Reed resigned in protest at the unfair and blindfolded stance adopted by Blair on Iraq

LONDON, March 9 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The domestic crisis facing British Prime minister Tony Blair intensified Sunday, March 9, after his government suffered its first resignation over the looming threat of war in Iraq.

In protest at the unfair and blindfolded stance adopted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Iraq, Andrew Reed, a Labour MP, confirmed that he was quitting as parliamentary private secretary to Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

In a statement on his website, the MP said he would step down from his post formally Monday, March 10, when he would post a statement at 1200 GMT on his site explaining why.

"I will set out my full reasons for resigning, but I fully support the prime minister in his efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis through the U.N. route and I do not want to do anything that undermines that effort at this stage."

Tony Blair, in effect, faces a wave of government resignations if he commits British troops to a war on Iraq without securing a second resolution, The Telegraph said Sunday.

In addition to Reed, four members of the Government, including two aides to Cabinet ministers, have told the daily that they will quit if Blair opts for war on Saddam without the support of the Security Council.

All parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) also say that they will resign if the Security Council does not back the British position.

The four MPs include Anne Campbell, the PPS to Patricia Hewitt, the Trade Secretary and Michael Jabez Foster, who works with Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General

"I have taken the view that I would find it very difficult to support the Government unless there is a proper U.N. resolution. If it came to war without that I would have to quit," Ms Campbell said.

The fact that members of the Government are prepared to threaten Mr Blair publicly will fuel concerns that senior figures, possibly Cabinet ministers, may also resign in protest. Speculation continues to surround the position of Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, who is considered the most likely of any Cabinet member to quit over the issue.

The resignations, if it happened, would be the most serious blow to Mr Blair's authority since he was elected and could split the Government from top to bottom.

On February 26, nearly 200 out of 659 British parliamentarians voted in favor of a text condemning Prime Minister Tony Blair's position on the Iraq crisis, in an unexpectedly strong attack on plans for a war against Baghdad.

Show Courage, Say No To War, Mr. Blair

Blair’s future at stake with overwhelming majority of Britons opposing war on Iraq

In a “final” message to British Prime Minister Tony Blair trying to convince him not to toe the United States line on Iraq and signalling the prevailing anti-war stance in the country, a leading U.K. newspaper urged Blair to be “genuinely bold” and stand up and be counted.

“There is only one way out of this nightmare: Tony Blair could be genuinely bold. This is his last chance to use his unique position close to the shoulder of President Bush to urge restraint, calm and reason – a cautionary voice that will be even more necessary if there is no second U.N. resolution authorising military action (on Iraq),” said one of Britain’s best-selling newspapers, The Independent, on Sunday.

The daily lashed out the arrogance of the U.S. and the U.K. with President George W. Bush and Blair brushing aside and giving no heed to call of peace and the staunch opposition to their belligerence from the four corners of the world.

“The die is cast. President Bush says he will go to war with or without the backing of the UN. Tony Blair indicates he will support him. The senior UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, asks to be given more time – a few more months at most. His request is brushed aside by the US and the UK governments,” the paper said.

It asserted that Blair and Bush neither had hard evidence nor U.N. authorization to go to war, let alone the fierce anti-war camp inside Britain itself, not to mention Blair’s own part.

“You do not have the evidence. You do not have U.N. approval. You do not have your country's support. You do not have your party's support. You do not have the legal right. You do not have the moral right. You must not drag Britain,” it added.

Although the British people is mindful of the “fact” that their premier is “locked in an alliance with Bush, however, they there is still a glimpse of hope that Blair would give  the war decision second thoughts “on the eve of the military campaign.”

“Yet before he (Blair) leads this country into a conflict it does not want, with consequences too ghastly to contemplate, we urge Blair to reflect again on the motives and justification for a pre-emptive strike unparalleled in modern times. None of the shifting causes for war have been convincing, and are even weaker now, on the eve of a military campaign,” the daily appealed to Blair.

No Evidence On WMD, No Al-Qaeda Link

The Independent further said there is no evidence that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons, or has the means to do so, noting that  weapons inspectors were making significant progress with chief arms inspector Hans Blix reporting that the destruction of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles constituted a "substantial measure of disarmament ... Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

In consequence, the daily said, the U.S. has found out that it starts loosing its case; that is why it started fishing for another pretext for war by linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, arguing that Iraq had a long record of funnelling banned weapons into terrorist organisations.

It also warned that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would fuel international terrorism with the U.S. and its “slavishly” loyal partner, the U.K., being the prime targets.

“There is no evidence of any connection. More widely, there is no evidence that so-called "rogue states" will be ready to hand over their weapons to terrorists. It is just as likely that the states would be fearful of terrorists using the weapons against them. Terrorists around the world must be raising a collective cheer about the war against Iraq,” it said.

It said that war, rather than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, posesIraq poses a threat to the region, averring that Arab states opposed to Saddam were also against the war.

Confused And Incoherent

The respected paper branded Bush and Blair as “confused and incoherent, wondering: “Is the objective to remove the weapons of mass destruction or to remove Saddam?”

“There is no consistency in the war aims,” it asserted.

It said the arguments for regime change in Iraq, while superficially compelling, are a recipe for international anarchy.

“There is a strong case for regime change in North Korea, several Arab states, Israel, Pakistan and China. What if another country decides there is a case for regime change in the U.K.?”

It said Bush and Blair are well determined to go to war  without a second U.N. Security Council resolution and Blair has bluntly said that he will ignore an "unreasonable" veto.

“These statements mean that the current frenzied diplomacy at the U.N. is meaningless. The U.S. and U.K. will go to war whatever happens. The U.N. is being asked by the U.S. and U.K. to endorse war or jeopardise its authority as an international body,” it added.

“There is no boldness in standing shoulder to shoulder with the world's only superpower as it heads for war without a single credible cause. Mr. Blair, you could show genuine courage and accept that some progress is being made without war, without the slaughter of innocent Iraqis. If only he had the will it is Mr Blair, not Saddam, who could stop the rush to war,” it concluded.