Why Iraq is no reason to reject Tony Blair

• Why the Iraq Inquiry is not a reason to reject President Blair
• Chat of the day: Barack Obama and Herman van Who? Rompuy/

Blair haters are doing their best to discredit the Former Prime Minister. Their main reason is-surprise, surprise- IRAQ.

People seem to forget or rather want to forget that most of the European countries supported the war in Iraq. In fact, only France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium were against it. 21 of the then 25 member states backed or at least did not oppose the invasion. If you include Bulgaria and Romania, it even adds up to 23 out of 27 member states.

It’s not just wrong to claim Europe rejected the invasion of Iraq, it’s also wrong to accuse Tony Blair of dividing the European Union. It was not him who actively split the community from inside but the dodgy axis between Paris and Berlin, chaired by Chirac and Schröder.

The governments of France and Germany changed their leaders. The anti-war bigots are out of office, replaced by Sarkozy and Merkel. Both more or less supporters of the Iraq war.

The leftovers are Luxembourg and Belgium.

————————————————-

The evidence

On January 30, 2003 the so called letter of the eight was published in the Wall Street Journal. It was signed by the governments of the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Full text:

THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists ” the enemies of our common values” are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José Marí­a Aznar, Spain

José Manuel Durí£o Barroso, Portugal

Silvio Berlusconi, Italy

Tony Blair, United Kingdom

Václav Havel, Czech Republic

Peter Medgyessy, Hungary

Leszek Miller, Poland

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

———————————————–

On February 6, 2003 the letter of the eight was followed by the so called Vilnius letter. It was signed by 10 Eastern European countries, many of them EU or future EU members. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined the Union on May 1, 2004. Bulgaria and Romania on January 1, 2007. Croatia is expected to join 2010. Albania and Macedonia were the only two countries, singing the Vilnius letter with no direct involvement in the European Union.

Full text:

Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in response to the presentation by the United States Secretary of State to the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq:

Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.

Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction.

We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: “We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq.”

———————————————

These two documents alone prove the support for the invasion of Iraq by 15 of the now 27 member states. As mentioned before, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium were against it. What about the other 8 remaining countries?

——————————————–

The Netherlands

The Netherlands neither signed the letter of the eight nor the Vilnius letter, basically to avoid annoying the other two Benelux countries. However, the Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende publicly endorsed the invasion of Iraq. On March 20, 2003 he confirmed that the Dutch government politically supports military action against Saddam’s regime:

Full text:

BRIEF STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER JAN PETER BALKENENDE FOLLOWING THE START OF THE ARMED CONFLICT IN IRAQ – THURSDAY 20 MARCH 2003

Last night the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia launched a military attack on the regime of Saddam Hussein. What we have tried so long and so hard to avoid has therefore become a reality.

Attitudes to this conflict differ, both internationally and in our own country. A great many Dutch people are wrestling with the question of whether taking up arms against Saddam Hussein at the present time is defensible. War arouses strong emotions. I can understand this.

Everyone wants a world of peace and security. People are working towards this goal with heart and soul, both in the political arena and in society at large. People are praying for it.

Peace is a fragile thing. This becomes very clear when one regime persistently pursues the path of threats and terror. The international community must then patiently uphold international agreements and try to eliminate the threat.

Our patience should be very great, but not boundless. For this would jeopardise the foundations on which law and peace are built.

Saddam Hussein presents just such a major threat to peace and the rule of law. Virtually every country in the world accepts this.

He has twice invaded a neighbouring country. He has used chemical weapons against his neighbours and against the Kurds in his own country. Many hundreds of thousands of people have become victims of his terror. And he has ignored the agreements that the international community has repeatedly made with him.

The United Nations first called on Saddam Hussein to disarm twelve years ago. For twelve years the international community has worked patiently and persistently to find a solution. The Security Council adopted seventeen resolutions to secure his cooperation.

Last November, Resolution 1441 gave him a final chance. It demanded his immediate cooperation, otherwise serious consequences would follow. And once again Saddam refused to listen. For instance, he has still not explained what has happened to his large stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

We have done everything possible to find a solution through the United Nations. But that road came to a dead end this week, after 12 years of joint endeavours.

In recent days many people have highlighted the importance of the international legal order. And rightly so. But defending the legal order also means that those who have persistently and shamelessly broken international law must not be allowed to get away with it.

The Netherlands has therefore given political support to the military action against Saddam Hussein. Freedom and security – including for the people of Iraq – is the highest aim.

The Netherlands will not play a military role. Dutch men and women can only be deployed in this war if there is broad support for such a move in parliament and in the country as a whole.

Military action has now begun. But there will come a time – hopefully soon – when the weapons will fall silent. We must then do everything in our power to help the people of Iraq to rebuild their country.

Current developments are making a great impression on us all. Our hearts and our minds are overflowing. Everyone sees the situation in his or her own way. It is important to share our views and feelings with one another. At times this may arouse strong emotions. But we must always remain respectful of the opinions of others. For such respect forms the basis of our democracy.

The Netherlands is not an island. In times of international tension, vigilance is essential. The government has taken measures to maximise the security of individuals, buildings and facilities in the Netherlands. Absolute guarantees cannot be given in an open society such as ours. But we have done what we can.

Our thoughts go out in the first place to those in and around Iraq. And of course to the families of those actively involved in the conflict. I sincerely hope that the conflict will quickly come to an end. That innocent lives will be spared. That the suffering will be limited. That peace and security will be achieved, and will usher in a better future for us all.

——————————————–

The Republic of Ireland

Speaking in the Dáil on May 28, 2003, in regard to the invasion and the use of Shannon Airport by the US military, the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said:

“We are not going to apologise for any small role we may have played in helping to remove a dictator who made his people suffer for 20 years, carried out horrific acts and didn’t care about democracy. He is gone now, and thank God for that.”

———————————————-

Greece

The Greek government did not send troops to Iraq, but however allowed the US military to use Souda Bay,Crete naval base and Greek airports.

——————————————–

The politically neutral countries- Austria, Sweden, Finland, Malta and Cyprus

All of these countries are politically neutral. They are not members of  NATO and none of them signed the letter of the eight or the Vilnius letter. However, they did not publicly reject the Iraq war (Ireland is actually neutral as well, but still endorsed the invasion).

——————————————-

Austria

Austria tried its best to maintain its neutrality throughout the conflict with Iraq. However on February 14, 2002, the Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel said about Iraq:

“The position of Austria is unchanged. We see the government of Iraq, the leaders of Iraq, as a dangerous group.”

——————————————–

Sweden

Sweden supported Resolution 1441 in the UN Security Council, calling on Saddam to comply. They also offered humanitarian aid in the aftermath of the war, as it was not possible for neutral Sweden to participate in any military action. The country’s neutrality was also the reason why the Swedish government tried to avoid a public break-up with the anti-war countries, such as France and Germany.

——————————————–

Finland

In Finland there was so called Iraq-gate. Anneli Jäätteenmäki celebrated a narrow election victory, after accusing former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen of infringing Finland’s neutrality by giving the impression Finland was part of the coalition against Iraq. She later resigned over these allegations but rejected any wrong doing. The country never publicly opposed the war.

——————————————–

Malta and Cyprus

The countries were members of the so called movement of the non-aligned countries until 2004 and therefore neutral in regard to the Iraq conflict.

——————————————-

The information is available everywhere on the internet. You only have to find it. It was while researching for that article that I found out no site or blog provides the vital documents and numbers in a coherent way. You have to read many different sources to get all the information you need.

I find it rather disturbing how the media and press manipulate and filter facts and information to promote their own hidden agenda.

Yesterday, I was accused by a Blair-basher that my articles do not “live up to the title of the blog”. I hope this article is anti-mainstream enough for the ignoramuses out there!!!

Tags: Ahern, Blakenende, Chirac, Eu Presidency, Iraq, letter of the eight, member states, Merkel, Resolution 1441, Sarkozy, Schröder, support, Tony Blair, Vilnius letter, war on terror