- 18 Mar 2003 07:44
#3375
Robin Cook's career, (Labour MP in the UK)
He first entered Parliament as MP for Edinburgh Central in 1974. Since 1983 Robin
Cook has been MP for Livingston. He has held the following posts in Parliament:
Opposition Spokesman, Treasury and Economic Affairs 1980-83.
Opposition Spokesman, European and Community Affairs 1983-84.
Opposition Spokesman, Health and Social Security 1987-89. Shadow Health
Secretary 1989-92. Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary 1992-94.
Shadow Foreign Secretary 1994-97. Foreign Secretary 1997-2001.
Leader of the House of Commons 2001 - .
Cook quits with attack on Iraq policy
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/s ... 98,00.html
Commons ovation for Robin Cook as he quits cabinet and rounds on Blair and United States
Michael White, political editor
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
Robin Cook last night let rip months of frustration with Tony Blair's Iraq policy when he used his cabinet resignation speech to warn colleagues that "history will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations" which now look certain to bring war in a matter of days.
In a sustained demolition job on the prime minister's strategy, which earned him a rare standing ovation and clapping from anti-war MPs, the ex-leader of the House praised the absent Mr Blair's "heroic efforts" and said he wants no part in attempts to overthrow him.
But, in urging the Commons to assert its authority by voting tonight to block British involvement in a war "that has neither international authority nor domestic support" Mr Cook challenged American motives - and warned that "we delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action" if Britain simply blames the threatened French veto at the UN.
The international development secretary, Clare Short, announced that she would be "reflecting overnight" on whether to join Mr Cook on the rebellious Labour backbenches where he spoke last night for the first time in 23 years.
Mr Cook slipped into No 10 to see Mr Blair before yesterday's emergency cabinet meeting which followed the announcement that Britain and the US had formally abandoned the search for UN support.
He later left by a side door, £70,000 a year poorer, to issue a statement regretting Anglo-US isolation in the war against terrorism and Mr Blair's isolation from other leftwing par ties in Europe. Mr Cook also took issue with the prime minister's jibe, in his letter of thanks for years of hard work and friendship, that as foreign secretary he had backed the war in Kosovo without a UN vote. That war was supported "by Nato, the EU" and Serbia's neighbours, he pointed out.
"In principle, I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support," the former foreign secretary explained in his letter of resignation. Unilateralism is not in Britain's interests, he believes.
Downing Street said he signalled last week he would quit.
But the long-awaited break sounded alarm bells ahead of today's Commons debate on the crisis which critics say will increase last month's rebellion from 122 Labour MPs to over 150, and will more trigger resignations.
A full scale damage-limitation exercise under way last night included an article in today's Guardian by former US president, Bill Clinton, urging Labour MPs to trust Mr Blair. That plea neutralised one of Mr Cook's claims: that if the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, had beaten George Bush in 2000 there would be no crisis today.
At Westminster, senior ministers including Gordon Brown, and Jack Straw - who made an hour-long statement to MPs - called in their backbench waverers to pile blame on President Jacques Chirac's "in no circumstances" veto of the second UN reso lution.
In what may be a crucial get-out for some MPs, Lord Irvine, the lord chancellor, told the cabinet it had always been a politically-driven exercise at the UN, not one that was needed legally before going to war. Though it was backed yesterday by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, that claim is hotly disputed.
Significantly, Mr Brown and home secretary David Blunkett - the most likely contenders for Mr Blair's job if the road to Baghdad ends in unexpected military disaster - also went out of their way to stress support for the prime minister at a cabinet that was solidly behind the policy except for Ms Short's well-publicised doubts.
Though some ministers are amazed or amused that Ms Short is even hesitating about resigning after calling Mr Blair's policy "reckless", huge efforts have been made to address her concerns, including a UN role in rebuilding Iraqi society and a significant Bush-Blair commitment to justice for the Palestinians.
Mr Cook, speaking with "a heavy heart," stressed the failure of the drive to win a second United Nations resolution.
Why I had to leave the cabinet
This will be a war without support at home or agreement abroad
Robin Cook
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us
I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.
The harsh 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 member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
Britain is not a superpower. 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 war without a single shot yet being fired.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in 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 the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.
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? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.
I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support.
· Robin Cook was, until yesterday, leader of the House of Commons.
He first entered Parliament as MP for Edinburgh Central in 1974. Since 1983 Robin
Cook has been MP for Livingston. He has held the following posts in Parliament:
Opposition Spokesman, Treasury and Economic Affairs 1980-83.
Opposition Spokesman, European and Community Affairs 1983-84.
Opposition Spokesman, Health and Social Security 1987-89. Shadow Health
Secretary 1989-92. Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary 1992-94.
Shadow Foreign Secretary 1994-97. Foreign Secretary 1997-2001.
Leader of the House of Commons 2001 - .
Cook quits with attack on Iraq policy
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/s ... 98,00.html
Commons ovation for Robin Cook as he quits cabinet and rounds on Blair and United States
Michael White, political editor
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
Robin Cook last night let rip months of frustration with Tony Blair's Iraq policy when he used his cabinet resignation speech to warn colleagues that "history will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations" which now look certain to bring war in a matter of days.
In a sustained demolition job on the prime minister's strategy, which earned him a rare standing ovation and clapping from anti-war MPs, the ex-leader of the House praised the absent Mr Blair's "heroic efforts" and said he wants no part in attempts to overthrow him.
But, in urging the Commons to assert its authority by voting tonight to block British involvement in a war "that has neither international authority nor domestic support" Mr Cook challenged American motives - and warned that "we delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action" if Britain simply blames the threatened French veto at the UN.
The international development secretary, Clare Short, announced that she would be "reflecting overnight" on whether to join Mr Cook on the rebellious Labour backbenches where he spoke last night for the first time in 23 years.
Mr Cook slipped into No 10 to see Mr Blair before yesterday's emergency cabinet meeting which followed the announcement that Britain and the US had formally abandoned the search for UN support.
He later left by a side door, £70,000 a year poorer, to issue a statement regretting Anglo-US isolation in the war against terrorism and Mr Blair's isolation from other leftwing par ties in Europe. Mr Cook also took issue with the prime minister's jibe, in his letter of thanks for years of hard work and friendship, that as foreign secretary he had backed the war in Kosovo without a UN vote. That war was supported "by Nato, the EU" and Serbia's neighbours, he pointed out.
"In principle, I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support," the former foreign secretary explained in his letter of resignation. Unilateralism is not in Britain's interests, he believes.
Downing Street said he signalled last week he would quit.
But the long-awaited break sounded alarm bells ahead of today's Commons debate on the crisis which critics say will increase last month's rebellion from 122 Labour MPs to over 150, and will more trigger resignations.
A full scale damage-limitation exercise under way last night included an article in today's Guardian by former US president, Bill Clinton, urging Labour MPs to trust Mr Blair. That plea neutralised one of Mr Cook's claims: that if the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, had beaten George Bush in 2000 there would be no crisis today.
At Westminster, senior ministers including Gordon Brown, and Jack Straw - who made an hour-long statement to MPs - called in their backbench waverers to pile blame on President Jacques Chirac's "in no circumstances" veto of the second UN reso lution.
In what may be a crucial get-out for some MPs, Lord Irvine, the lord chancellor, told the cabinet it had always been a politically-driven exercise at the UN, not one that was needed legally before going to war. Though it was backed yesterday by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, that claim is hotly disputed.
Significantly, Mr Brown and home secretary David Blunkett - the most likely contenders for Mr Blair's job if the road to Baghdad ends in unexpected military disaster - also went out of their way to stress support for the prime minister at a cabinet that was solidly behind the policy except for Ms Short's well-publicised doubts.
Though some ministers are amazed or amused that Ms Short is even hesitating about resigning after calling Mr Blair's policy "reckless", huge efforts have been made to address her concerns, including a UN role in rebuilding Iraqi society and a significant Bush-Blair commitment to justice for the Palestinians.
Mr Cook, speaking with "a heavy heart," stressed the failure of the drive to win a second United Nations resolution.
Why I had to leave the cabinet
This will be a war without support at home or agreement abroad
Robin Cook
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us
I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.
The harsh 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 member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
Britain is not a superpower. 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 war without a single shot yet being fired.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in 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 the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.
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? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.
I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support.
· Robin Cook was, until yesterday, leader of the House of Commons.
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Saeko
- By Tainari88
- By MistyTiger