|
|
|
|
|
|
British Minister Warns Against Striking Iraq, UN Prepares Refugee Camps
 |
|
Cheney and Blair |
LONDON, March 17 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) – A senior British government minister Sunday joined home and international rejection, and urged London and Washington not to launch military strikes on Iraq, hinting that she would resign if Britain joined the United States in taking such action, news agencies reported.
International Development Secretary Clare Short said military action against Iraq would be "very unwise" and would not solve the problem of Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction.
Short, the most senior British minister to have expressed opposition to any strikes on Iraq, also insisted that any such attacks would have to have UN support.
Washington is believed to be laying the early groundwork for military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime, after identifying the nation as part of an "axis of evil."
"Blind military action against Iraq does not deal with the problem," Short told BBC radio.
"The best thing is to get the UN inspectors back in," rather than "crude military action."
She said that with the Middle East embroiled in perpetual unrest and anger in the Arab world, "to open up a military flank on Iraq would be very unwise.
"We should face up to how serious this is. We cannot put our heads in the sand, but people fear that there's going to be instant mass bombing or something; that won't do either.”
Short's opposition to strikes puts her in a minority in the cabinet, where Blair tends to brook little debate.
He has publicly supported the US portrayal of Iraq as an "evil" regime and, while not specifically guaranteeing British troops, has indicated that London is ready to help "deal with" Saddam.
However, he is under tremendous pressure from within his own party, with Labour backbenchers making up the bulk of more than 100 members of parliament signing a motion declaring "deep unease" over military action.
Robin Cook, the leader of the lower House of Commons, is also thought to be against military action, while Home Secretary David Blunkett has urged caution for fear of an Islamic backlash.
Short hinted that if the government pushed beyond her "bottom line" on the issue, she might resign.
"There are conditions in which I would not be able to support action, but I do not expect them to be proposed.
"I think like that about everything and I think everybody should. It's not that I think my government is going to do the wrong thing but we've all got to have our bottom lines, that's about being a member of the government."
Home Secretary David Blunkett warned Blair that military action in Iraq could provoke serious civil unrest in Britain, the Sunday Telegraph said.
"We cannot separate Iraq from the Middle East or we will have major disturbances both internationally and in Britain," Blunkett said, according to an unnamed senior minister quoted by the daily newspaper.
Muslim leaders backed the suggestion that tensions raised by ongoing violence in the Middle East could lead to rioting in the event of a British attack on Iraq, the paper added.
"Muslim youths were angry and frustrated at the action in Afghanistan. That frustration may lead to further incidents if there is action in Iraq," said Ahtsham Ali, an author of a government report into last year's race riots in Bradford, northern England.
European Commission President Romano Prodi indicated the EU might oppose any eventual U.S. attack on Iraq while stressing it was not being discussed at the weekend's EU summit in Barcelona.
Interviewed by BBC radio on the EU stance's on Iraq, Prodi said from Barcelona: "My position is one of deep worry about a possible attack on Iraq because of the potential expansion of the conflict. It is a very delicate area," he added.
Meanwhile, the U.K. daily newspaper, the Guardian, said Sunday that Britain's military leaders issued a stark warning to Blair that any war against Iraq is doomed to fail and would lead to the loss of lives for little political gain.
"As the debate over whether to commit British troops alongside American forces intensified, the leaders urged 'extreme caution' over any moves towards war, saying servicemen faced being bogged down in a perilous open-ended commitment," the paper said.
The paper said that the government has asked the U.K. for 25,000 personnel to join an invasion force, without being given clear political direction.
"The sources warned that Arab countries were likely to rebel over any Western attack on Iraq without a Middle East peace deal," said the Guardian, adding that Saudi Arabia was unlikely to allow its bases to be used against Saddam Hussein and that without Saudi cooperation, it would be difficult to launch a sustained attack by American and British forces.
The paper quoted senior armed forces figures warning Blair that without a "leader-in-waiting" to take over from Saddam, there is little chance of any successful move to overthrow the Iraqi dictator.
Opposition forces in Iraq are not as strong as they were in Afghanistan, Blair will be told. There seems to be no potential successor to Saddam that the West and Iraq's Arab neighbours could accept.
However, the paper said that according to leaked sources from the Ministry of Defense, the army would need a substantial amount of extra money to take on a new military campaign.
"If the Government expects the forces to take on extra tasks as part of the campaign against terrorism, 'then the resources for those tasks will have to be found'. It is believed that the MoD has asked for £500 million in next month's Budget to pay for its increased commitments," the paper said.
The U.K. government, on the other hand, is already trying to "win hearts and minds" for the second phase of the war on terror, the Guardian said.
Nevertheless, the United Nations is a few steps ahead. In another report published by the paper, the UN is reportedly starting to set up refugee camps on the western Iranian borders in readiness for expected Iraqi refugees who will escape across the border if the U.S. and Britain launch military action against Iraq.
The plan is described as a "contingency plan" and is the first sign that the strikes against Iraq now hold more weight in international consideration.
Pierre Lavanchy, who heads the Tehran office of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) told the Guardian that they've started to prepare for a possible influx.
"We are taking stocks which were in place in south-eastern Iran for refugees from Afghanistan and moving them across the country to be near the border with Iraq."
Expecting nearly 40,000 refugees, the camps are ready with tents and blankets, the supplies include kitchen utensils, plastic sheeting, pots, and jerry cans for water. Food and medicine will be added later this week.
Some diplomats believe, however, the number of refugees could reach 150,000. In previous wars, Saddam Hussein has closed the frontiers and is expected to do the same this time.
However, Lavanchy felt the unlike the situation with Afghanistan, when Iran closed its' borders to keep refugees out, it is expected to open the door to allow Iraqi refugees. "The Iraqi lobby here is much stronger than the Afghan one," he said.
|
|
|
|
