Blair makes case for Iraq war - Part I

For some of those who are protesting the probable upcoming war in IRAQ, I'd like to recommend they see the movie "THE PIANIST," which depicts "man's inhumanity to man." The movie is based on the real experience of a Holocaust survivor. One is shocked by the realization that some do NOT respond to what you might think are logical, rational arguments and questions. Even the question "WHY?" is met by the unholstering of a gun and a bullet through the forehead.

Here is the first of two excerpts from Great Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair's superb speech to a Labour Party gathering in Scotland recently. This first part reviews the background of the situation. I especially call your attention to Part II of his remarks (to be published on Friday's Opinion page) which makes the MORAL ARGUMENT for military action in IRAQ, using unilateral force if need be.

Part I

I know it is tough right now. I know it is an uncertain time for our country. But we will come through this, and we will come through it together.

Dr. Blix reported to the U.N. recently and there will be more time given to inspections. He will report again. But let no one forget two things. To anyone familiar with Saddam's tactics of deception and evasion, there is a weary sense of deja vu. As ever, at the last minute, concessions are made. And as ever, it is the long finger that is directing them. The concessions are suspect. Unfortunately the weapons are real.

Last year, 12 long years after the U.N. first gave him 15 days to produce a full audit of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and he denied he had any, we passed U.N. Resolution 1441. It gave him a "final opportunity" to disarm. It instructed him to cooperate fully with the U.N. inspectors. Why was the inspection regime so tough? Because for 12 years, he had played a game with the inspectors. In 1991 Iraq denied it had a biological weapons offensive program. For four years the inspectors toiled. It was not until 1995 that Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan, explained the true biological weapons program, and it was partially dealt with. He was, of course lured back to Iraq and then murdered.

The time needed is not the time it takes the inspectors to discover the weapons. They are not a detective agency. We played that game for years in the 1990s. The time is the time necessary to make a judgment: Is Saddam prepared to cooperate fully or not. If he is, the inspectors can take as much time as they want. If he is not, if this is a repeat of the 1990s -- and I believe it is -- then let us be under no doubt what is at stake.

By going down the U. N. route we gave the U.N. an extraordinary opportunity and a heavy responsibility. The opportunity is to show that we can meet the menace to our world today together, collectively and as a united international community.

What a mighty achievement that would be. The responsibility, however, is indeed to deal with it.

The League of Nations also had that opportunity and responsibility back in the 1930s. In the early days of the fascist menace, it had the duty to protect Abyssinia from invasion. But when it came to a decision to enforce that guarantee, the horror of war deterred it. We know the rest. The menace grew; the League of Nations collapsed; war came.

Remember: The U.N. inspectors would not be within a thousand miles of Baghdad without the threat of force. Saddam would not be making a single concession without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him. I hope, even now, Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, with or without Saddam. But if we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, then it will not only be Saddam who is repeating history. The menace, and not just from Saddam, will grow; the authority of the U.N. will be lost; and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody. Yes, let the United Nations be the way to deal with Saddam. But let the United Nations mean what it says; and do what it means.

September 11 didn't just kill thousands of innocent people. It was meant to bring down the Western economy. It did not do so. But we live with the effects of it even today in economic confidence. It was meant to divide Muslim and Christian, Arab and Western nations, and to provoke us to hate each other. It didn't succeed but that is what it was trying to do.

These states developing weapons of mass destruction, proliferating them, importing or exporting the scientific expertise, the ballistic missile technology; the companies and individuals helping them: They don't operate within any international treaties. They don't conform to any rules. North Korea is a country whose people are starving and yet can spend billions of dollars trying to perfect a nuclear bomb. Iraq, under Saddam became the first country to use chemical weapons against its own people. Are we sure that if we let him keep and develop such weapons, he would not use them again against his neighbors, against Israel perhaps? Saddam, the man who killed a million people in an eight-year war with Iran, and then, having lost it, invaded Kuwait? Or the other nations scrabbling to get a foot on the nuclear ladder, are we happy that they do so? And the terrorist groups already using chemical and biological agents with money to spend -- do we really believe that if al-Qaida could get a dirty bomb they wouldn't use it? And then think of the consequences. Already there is fear and anxiety, undermining confidence. Think of the consequences then. Think of a nation using a nuclear device, no matter how small, no matter how distant the land. Think of the chaos it would cause.

That is why Saddam and weapons of mass destruction are important.

So where has it come to? Everyone agrees Saddam must be disarmed. Everyone agrees without disarmament, he is a danger.

No one seriously believes he is yet cooperating fully. In all honesty, most people don't really believe he ever will. So what holds people back? What brings thousands of people out in protests across the world? And let's not pretend, not really, that in March or April or May or June, people will feel different. It's not really an issue of timing or 200 inspectors versus 100. It is a right and entirely understandable hatred of war. It is moral purpose, and I respect that.

It is as one woman put it to me: I abhor the consequences of war.

And I know many in our own party, many here today will agree with her; and don't understand why I press the case so insistently. And I have given you the geopolitical reason -- the threat of weapons of mass destruction and its link with terrorism. And I believe it.

Gary Rust is the chairman of Rust Communications.