Iraq

A hugely difficult issue.

I voted against Tony Blair’s position last week, for 2 reasons.

First, the UN Weapons Inspectors do not believe they have yet found sufficient evidence: they want more time. Second, Tony Blair still insists he might support action without a resolution of the United Nations. (Note: I am not anti-war in all circumstances. Military action may still prove necessary.)

My two reasons for opposition now - evidence and a second UN resolution – are linked. If compelling evidence is produced, the UN Security Council would and should vote for war. But that evidence is not there.

Sure, there is evidence of Saddam’s heinous crimes. Yet there’s a long list of appalling Governments, e.g., Zimbabwe, China and Syria. Sure, there is evidence Iraq has not yet complied fully with UN resolution 1441. Yet other nations have not complied with resolutions and nothing has been done.

Iraq is instead being scrutinised by the UN now, as no other country before in history. The UN is doing its job.

If we undermine the UN now, what hope will there ever be of building international law that protects and secures nations?

Only evidence leading to a UN resolution could begin to justify a war that puts British lives at stake and kills thousands of Iraqis.

We should not rush to war.