Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Revealed: Jack Straw’s Secret Warning to Tony Blair on Iraq
A "secret and personal" letter from Jack Straw, the then foreign secretary, to Tony Blair reveals damning doubts at the heart of government about Blair's plans for Iraq a year before war started.
Jack Straw questioned the justification for the invasion of Iraq in a 2002 letter. (Photograph: Dan Chung) The letter, a copy of which is published for the first time today, warned the prime minister that the case for military action in Iraq was of dubious legality and would be no guarantee of a better future for Iraq even if Saddam Hussein were removed.
It was sent 10 days before Blair met George Bush, then the US president, in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. The document clearly implies that Blair was already planning for military action even though he continued to insist to the British public for almost another year that no decision had been made.
The letter will be a key piece of evidence at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war when it questions Straw this week.
The document begins in a way that now appears eerily prophetic: "The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few ... there is at present no majority inside the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] for any military action against Iraq."
Straw said Iraq posed no greater threat to the UK than it had done previously. The letter said there was "no credible evidence" linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda and that the "threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September".
Implying Blair was already seeking an excuse for war, it warned of two legal "elephant traps". It states "regime change per se is no justification for military action" and "the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required".
The letter went on to question the very objective of military action. Straw warned Blair: "We have also to answer the big question - what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."
Straw said there was "no certainty that the replacement regime will be better" than that of Saddam Hussein.
Despite this warning a year ahead of the war, the planning by Blair and other coalition leaders for the aftermath of war was dismal. Iraq descended into bloody chaos that cost more lives than the war itself.
Straw later wrote a further secret memo in early 2003 again doubting that the case for war had been made.
The release of Straw's letter will pile further pressure on Blair ahead of the former prime minister giving evidence to the inquiry sometime between January 25 and February 5.
The issue of the war remains highly sensitive among the public. A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times this weekend shows that 52% of people believe Blair deliberately misled the country over the war. Almost one in four - 23% - think he should be tried as a war criminal.
The inquiry burst into life last week during tense questioning of Alastair Campbell. Blair's former communications director rejected evidence from Sir Christopher Meyer, former UK ambassador in Washington, that Blair agreed to regime change at the Crawford summit. Campbell claimed the agreement came later in a series of private letters to Bush.
Philippe Sands QC, an expert on the legality of the war, said: "Mr Campbell sought to persuade Chilcot that there was no early decision [on war]: the Straw letter is plainly inconsistent with Mr Campbell's narrative."
In addition, a Cabinet Office briefing paper, previously leaked to The Sunday Times, contradicts Campbell's evidence.
The briefing paper states: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change."
The YouGov poll shows that 49% of people believe Campbell did not tell the truth about the Iraq war at the time and is still not telling the truth, while 31% think he told the truth as he saw it at the time.
Other witnesses appearing before the Chilcot inquiry next week include Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, and Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary. Hoon is expected to be asked about his contribution to a war cabinet meeting in July 2002.
The minutes of the meeting were leaked to The Sunday Times in May 2005 and have since become widely known as "the Downing Street memo". It recorded that "military action was now seen as inevitable in Washington" and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
The memo also refers to Hoon saying that "spikes of activity" had already begun. These were attacks on Iraqi military installations in preparation for the ground invasion. The RAF took part in them.
Additional reporting: Richard Woods
Read it in full: Jack Straw’s Iraq war letter to Tony Blair
SECRET AND PERSONAL PM/02/019 PRIME MINISTER
CRAWFORD/IRAQ
1. The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks are high, both for you and for the Government. I judge that there is at present no majority inside the PLP for any military action against Iraq, (alongside a greater readiness in the PLP to surface their concerns). Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad. Making that case is easy. But we have a long way to go to convince them as to:
(a) the scale of the threat from Iraq and why this has got worse recently:
(b) what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of eg Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action;
(c) the justification for any military action in terms of international law:
and (d) whether the consequence of military action really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government.
2. The whole exercise is made much more difficult to handle as long as conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is so acute.
THE SCALE OF THE THREAT
3. The Iraqi regime plainly poses a most serious threat to its neighbours, and therefore to international security. However, in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly differently from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action (see below).
WHAT IS WORSE NOW?
4. If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnessed on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IRAQ, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA
5. By linking these countries together in this "axis of evil" speech, President Bush implied an identity between them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat. A lot of work will now need to be to de-link the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case - that Iraq poses a unique and present danger - rests on the facts that it:
* invaded a neighbour;
* has used WMD and would use them again;
* is in breach of nine UNSCRs.
THE POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
6. That Iraq is in flagrant breach of international legal obligations imposed on it by the UNSC provides us with the core of a strategy, and one which is based on international law. Indeed, if the argument is to be won, the whole case against Iraq and in favour (if necessary) of military action, needs to be narrated with reference to the international rule of law.
7. We also have better to sequence the explanation of what we are doing and why. Specifically, we need to concentrate in the early stages on:
* making operational the sanctions regime foreshadowed by UNSCR 1382;
* demanding the readmission of weapons inspectors, but this time to operate in a free and unfettered way (a similar formula to that which Cheney used at your joint press conference, as I recall).
8. I know there are those who say that an attack on Iraq would be justified whether or not weapons inspectors were readmitted. But I believe that a demand for the unfettered readmission of weapons inspectors in essential, in terms of public explanation, and in terms of legal sanction for any subsequent military action.
9. Legally there are two potential elephant traps:
(i) regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal. Of course, we may want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends - that of the elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity; but the latter has to be the goal;
(ii) on whether any military action would require a fresh UNSC mandate (Desert Fox did not). The US are likely to oppose any idea of a fresh mandate. On the other side, the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh mandate may well be required. There is no doubt that a new UNSCR would transform the climate in the PLP. Whilst that (a new mandate) is very unlikely, given the US's position, a draft resolution against military action with 13 in favour (or handsitting) and two vetoes against could play very badly here.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY MILITARY ACTION
10. A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient pre-condition for military action. We have also to answer the big question - what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.
11. Iraq has had no history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience.
(JACK STRAW) Foreign and Commonwealth Office 25 March 2002
- Posted in
38 Comments so far
Show AllMillions of people around the world publicly protested the war against Iraq because they didn't believe the lies of the Western World's Leaders. Now, years later, an inquiry attempts to uncover secret documents that may very well
verify that the people were correct and the leaders were
Mis-leaders. Try the Mis-leaders as War Criminals.
Why does the West interfere in the affairs of the Middle East?
The answer seems quite simple: Control of critical natural resources that will enrich the super-rich and reduce the middle and lower classes to misery.
This proves beyond any doubt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was and is a war crime, and that any subsequent acts are crimes against humanity as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court in the Hague. This includes the use of White Phosphorus on purely civilian targets in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. This includes the use of mercenary troops from Xe/Blackwater and others.
In protecting George W. Bush from criminal prosecution, Barrack Obama is now a war criminal. As is every member of the *entire* US government.
In continuing to perpetrate the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, Barrack Obama is a war criminal. As is every member of the *entire* US Government.
In continuing to protect the mercenary corporation Xe/Blackwater from criminal prosecution for acts *proven* to have happened while under US Government contract, including deaths in New Orleans, Barrack Obama is a war criminal. As is every member of the *entire* US government.
For expanding the erroneous and odious 'War on Terror' to Pakistan and Yemen via RPV drone attacks, and continuing the policy to abduct and render to third parties for torture people who are *suspected*, with no corroborating evidence of being 'terrorists', Barrack Obama is a war criminal. As is every member of the *entire* US government.
As is Stephen Harper and the Canadian Government for their part in supporting the invasion and occupation in Afghanistan. As is every Canadian Prime Minister and MP since Jean Cretien.
As is Gordon Brown and the entire British government for it's role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As is Tony Blair.
We now have proof positive, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the invasion of Iraq was a premeditated criminal act. We have the so-called 'smoking gun', and it is in the hands of the George W. Bush presidency.
This makes the governments of the US, UK, and Canada 'rogue states', criminal, and therefore subject to international laws. Any and every loss of personal or civil rights and freedoms under these governments are a violation of basic and internationally recognized Human Rights.
Time to clean house...
...I did say the *ENTIRE* US Government is guilty of war crimes...
Time for an arrest warrant for Bush, Cheney and Obama that is now an accessory after the fact.
It begs the question: why did Straw not resign and go public with this?
Party/career loyalty trumping morality; or was it the example of Robin Cooke?
ALL political parties need to be destroyed.
Let's just call it what it really was PRE-F%#$ING MEDITATED MURDER!
Unaccountable Criminals!
Of course they lied. That's what they do.
Comprising about half of the population, conservative war criminals and their enablers can get away with aggressions like amoral packs of predators living on deceit and greed, but supercharged with lies and delusions.
The British people, as a group, are far more informed and intelligent than the American people. Perhaps, in the twilight years of "The West", they will stand up and actually hold their Leaders accountable for violating International, and Domestic, law. Right before the Spotlight of History moves over to Asia for the next century or so, and there might be very real consequences for now-weak countries having violated International Law (see the case of Pinochet).
If the British convict their War Criminals for their part in the illegal invasion of Iraq, how will the Americans respond ? We know FOX News will not cover the story, but what about CBS, NBC, ABC? Will enough clueless Americans wake up to ask questions about the Cheney/Bush administration, finally? Or has Jimmy "moved on" for good...
>>>The British people, as a group, are far more informed and intelligent than the American people.
Ya think? I don't know if you can make such a statement if you read books such as "Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World" by Mark Curtis, which talks mostly about post-WW-II actions by Britain. And if you go just a little further back to include the actions and plans by people like Winston Churchill, I don't recall anyone being punished for incidents such as the bombing of Dresden or Churchill's readiness to use chemical weapons against "uncivilised tribes". My point is that most people are as ignorant and self-centered everywhere. They won't bother about morality as long as they benefit directly or indirectly from the empire. If anything, it's the British people who are so stuck on tradition - and thus easily manipulated or controlled - because they never question the use of titles such as 'Sir', 'Lord', 'Baroness', etc. - even in the 21st century. The latest commission inquiring into the Iraq War is made mostly of such characters. So I'm not holding my breath to see the conviction of any war criminals. And don't forget that Tony Blair was considered as a strong candidate for the presidency of the European Union just recently.
Look at how the two societies are educated:
OECD/PISA Study on Reading Literacy, Mathematical Literacy, Scientific Literacy:
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment
Reading:
UK 7th, US 15 out of 31 countries.
Mathematics:
UK 8th, US 19th out of 31 countries.
Science:
UK 4th, US 14th out of 31 countries.
And as the slacker U.S. children grow, they become uninformed adults:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?lb=bte&pnt=187&nid=&id=
World Public Opinion on Climate Change: A Serious Problem or Not ?
21% of Americans say "Not Serious", higher than any other country in the poll.
Great Britain only had 8% dullards answering, the average of all countries.
Even Turkish citizens are more informed on this issue.
But hey, if it helps you get through the day by thinking that the British are just as dumb as Americans, do what you have to... just don't try to *prove* that "The American people, as a group, are far more informed and intelligent than the British people."
And remember, as a country gets weaker, they become more interested in Justice.
Perhaps the informed, intelligent Brits will do the right thing with their war criminals *this* time.
What is it about some Americans and the obsessive hate over those titles?
Many European countries still have retain constitutional monarchies, and titles, and yet, have far greater income equality, far more equal distribution of wealth than the US. The Bushes, the Kennedys, the Gores, and many many others, the millionaire senators, the millionaire members of the House, might not have titles, but they are in many cases far more priveleged than Brits with titles. You can't get into the Senate unless you are a (multi) millionaire.
And guess what, tradition can be a good thing. Would you happily throw away the tradition of innocent until proven guilty, the tradition of habeas corpus, traditions which both Americans and Brits have thrown away.
Certainly most people are self-centered everywhere. But, only the people of a large and powerful empire are more self-centered than others, since they are far more likely to be benefiting both directly and indirectly from the empire, and have more opportunity to impose their self-centeredness on others.
Many European countries may retain constitutional monarchies, but they don't pretend to be an empire at the head of a commonwealth. Most have accepted the fact that they are just another country in Europe, irrespective of their past glory - real or imagined. When I mentioned titles, I was referring to the psychology behind the titles - it's a form of manipulation, a tool for control, although I'm not sure how effective it is in these days. France, though not a monarchy, still awards the title 'Chevalier' - but you don't see too many people using it with their names.
Since you bring up "income equality", and "distribution of wealth", I suggest that you try Googling "Who Owns Britain" (including the "quotes"). You'll see a murky picture and some astounding numbers. It's not *my* problem - but there it is.
BTW, why do you have to assume that anyone criticizing Britain or other European countries has to be defending what the USA does? Can't one have more or less equal contempt for all such countries? I just happen to like pointing out that when it comes to arrogance, stupidity and imperialist agenda, the USA is not alone - a fact that many seem to forget. Every nation has contributed something good throughout history. It's the sum total of what it has done that matters. Some countries that have a dark past seem to have chosen a more humble path, while some haven't learned much from history. The book by Mark Curtis I referred to in my previous post lists some "interesting" episodes and builds a case that the imperialist agenda is still alive and well.
Have you EVER been to any Commonwealth country? No one in Commonwealth countries views Britain as the Colonial master, and their countries as part of the Brit empire. Not to mention that membership is voluntary. Take Pakistan. A commonwealth country. Which is the imperialist power in Pakistan? UK or US? Take India. Another commonwealth country. Singapore. Etc.
And you have forgotten France and its policy of Francafrique, which is definitely very imperialist.
"Since you bring up "income equality", and "distribution of wealth", I suggest that you try Googling "Who Owns Britain" (including the "quotes"). You'll see a murky picture and some astounding numbers. It's not *my* problem - but there it is."
And compared to America? I'm hardly suggesting that Britain is some socialist paradise. I'm saying that the titles don't matter as much as you think they do. What matters is wealth. None of the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Gores or the Kerrys or McCains or Clintons have titles. They are just as much Earls and Dukes and Princes of the US as some titled European.
THe GINI coefficient, a measure of income inequality used by the UN, for the US, is at 46, on a scale of 100, according to the US cencus. The higher the number, the greater the income inequality. UK is in the high 30s, precise number varies according to different sources. In many European countries with monarchies and titles, high 20s, low 30s.
You need to get over the American Independence War obsession over European titles.
"BTW, why do you have to assume that anyone criticizing Britain or other European countries has to be defending what the USA does? Can't one have more or less equal contempt for all such countries?"
Of course the Brits, and the French (who always escape scrutiny in the anglo world, even though their Francafrique policy is definitely very much imperialist, read some Le Monde Diplomatique) are no saints. They all have imperialist ambitions. As does China, which never gets enough criticism. But intentions and actions differ. Having imperialist ambitions, but not enough money and not enough military power to do much about those ambitions, which is the case with the Brits and the Russians, IS different from having imperialist ambitions, and actually acting out those ambitions.
Don't forget to go after Yoo, Addington, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rummy, and other masterminds behind these war crimes.
Somehow, it saddens me to find this story presented front-and-center with an oversized headline.
Even if one discounts what discerning citizens could see at the time the pretexts for the illegal invasions of Iraq (and Afghanistan) were first touted, the "Downing Street memos" reeked of gunsmoke.
Only the stupid or complacent could still defend the invasion(s); the fact that Bush and Blair pulled one lie after another out of their (and each other's) asses is common knowledge otherwise.
And no one in authority ANYWHERE has so much as a scintilla of inclination or motivation to formally pursue the ethical and legal ramifications of the growing body of evidence substantiating what many of us knew to be true all along.
This belated revelation feels like salt in an infected wound.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I have to agree with His Obedient Servant. What is meant by "legally dubious" in this context is essentially that invading Iraq, while not ILLEGAL, may not be entirely LEGAL. It is in that murky grey area, where it is neither legal nor illegal. It may be an unprovoked war of aggression based on outright lies, but then again, it is being perpetrated by the US and the UK who are allowed to do whatever they want, therefore it's rather dubious.
Legally Dubious...
They knew invading Iraq was clearly illegal.
But they also knew they had a sufficient lock-grip on the media and therefore their propaganda would shield them from any legal consequences.
Time is on the side of "poetic" justice to find it's mark. I find it apalling that even in this memo there is no mention of the fact that USA is going in to get the oil.
(maybe this was SO obvious that it would go unmentioned)
The fact remains that generations after all the oil has been drunk, children in the middle east will be born deformed, cancers will bloom and people will still be suffering for our taste for uranium bullets.
No wonder the powers that be, keep insisting that the world is ending. With the apocolypse as their organizing principal, all their sick crimes are a fait accompli.
Compassion requires a powerful imagination, Who will know the true shame of our actions and inactions? Will anyone put the pieces together? WIll we be remembered for our cruelty? our greed? our stupidity or our laziness? Time will tell.
Straw tells us what American hegemony requires and seeks around the world. "Enemies" are those not compliant with American and world capitalist interests. So indeed Straw does point this out when he states:
"(d) whether the consequence of military action really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government."
He is of course questioning whether a war would bring this about. But he certainly knows what the real goals are for American hegemony.
It wasn't about the oil. Without sanctions, Iraq would gladly sell its oil to whomever was willing to purchase it. What couldn't be allowed to exist is a regime that refused to follow the neoliberal economic path and be compliant within the capitalist world system. Cuba has no oil, but it has been an "enemy" of the USA for decades. Saudi Arabia has oil but isn't an "enemy" because it is compliant. etc, etc, etc.
We won't be remembered at all. Scum like Tony Blair, George Wanker Bush and Obama will be as forgotten as last night's dream. The human being has so many deep seated and monstrously destructive faults and weaknesses that they are bound to finish us off. The means to do this now exist. As any vampire might tell you, time is an abyss. The human stain will disappear; millions of years will pass and other life forms will come to dominate.
I think this article is way too generous to Jack Straw. First of all, I'd put this CYA letter into context of all his other super-secret memos, speeches, etc.. Secondly, if you read the entire letter it sounds more like a recitation of obstacles in the road to war rather than a warning against. Finally, while I do remember another memo becoming public with the Downing Street Memo, in which somebody who's name I can't recall DID explicitly warn members of the British government that they might not be protected from charges of war crimes, it sure as hell wasn't Jack Straw.
This is prep work for Straw's appearance this week.
AGG, I notice you address "yohocoma", but there is no comment by yohocoma on the entire thread-- it's now 11:58 ET. Does this mean that some comments are removed without the new message confirming that they've been removed for violating site policy?
I can't help but wonder.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obedient Servant, I noticed that too. I was going to add another comment about Omaha and 9/11: I remember reading about the charity golf event (yearly, but 2001 was the last one) organized by Warren Buffett in the book "Snowball" (Buffett's biography?), and that some big shots happened to be there on 9/11. At least one of them (or maybe more) should have been at the WTC otherwise. Bush was also flown from Florida to Bellevue, which is just next door to Omaha. To me, this part of 9/11 could be just coincidence since I don't know any better, and also since I can't bring myself to doubt Warren Buffett on this one (my impression about him comes basically from his stance on the estate tax, and the fact that he gave most of his money away for charity without putting his name on it, despite him being the epitome of capitalism). Then I remembered the last time comments were removed wholesale and thought, why bother.
"The heart of this case - that Iraq poses a unique and present danger - rests on the facts that it:
* invaded a neighbour;
* has used WMD and would use them again;
* is in breach of nine UNSCRs."
By this logic, the U.S. should be invading Israel now.
Clearly Bush, Blair and British Petroleum are on the hook for repairs and reparations.
In the dock for capital crimes too.
Jack Straw give me a break. Here is the man who oversaw extra-ordinary rendition who befriends and protects 'British interests' in Uzbeckistan and who is a slime establishment figure. As for all the rest, depleted uranium and her majesty's forces lets just take note of this. Gaza Strip!
Obama is not only covering up for these criminals but also committing new war crimes himself.
Will Lesser Evilists and Dem Party Apologists ever learn?
"Legally dubious," gotta love these euphemisms.
These guys invaded a sovereign nation without provocation to steal its resources and open it up to Western multinational corporations, murdering hundreds of thousands in the process and ravaging its infrastructure.
Wholesale torture, plundering, pollution and destruction, and they call it "legally dubious." How about "utterly criminal"?
Glad to see someone (AGG) mention the PNAC in this thread. The document that cabal prepared ("Strategies For Rebuilding America's Defenses") is all you need to have to understand the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and everything else that the Bush regime was about. It was a script that they deviated from but very little.
Oil, yes, though they were savvy enough not to draw too much attention to that reality. Repositioning our first response military forces into that region was (I believe) their prime objective. That they could also turn Iraq into a sort of privatization theme park would be a bonus to having such a large foreign occupation force stationed there. Most of the worst radical "free enterprise" whackos had millions of dollars funneled into their efforts to privatize every aspect of Iraqi life. A grand experiment upon a captive and broken nation to create a presage of the future envisioned by these murderers.
At the time all of this was going on, much of this was revealed here on CD and fully discussed and debated.
The theme park will not be built. The Bush cabal's reach exceeded their grasp, yet as the global economy continues to "underperform" the hunger pangs grow in Mammon's belly.
The worst is yet to come.
I suppose I am belaboring the obvious, but the division between "compliant" and "law-abiding" is instructive. Clearly, "compliant" did not mean complying to law, but to England, the "West" in general, or some similar unnamed entity.
Well, like THE TWILIGHT ZONE, this was news in the '50's -- but it's nice to see that it's unraveling and nice the Times is willing to tug at a thread, at least a bit.