PDA

View Full Version : Why I Cannot Be Part Of This Divisive War - Robin Cook's Resignation Speech



Gold9472
08-07-2005, 12:23 PM
Why I cannot be part of this divisive war

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1544393,00.html

(Gold9472: Remember this speech next time someone says Bill Clinton killed so many in Kosovo. I'm not defending Clinton, just making an observation.)

Robin Cook
Sunday August 7, 2005

This is an extract from Robin Cook's resignation speech to the House of Commons, 17 March 2003. It electrified Parliament and will be remembered as one of the most important addresses in modern Westminster history.
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour Party in my lifetime. I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution [at the United Nations]. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not Nato, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by Nato; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will 'shock and awe' makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

PhilosophyGenius
05-08-2006, 02:23 PM
nice speech

Gold9472
05-08-2006, 02:24 PM
This is the first time you've read this? Wow.

PhilosophyGenius
05-08-2006, 02:33 PM
Not sure. I saw someone looking at this behind the curtains and I just thought I'd "bump" it.

Gold9472
05-08-2006, 02:34 PM
Robin Cook is the gentleman who told us about Al-Qaeda's origins being a database of the mujahadeen created by the CIA.

Gold9472
05-08-2006, 02:34 PM
And then he died.

PhilosophyGenius
05-08-2006, 02:42 PM
Not sure if this was him but there was another British govt dude who was whacked mafia style (shot in the head) in the build up towards the war. I guess that's why no one's really "speaking out" against the Iran build up.