i expect that it will be a military victory.
[quote] Putin looks to win either way, as he appeased on the home front without becoming the magnet for blame that the French have become. And the non-permanent members won in that they did not have to vote either way. <hr></blockquote>
Putin win, like in every other vote. Putin know that even if russia is not as powerfull as US ,that nothing cannot be done without russia.
He certainly has some problems with Labour doves. But this is actually mitigated in that the Conservatives are strongly behind him. From a domestic political standpoint he cannot be outflanked because the Tories are in agreement on Iraq. So that limits his vulnerability to a great extent.
[quote] A good war, will help him certainly. The questions are :
- is this war will be short ? <hr></blockquote>
Yes. The conventional forces will not give much resistance, not that they could do much anyway. Republican Guard might fight but even still will have limited success. The question for the war phase is will the Iraqis follow through on Womding their people. That's where the gravest potential is.
[quote]
- is this war will make the less death possible especially for the UK soldiers ? <hr></blockquote>
A bit unclear on what you mean here.
[quote]- is this war will be selective, and thus like you said how will respond iraqi peoples ? <hr></blockquote>
I think, and it is a huge supposition that they will be fairly positive in the short term. Saddam is not well liked.
[quote]- Is there will be more terrorism from Islamists in a mid long term in UK ? <hr></blockquote>
In the short term yes there will be more terrorism. I would argue that the best long term strategy would be one of democratization, relief of sanctions and nation building. Of course, one has to be at least somewhat skeptical that the Shrubbery and friend will follow through in The Right Way.
[quote]- Is this war will not be too expansive for UK ?<hr></blockquote>
Nah. spOILs of war, release of economic uncertainty will mitigate it. It will cost, but that isn't the main concern.
[quote]- is the economic crisis , will only last during the war, and things will be much better quickly after it ? <hr></blockquote>
If it goes well then yes probably.
[quote]In short , only a very strong support of the UK population after the war will be able to save Blair. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure the situation is that dire. When you look at his lack of popularity on the issue you might think as much. But then consider the alternatives. Ian Duncan Smith. Uh no. Who else in Labor then? I don't think Labour will devour him over this. That then leaves the possibility of Labour splintering, which I doubt. But we shall see.
[quote]Quite true, especially for UK and US. The bad relations between UK and France will not last very long indeed, because both public opinion of France and UK where against this war. The actual crisis is build upon governement leader and do not have deep roots. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, I don't agree that a Blair govt is going away anytime soon. Even if it did, it is doubtful that the Conservatives would be any more likely to trust the French. So I see little potential for reconciliation.
Also, the French position is strongly staked to the French attempt to form a counterweight to the US whether it be the EU or the UN. In the process Chirac has shown that he is willing to undermine all aspects of the post WWII Western security system for the sake of the reempowerment of France. He's shown he is willing to ditch the US and the UK in the process. No British politician will want anything to do with France on major issues while Chirac is still in power. The British were already opposed to some of the French proposals for the EU moving forward; what has happened this year will only exacerbate that. Ideally France will replace Chirac with someone who has the best interests of France in mind. Opposing the war is valid and that's one thing; the comments of the Chirac govt are another.
[quote]The crisis with eastern countries is very limited and it will disapear quickly. These countries need the support of France, and Poland is a friend of France since centuries. <hr></blockquote>
I agree it will disappear quickly. As for your second point, I disagree. It has been over 60 years but the Poles have not forgotten.
[quote]The problem with US is more acurate and it will last longer. This crisis will last for a long time, with a bad public opinion of France in the US and a bad opinion of the Bush admin in France. To my advice it will take years to disapear, perhaps a decade or two, or a new common ennemy.<hr></blockquote>
We'll see. If the French are determined to try to elevate themselves to a world power then it will be a big issue. If not then it will fade. The perception of the French as cranky Anti-American cowards will not go away for quite a while. But the passions related to that will fade because we have a short attention span. From the French perspective, perhaps you can speak to that but my perception certainly is that Bush is such a focal point that once he is removed in 2 or 6 then that will alleviate much of the problem from their perspective.
[quote]Chirac will win also in the long term, a great support of many countries. Anyway to my opinion exchanging the love of these countries by the love of US is not a great deal. But it's live, there is nothing i could do for it. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure which countries that matter support him. Russia is far too ruthless to give a flying **** about France except when it coincides with their interests. China doesn't care. The Germans but Schroeder is in deep trouble on the domestic front. Australia? No. Spain? No. Italy? No. Eastern Europe? No. Algeria? Sure but who cares? US and UK? Obviously not. Middle East? Those countries are far more concerned about their long term future than with being pals with France.
Public opinion is great but other countries will soon forget about France's stand and resume concerning themselves with domestic issues. And France hasn't cemented any friendships with govts other than Germany and it has sacrificed to a degree NATO, US, UK and UN in the process.
[quote]Putin know that even if russia is not as powerfull as US ,that nothing cannot be done without russia.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about your statement that nothing can be done without Russia but Putin was smart enough to avoid the sort of political pandering that Schroeder is guilty of and the sort of unreasonable confrontationalism that Chirac has been engaging in of late. He's playing it like the Chinese frequently do and it is working just as it does for htem.
"Health Minister Lord Hunt of Kings Heath follows in the wake of cabinet minister Robin Cook, who quit on Monday because he objected to military action being taken against Iraq without a fresh UN mandate."
[quote]
He certainly has some problems with Labour doves. But this is actually mitigated in that the Conservatives are strongly behind him. From a domestic political standpoint he cannot be outflanked because the Tories are in agreement on Iraq. So that limits his vulnerability to a great extent.
[quote]
Yes, it will be limited, but it won't help him.
[quote]
Yes. The conventional forces will not give much resistance, not that they could do much anyway. Republican Guard might fight but even still will have limited success. The question for the war phase is will the Iraqis follow through on Womding their people. That's where the gravest potential is.
[quote]
- is this war will make the less death possible especially for the UK soldiers ? [quote]
I meant that if there is too many death among UK soldiers, the public opinion of UK will be very angry and pissed by Blair.
[quote]
I think, and it is a huge supposition that they will be fairly positive in the short term. Saddam is not well liked.
[quote]
According to the war specialist the war will be short, only the towns with guerilla type of war should cause problems.
[quote]
In the short term yes there will be more terrorism. I would argue that the best long term strategy would be one of democratization, relief of sanctions and nation building. Of course, one has to be at least somewhat skeptical that the Shrubbery and friend will follow through in The Right Way.
[quote]
I fear that the anti-american sentiment raise dramatically in the arab-muslim countries. A democratization of these aera will be good, but anti-americans feelings are more built upon emotional rants than logical thinking and acute analysis.
[quote]-
If it goes well then yes probably.
[quote]
I hope so also.
[quote]
I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, I don't agree that a Blair govt is going away anytime soon. Even if it did, it is doubtful that the Conservatives would be any more likely to trust the French. So I see little potential for reconciliation.
Also, the French position is strongly staked to the French attempt to form a counterweight to the US whether it be the EU or the UN. In the process Chirac has shown that he is willing to undermine all aspects of the post WWII Western security system for the sake of the reempowerment of France. He's shown he is willing to ditch the US and the UK in the process. No British politician will want anything to do with France on major issues while Chirac is still in power. The British were already opposed to some of the French proposals for the EU moving forward; what has happened this year will only exacerbate that. Ideally France will replace Chirac with someone who has the best interests of France in mind. Opposing the war is valid and that's one thing; the comments of the Chirac govt are another.
[quote]
UK has always have a special place in Europe shared between two
seats, the US one and the European one. UK have special relation with US and do not want to loose them for Europe. In other way Europe is necessary for UK. Sometimes it leads to contradictions, and we have a great example with the Iraq crisis.
[quote]
. As for your second point, I disagree. It has been over 60 years but the Poles have not forgotten.
[quote]
Sorry but i don't understand. What the poles have not forgotten ? Chirac comment, WW2 ?
[quote]
We'll see. If the French are determined to try to elevate themselves to a world power then it will be a big issue. If not then it will fade. The perception of the French as cranky Anti-American cowards will not go away for quite a while. But the passions related to that will fade because we have a short attention span. From the French perspective, perhaps you can speak to that but my perception certainly is that Bush is such a focal point that once he is removed in 2 or 6 then that will alleviate much of the problem from their perspective.
[quote]
Perhaps i am a little too pessimistic
[quote]
I'm not sure which countries that matter support him. Russia is far too ruthless to give a flying **** about France except when it coincides with their interests. China doesn't care. The Germans but Schroeder is in deep trouble on the domestic front. Australia? No. Spain? No. Italy? No. Eastern Europe? No. Algeria? Sure but who cares? US and UK? Obviously not. Middle East? Those countries are far more concerned about their long term future than with being pals with France.
Public opinion is great but other countries will soon forget about France's stand and resume concerning themselves with domestic issues. And France hasn't cemented any friendships with govts other than Germany and it has sacrificed to a degree NATO, US, UK and UN in the process.
Yes, but i do not agree for UN. Chirac is guilty to have made degenerate the relationship between France and US, but the sacrifice of UN is coming from Bush. He asked the support of UN, and because he see he won't get it, he said that he do not need it. It will have been better if he did not asked it at all.
Anyway the UN will survive to this, the same way he survived several others major failures.
[quote
I don't know about your statement that nothing can be done without Russia but Putin was smart enough to avoid the sort of political pandering that Schroeder is guilty of and the sort of unreasonable confrontationalism that Chirac has been engaging in of late. He's playing it like the Chinese frequently do and it is working just as it does for htem.
All leaders of countries did not forget the bad times of the cold war, when all people where scared by a nuke WW3. No US admin will risk to let come back these dark old days. Putin know that, and use it at his advantage. Similarie US knows that Putin needs money and it give a certain control on him.