The 'superpower lite' punching above its weight
By Con Coughlin
Daily Telegraph
12/04/2007
Britain should never have gone to war in Iraq, should abandon its nuclear deterrent and should engage with states that openly support and sponsor international terrorism.
In other words, Britain should give up its position as one of the world's leading powers and allow genocidal dictators and rogue states to use violence and intimidation to achieve their invidious political goals.
That, at least, appears to be the vision being propagated by the authors of the three reports published yesterday that are highly critical of the British Government's involvement in the Iraq war and its aftermath.
"A Fair Foreign Policy", a study commissioned by the relief agency Oxfam which opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, argues that Britain's influence around the world has diminished because of Iraq to the point that we can no longer take effective action to end humanitarian crises in places such as Darfur.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, meanwhile, concludes that the "lives and dignity" of ordinary Iraqis are "continuously under threat" because of the chaotic security situation that currently affects most of their nation.
And one of the main conclusions reached by the Left-of-centre Oxford Research Group, that renewing the Trident nuclear system would "send the wrong message around the world", prompted Brian Eno, the former Roxy Music keyboard player, to observe that the report was "the single most important contribution to understanding and coping with the future that I have ever read".
The publication of all three reports was, of course, timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and they are almost unanimous in their condemnation of Britain's participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign to remove the Ba'athists from power.
But in seeking to portray Britain's involvement in Iraq in the worst possible light, the reports' authors are wrong to conclude that Britain's influence in world affairs has diminished as a consequence.
In fact the opposite is true. Britain might be unpopular because of the policies the Blair government has pursued since the September 11 attacks, but if anything its influence has increased, not least because of its close alliance with the Bush administration, and also because of the heroic service our military has provided on the front lines in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
If other countries don't like what we have to say, they certainly take notice.
Take the Iran issue. As the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme has developed during the past three years, Britain has played a pivotal role in the diplomatic effort to force Teheran to comply with its international obligations.
Indeed British policy towards Iran has at times caused friction with the Bush administration, particularly when the hawkish John Bolton was still serving as the US ambassador to the United Nations.
The leading role Britain has played in a variety of issues relating to the global war against terrorism, from confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan to coaxing Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf into taking more effective action against al-Qa'eda fugitives, has certainly made a deep impression on the power brokers in Washington.
"Superpower lite", is how one Bush administration official recently described to me Britain's role in the global war against terrorism.
"Britain might be a small country, but it punches well above its weight in terms of the contribution it has made since September 11. And for that reason people take a lot more notice of what Britain has to say."
This view might not be popular in Berlin or Paris, nor among the many Left-of-centre think tanks that spew out an endless number of reports telling us how removing Saddam from power has been a disaster.
And yet these are the same organisations that argue, as Oxfam officials did yesterday, that Britain should be more interventionist in the humanitarian crises affecting countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.
No one is going to argue that Iraq has been a great success story, but let's not forget that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Iranians, and the world today is still a better place without him.
telegraph.co.uk
By Con Coughlin
Daily Telegraph
12/04/2007
Britain should never have gone to war in Iraq, should abandon its nuclear deterrent and should engage with states that openly support and sponsor international terrorism.
In other words, Britain should give up its position as one of the world's leading powers and allow genocidal dictators and rogue states to use violence and intimidation to achieve their invidious political goals.
That, at least, appears to be the vision being propagated by the authors of the three reports published yesterday that are highly critical of the British Government's involvement in the Iraq war and its aftermath.
"A Fair Foreign Policy", a study commissioned by the relief agency Oxfam which opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, argues that Britain's influence around the world has diminished because of Iraq to the point that we can no longer take effective action to end humanitarian crises in places such as Darfur.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, meanwhile, concludes that the "lives and dignity" of ordinary Iraqis are "continuously under threat" because of the chaotic security situation that currently affects most of their nation.
And one of the main conclusions reached by the Left-of-centre Oxford Research Group, that renewing the Trident nuclear system would "send the wrong message around the world", prompted Brian Eno, the former Roxy Music keyboard player, to observe that the report was "the single most important contribution to understanding and coping with the future that I have ever read".
The publication of all three reports was, of course, timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and they are almost unanimous in their condemnation of Britain's participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign to remove the Ba'athists from power.
But in seeking to portray Britain's involvement in Iraq in the worst possible light, the reports' authors are wrong to conclude that Britain's influence in world affairs has diminished as a consequence.
In fact the opposite is true. Britain might be unpopular because of the policies the Blair government has pursued since the September 11 attacks, but if anything its influence has increased, not least because of its close alliance with the Bush administration, and also because of the heroic service our military has provided on the front lines in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
If other countries don't like what we have to say, they certainly take notice.
Take the Iran issue. As the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme has developed during the past three years, Britain has played a pivotal role in the diplomatic effort to force Teheran to comply with its international obligations.
Indeed British policy towards Iran has at times caused friction with the Bush administration, particularly when the hawkish John Bolton was still serving as the US ambassador to the United Nations.
The leading role Britain has played in a variety of issues relating to the global war against terrorism, from confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan to coaxing Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf into taking more effective action against al-Qa'eda fugitives, has certainly made a deep impression on the power brokers in Washington.
"Superpower lite", is how one Bush administration official recently described to me Britain's role in the global war against terrorism.
"Britain might be a small country, but it punches well above its weight in terms of the contribution it has made since September 11. And for that reason people take a lot more notice of what Britain has to say."
This view might not be popular in Berlin or Paris, nor among the many Left-of-centre think tanks that spew out an endless number of reports telling us how removing Saddam from power has been a disaster.
And yet these are the same organisations that argue, as Oxfam officials did yesterday, that Britain should be more interventionist in the humanitarian crises affecting countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.
No one is going to argue that Iraq has been a great success story, but let's not forget that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Iranians, and the world today is still a better place without him.
telegraph.co.uk