Most opposition to the war in Iraq tends to be organised from the Left of the political spectrum. As Andrew Murray, leader of the "Stop the War Coalition" wrote, about himself, in the letters page of the Daily Telegraph on 27 March:
"If an open and publicly-declared communist can be involved in leading the biggest democratic mass movement Britain has seen in modern times, just how disastrously have the leaders of both major parties misjudged the mood of the British people on this supreme issue?"
The official opposition party, for mysterious reasons, has never had any intention to oppose Blair's War. Only 15 of them voted against it on the 18 March.
As a result, many people who would instinctively oppose Blair and his War, feel reluctant to join with groups or ideology which may appear to them to be too Leftist, or anti-military, or anti-American.
Consequently, many people are going unled and unrepresented, and the arguments against the war based on national sovereignty are going unheard -- except in small circulation journals like Sovereignty.
Our political leaders never work out their positions on important issues from fundamental principles. Instead, they flounder around, and speak to us like we're children: "We must bomb Saddam because he's a bad man."
This war is a perfect case study to consider the proper foundation and purpose of British Foreign and Defence Policy -- which our political leaders seem unable to articulate.
THE PURPOSE OF FOREIGN POLICY
The goal of British foreign policy should be to secure the best interests of our country and its people.
We judge those interests by asking: What do we get out of it? What's in it for us? What tangible benefits do the British people receive? What is there for us to win? And do we need it? If we can't answer these questions positively then we have no business getting involved.
The moral principle here is looking after our own backyard and putting our own people first.
A foreign policy for national sovereignty based on that moral principle will ensure:
- We do not interfere where it is none of our business.
- We do not impose our moral values and political ideas on other peoples and cultures. The best we can do is set a good example.
- We do not indulge in self-righteous moralising cant to describe our foreign policy activities. To do so would be hypocritical in the long-run, because it would require us to overlook the abuses of any new administration which we had helped to install.
THE PURPOSE OF DEFENCE POLICY
Our Armed Forces are for the defence of British national interests, at home and abroad, which includes our people wherever they may be, our territory and borders, and our vital strategic interests worldwide.
Many on the so-called Left of the political spectrum do not appear to realise that Armed Forces are essential to ensure peace and protect a progressive society.
You will only have peace if you can work from a position of strength. You cannot work for peace from a position of weakness. If you are weak you can be bullied. Strong arms give diplomatic teeth. In doubt? Ask North Korea!
Our Forces are not for the promotion of foreign interests. If we commit our precious and brave servicemen and women to conflict, then we need to be sure, firstly, that it is in our national interest so to do.
Then we need to ensure that the aim of the conflict is clear, that it is possible to achieve, that it is achievable quickly, and that the long-term post-conflict role for our soldiers is a safe and sustainable one.
If these requirements are not met, in full, then we put our soldiers at risk for unpatriotic reasons -- someone else's reasons.
Sovereignty patriotically supports our troops. That's why we don't want them fighting and being killed for someone else's interests.
Having established these basic principles of Foreign and Defence Policy, let us work out from them, and apply them to the Iraq War.
Consider the arguments being used to justify the War:
"We Should Support War if the UN Approves"
This argument can only strengthen globalist institutions at the expense of national sovereignty. Some of the MPs who voted against Blair, would have voted for his War had there been a second UN resolution. Such people are not anti-war, but rather pro-UN. Their primary aim is to strengthen globalist institutions rather than strengthen national sovereignty.
"Saddam is in Breach of UN Resolutions"
UN resolutions? So what! Other countries are in breach of UN resolutions. Anyway, UN resolutions do not have the force of law, and there is nothing in our constitution which requires a British government to seek to enforce them as if they did. Most especially, it is not our job to run about the world imposing UN resolutions. It is not our job to strengthen globalist institutions like the UN.
"We Should Oppose Brutal States Like Iraq"
Every state can be brutal, and every state can be accused of being brutal by someone else.
It is not our business to oppose a state simply because it is "brutal", by someone's definition. If we decide to oppose all "brutal" regimes then we will either have a lot of opposing to do, or we will need to become highly selective and, consequently, hypocritical. We should only get involved when it is our business, and when it is in the best interests of our own country and people.
"Saddam is an Evil Tyrant"
Again, so what! The premise from which to argue is: It is for the Iraqi people to deal with Saddam, if they choose so to do. It is not for us to get involved. It is frankly, none of our business.
Even if he eats babies for breakfast, it is none of our business, unless he is threatening British people or our interests. If he eats babies for breakfast then it is for the Iraqi people to bother about it, and deal with him, and organise so to do, if and when they see fit. If he's a bad leader then it is up to the Iraqis to decide when to depose him.
This they may have done eventually if Iraq had been treated like a normal nation, and the punitive sanctions it suffered under for 12 years had been dropped.
For us to get involved is for us to interfere in other people's business, to impose our "morality" on them, and to be full of hypocrisy because whoever replaces him will likely be just as bad, and the people now calling for Saddam's head will look the other way when the new regime tortures and murders its old opponents.
It is also absurd to measure Iraq by our Western "democratic" standards. Arab leaders are often hard men, by necessity.
As James Meek reported in The Guardian, "Mohsen Ali, a devout Shia fingering amber beads as he spoke, said the Iraqi people would fight for Iraq, if not for President Saddam, although he supported the dictator. The country needed a strong leader, he said - even a brutal one. 'If in Iraq there's a leader who's fair, he'll be killed the next day,' he said. 'Iraqis have hot blood. If he's not tough, he dies the next day.'" (James Meek, "Marines losing the battle for hearts and minds", The Guardian, 25 March 2003, pp. 1 and 3)
"We Must Not Appease Dictators"
The "appeasement" issue only arises if he's a direct threat to our country and people. Otherwise, it's not our business.
"Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Self-defence for self-determination is a principle of sovereignty. Iraq has a fundamental right to be a self-determining sovereign nation.
Every self-determining nation is entitled to defend itself. Every self-determining nation has a perfect right to possess whatever weapons it wants.
Even if Iraq did have "weapons of mass destruction" there would be no reason for us to attack it. Such weapons would be of no direct threat to Britain, or even threaten our interests in the region.
"We're Bringing Freedom and Democracy"
As John Gray wrote in The New Statesman, "For much of the region, the choice is not between tyranny and freedom; it is between theocratic democracy and secular dictatorship. Democratic elections in a country such as Saudi Arabia would not bring about the triumph of 'western values', as some members of the Bush administration fondly imagine. As in Algeria, they would result in the political victory of radical Islam. If any country embodies western values, it is Iraq, a thoroughly secular regime."
(John Gray, "America is no longer invincible", The New Statesman, 10 March 2003, pp. 22-23)
Anyway, why should we die for their "freedom"? If the Iraqi people want "freedom" they can claim it themselves.
"Saddam Threatens His Neighbours"
The only country threatened in any way by Iraq, is Israel.
Former US Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan has written a detailed essay in The American Conservative of 24 March, revealing that the main driving force behind the war is a powerful lobby of pre-dominantly Jewish "neo-conservatives" in the American political establishment. See "Whose War?" www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html.
He writes: "What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it. … he [Bush] will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives' agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect."
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also describes the people who are behind this war, and their reasons, at www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279 The cover story of the New Statesman on 7 April 2003, "The Weird Men Behind George W. Bush" is also an important resource which enables an understanding of the people and ideas behind this war. You can download it at www.newstatesman.com for a payment of £1.
Of course, this doesn't excuse the many Gentile politicians, such as the majority of our Parliament, who have gone along, knowingly or unknowingly, with the plot. Also, there are many Christian Fundamentalists, especially in the USA, who are eager Zionist Imperialists.
THIS WAR SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
Who, and for whose foreign interests, will our soldiers be required to fight and die next?
Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper ran a story, on the 18 February 2003 entitled "Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria", by Aluf Benn:
"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. 'These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass [sic] destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve,' Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen."
This would require several more years of the same sort of deliberate demonisation to which the Saddam regime has been subjected! Are we going to put up with it?
LONG-TERM DANGERS TO BRITAIN
If we do manage to take and occupy Baghdad militarily, then our soldiers will be at perpetual and irresistible risk of Iraqi guerrilla warfare.
Baghdad alone has a population of around 5-6 million, and there's no gun control in Iraq.
A strange dictator, indeed, who allows the people to have and to hold automatic firearms!
We haven't even mentioned the financial cost of this war, the likelihood of more asylum seekers into Britain, and the risk that it could make Britain a target of terrorism.
Are we getting an idea of the anti-British treachery of all the MPs who voted for Blair's War? They have no credibility left.
From a patriotic point of view, there's nothing good in this war for Britain. We get zero benefit. We get nothing positive out of it. We've nothing to gain. It is absurd to talk about "winning", when there is nothing for us to "win".
Sovereignty recommends that the best way to support our troops is to ensure they do not ever again serve foreign interests, and that they should only be deployed where they are needed to defend our own British interests.
Protecting our own borders would be a good start!