Another UK Cabinet Minister resigns over Iraq

[Jolyon]

The former international development secretary, Clare Short, took a vitriolic parting shot at the prime minister as she bowed out of government today, accusing Mr Blair of being "increasingly obsessed with his place in history".

Ms Short resigned this morning after accusing Tony Blair of breaching assurances he made to her about the need for a "UN mandate to establish a legitimate Iraqi government". She has been suceeded by junior Foreign Office minister Baroness Amos.

Making a 15-minute personal statement to MPs, Ms Short claimed that she "handed her resignation to the PM on many occasions but was persuaded to stay in government".

She also drew gasps of disbelief when she claimed to have stayed in the government over the Iraq war only because the parliamentary support of the Conservatives meant that a vote on the war would be carried anyway.

Ms Short went into a lengthy attack on Mr Blair, and the failings of the first and second terms of the Labour government.

Sitting in the row behind the frontbench, Ms Short attacked "the centralisation of power in the prime minister and a small circle of advisers", who launched "ill-thought out diktats".

And she described the first parliament as being dominated by "spin, excessive bureaucracy and centralised targets" before warning the parliamentary Labour party of "rockier times ahead" under a prime minister "increasingly obsessed by his place in history".

On the exact grounds of her resignation, Ms Short criticised the government for joining the US in "bullying the security council with only a minor role for the UN", saying Britain was now making "a grave error in giving cover to US mistakes".

She said: "I am ashamed the that the UK government has approved the resolution tabled in New York."

And she warned: "American power alone cannot make America safe."

Unlike Robin Cook, who resigned as leader of the Commons just prior to the Iraq war, Mr Short was accorded no applause from MPs for her stance.

Before Ms Short's statement, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, denied her accusations as he briefed the Commons on the situation in Iraq.

Praising her as someone who filled the international development brief "with very, very great distinction", Mr Straw added: "I don't agree with her view about the position of the government".

He insisted: "Everything we have said has been consistent with the actions we have taken, and strictly in accordance with international and domestic law."

He called Baroness Amos a "brilliant successor".

Earlier, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, denied that Ms Short's resignation exposed government divisions over Iraq.

He insisted: "We have just seen an extremely successful military operation in Iraq and that military operation could not have been conducted by a government that was in any way divided."

The Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, said: "Ever since she described the prime minister as 'reckless', it has been obvious to all that she was deeply worried by the government's policy in Iraq.

"The fact that one of Tony Blair's own cabinet ministers believes so passionately that he has failed to secure this vital role for the UN, in spite of assurances to her, is deeply revealing."

In her resignation letter to Mr Blair, released this morning, Ms Short said: "I am afraid that the assurances you gave me about the need for a UN mandate to establish a legitimate Iraqi government have been breached."

"This makes my position impossible."

Tony Blair's official spokesman denied Ms Short's claims.

"In relation to post-Saddam and post-conflict Iraq and the UN, I am not aware of any assurance the prime minister has given that has not been kept," he told reporters.

At lunchtime, Ms Short went further in an interview with Radio 4's the World at One programme.

Describing the the latest draft UN resolution on Iraq as "shameful" and "indefensible", Ms Short said the US and UK were "occupying powers in occupied territory" who had no authority to bring in a legitimate Iraqi government without the UN.

"I don't believe in the legality and wisdom of the action the UK is taking in the security council. These are very serious mistakes," she said.

Ms Short had previously threatened to resign over Iraq before the start of hostilities, promising to quit "if there is not UN authority for military action", and accused Tony Blair of being "extraordinarily reckless" over the issue.

But despite the absence of UN approval for the Anglo-American invasion she decided to stay in the government.

Last week she got herself into political hot water again after missing a crucial Commons vote on the government's controversial proposals to create free-standing foundation hospitals.

Defending her actions, Ms Short pointed out that she had missed votes before, and that she had no choice but to miss last week's cabinet meeting after new intelligence information became available shortly before she hosted talks with foreign leaders.

Pledging to remain true to her "core values", Ms Short vowed to stay on as MP for Ladywood and stay on the backbenches.

[lyot]

I already posted this, but it went unnoticed..I think this is a fairly reasonable account of what is at stake with this new UN resolution..Claire doesn't want to go along in this logic, imho..It's a brave decision of her...


New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. Position as Global Hegemon
May 09, 2003

Summary

The United States has presented a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would suspend the sanctions regime and transition the oil-for-food program in Iraq into a different form. The resolution is an attempt to get a U.N. stamp of approval on coalition efforts in Iraq -- which in reality will continue regardless of the Security Council's actions. But more than that, it is a challenge to every state that opposed U.S. policy in Iraq and a threat to those who might do so again.

Analysis

The United States presented a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council on May 9. At its core, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq, legalize Iraqi oil sales, give the coalition de facto control over revenue from those sales for reconstruction purposes, and grant international approval to coalition efforts, both past and present.

But the resolution has a second implication. The Bush administration is giving countries that opposed its efforts in Iraq a last chance to acquiesce to U.S. policy, or suffer the consequences of being in the bad graces of a global hegemon.

The Resolution

First and most important, the resolution would extend the legal cover granted by the oil-for-food program for another four months as the program is slowly phased out. This would allow Iraq to sell oil without the risk that proceeds could be seized by Iraq's numerous international creditors.

Second, income from Iraq's oil would flow into an Iraqi Assistance Fund instead of its oil-for-food escrow account -- which is controlled by the United Nations. Although the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank would hold seats on an advisory board that oversees the fund, the coalition ultimately would decide when and how to spend the money. This authority would apply retroactively to the existing oil-for-food program, making it unlikely that, for instance, the $1.6 billion in contracts currently held by Russian companies would ever generate revenue. This also would provide the legal basis for the World Bank and IMF to return to Iraq. Currently, since there is no recognized government, the two organizations have no legal standing to assist in the country's reconstruction.

Third, there would be no role for U.N. weapons inspectors, whose job would be formally taken over by the coalition.

Fourth, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan could appoint a coordinator to assist in reconstruction efforts. This coordinator would have, at best, moral authority and the ability to offer recommendations. But the day-to-day presence of a representative of the U.N. Secretariat would grant international approval, both de facto and de jure, to future coalition actions.

Fifth, the resolution declares that all products originating in Iraq and the proceeds from their sale "shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings arising in relation to claims against Iraq or the Authority [the coalition]." In other words, this means Iraq and its resources would belong to the coalition. All legal claims against the past and current government by countries that received oil contracts from the Hussein government, were owed debts by Hussein or lost business because of the coalition's actions would be null and void. The coalition's aim appears to be to protect future coalition government actions from any and all legal suits.

Finally, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq except those prohibiting the import of weapons.

In short, the resolution touches on all of the issues to which the coalition of states that opposed U.S. efforts in Iraq object. It would retroactively legitimize U.S. actions, eject all non-coalition interests from Iraq and enshrine U.S. hegemony. The language of the resolution is crafted in a confrontational and at times almost condescending manner -- in a way that leaves little, if any, room for compromise.

The Meaning

The timing is close to perfect. The world is still stunned by the speed at which the United States conquered Iraq, and the anti-war coalition is quite spectacularly disorganized. Should the United States delay too long, there is a chance that the opposition could coalesce again into a coherent political force.

It is simply too early at this point to project how individual powers will react to the resolution. Many states -- including France, Germany and Russia -- this week have sounded notes of compromise on many aspects of recent U.S. policy, particularly in regard to the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. The new resolution, however, would take the U.S. position in Iraq light-years beyond what the anti-war states were willing to consider -- and even the United Kingdom, Washington's staunchest ally, cannot be happy with its wording.

That was precisely the intent.

The United States is generating a moment of crisis for the countries that opposed its Iraq policy to this point. The war in Iraq was not just about fighting al Qaeda or intimidating the Arab world into acquiescence; it was also about showing that the United States could not and would not be constrained by the international community or international law.

When viewed in this light, the new resolution is not merely the next logical step in U.S. efforts to secure Iraq, but also a blunt ultimatum to those who have opposed Washington over the past several months.

The rest of the world has seen clearly that the United States can and will use its full military strength to achieve its foreign policy goals. Washington is now presenting them with a choice: they can capitulate to American power and play Washington's game by Washington's rules, or they can continue to resist and freeze relations into a cycle of hostility.

With the proposed U.N. resolution, the Bush administration in essence is saying that it can accept that the stance of the anti-war coalition to this point was based on principle -- or greed. However, if the positions of anti-war states do not change, then their past opposition will be viewed as policy -- not as a fluke -- and will not go unpunished. Washington expects to be respected as global hegemon.

The resolution will not be popular. But Stratfor does not expect debate to be vociferous. The governments of each state on the Security Council -- once they stop fuming -- will have some serious thinking to do about their relationship with the United States. Stratfor already has detected a sort of frantic rush in national capitals as world leaders come to grips with this new American move.

In Washington's view, it is time for all of them to reassess their policies and find a means of fitting into the U.S. paradigm -- or to set their opposition to the United States in stone and suffer the consequences.

[Moksha]

Originally posted by Jolyon:
The former international development secretary, Clare Short, took a vitriolic parting shot at the prime minister as she bowed out of government today, accusing Mr Blair of being "increasingly obsessed with his place in history"....Could I please get the source of this article?

Thanks!

[Monny JcIntosh]

It's a shame because, despite her misjudgements over Iraq, she was fantastic at her job. As I read somewhere, to bring in someone from the House of Lords really devalues the position. She'll have a hard job filling Clare Short's shoes in any case.

[lyot]

Originally posted by Orion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jolyon:
The former international development secretary, Clare Short, took a vitriolic parting shot at the prime minister as she bowed out of government today, accusing Mr Blair of being "increasingly obsessed with his place in history"....Could I please get the source of this article?

Thanks! </font>[/QUOTE]i think i read this on BBC webpage earlier today.. Correct me if i'm wrong, Jolyon

[Jolyon]

www.guardianunlimited.co.uk (http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk)

or

www.bbc.co.uk/news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news)