Tony Blair’s post-war tour of Iraq ran into trouble before he had even set foot in the country when his former foreign minister, Robin Cook, served notice that the British prime minister faced a growing crisis over the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction.
Seizing on the ”breathtaking” admission by United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his weapons, Cook issued a blunt warning to the prime minister that he took Britain to war on a false basis.
”Saying that they can’t find the weapons, and they may never find the weapons, blows an enormous, gaping hole through the case for war that was made on both sides of the Atlantic,” Cook said in a TV interview on Wednesday night. ”That has to be investigated — a [House of Commons] select committee is one way of pursuing it.”
As leftwing Labour MPs circled the prime minister, Blair put on a brave face. Speaking during his flight to Kuwait, where he arrived on Wednesday night ahead of his visit to Iraq, Blair insisted that weapons of mass destruction would be found.
Pressed about his pre-war warning that Iraqi weapons could be fired within 45 minutes of an order, Blair appeared to contradict Rumsfeld. ”I have said throughout, and I repeat, I have absolutely no doubt about the existence of weapons of mass destruction.”
Stressing that Britain and the US had a team looking for banned weapons, he appeared to prepare the way for a delay in the hunt when he declared that the priority was humanitarian and political reconstruction.
”They have explored only a few of the potential sites, but we have found two trailers which American and British intelligence believe had been used for the manufacture of biological weapons. I have no doubt they will find such weapons and we will just wait for the report to come out.”
British officials insisted that there was no contradiction between Blair and Rumsfeld because London and Washington agree on two key issues: that Iraq had banned weapons when the United Nations Security Council agreed on Resolution 1441 in November and that Iraq failed to comply with the resolution.
This explanation did not wash with Cook, who said that Rumsfeld’s remarks proved that his own warning on the eve of war — that Iraq did not pose a serious threat — was true. Cook told a British radio station: ”Plainly it did not have such weapons, or they would have found them by now.”
Declaring that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, should have been allowed to carry on with his work, Cook mocked Blair’s claims about the Iraqi threat. ”We were told that Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It is now 45 days since the the war finished and we still have not found anything … We could have avoided this war.”
Peter Kilfoyle, the leftwing former defence minister who has tabled a Commons motion demanding evidence of the existence of banned weapons, was scathing. ”This is absolutely dangerous for Tony Blair,” he said.
”The potential charge is that the House of Commons has been misled.” The row over weapons threatens to cloud the prime minister’s visit to Iraq on Thursday, where he was expected to offer strong personal support for the urgent restoration of Iraqi self-government as the best means of promoting a stable, democratic regime, free from the excessive influence of Iranian-backed theocratic hardliners.
Blair will use the visit to thank British troops for their role in the US-led military campaign and to meet Paul Bremer and John Sawers, the US and United Kingdom civil administrators now struggling to restore normality to Iraq.
As John Major and Margaret Thatcher did in similar circumstances, Blair offered warm words to British troops. He spoke of the need to ”thank the troops because more than any other conflict in recent times this was a very tough conflict. People risked their lives and in some cases lost their lives. So it’s important that I visit the troops and thank them personally.”
Before his plane touched down in Kuwait City, Blair warned Iran not to interfere in its neighbour’s affairs.
Brushing aside speculation about any future US assault on Iran, he said: ”We have established over a couple of years now a dialogue with the Iranian government that we value. But it’s got to be on the basis of some honest talking about what is acceptable and unacceptable.” — Â