Robin Cook

Here’s that old anti-war standard again, from Kathryn Flett’s TV Review in the Observer, where she quotes Robin Cook:

‘The real reason [the Government] were keen to take Britain to war was not because they thought Saddam was a threat but because they wanted to demonstrate to George Bush that we were a reliable ally.’

I don’t believe this for a moment. Firstly, given Blair’s support for action in Kosovo, it’s clear that he is by instinct an interventionist. Secondly, this conceit of poodle Blair is tiresome: a position similar to the one Harold Wilson adopted towards the US action in Vietnam would have been perfectly feasible, and Blair as a keen European would have considerably enhanced his position within the EC if he’d come up with some carefully calculated remarks to the effect that while he respected Bush’s keenness to set things right by force, we Europeans had more experience with this sort of thing blah blah. He would also surely have been able to carry his party: a few defectors to the Tories (Ann Clwyd?) wouldn’t have been sufficient to overturn the government’s majority in parliament. But most significantly, it was always clear from his language, from his whole attitude, that this was a course of action Blair felt was right – and I have to say that for me it was refreshing to see a British Prime Minister acting from principle.

I don’t know if Cook still has political ambitions, but I’d imagine he has – he can hardly want to end his parliamentary career as The Embittered Gnome. In which case his comment is deeply cynical. Moreover I don’t think he believes it himself: it seems calculated in a this-will-hurt-Tony-the-most sort of way.

When Labour came to power in 1997 Robin Cook was one of the brightest stars on the new Front Bench. I wouldn’t vote for him now if he was running against Jacques Chirac.

Comments

  1. Peter Briffa Avatar

    Of course he still has political ambitions. He lives and breathes it. Basically he’s manoeuvring just like Heseltine did under Thatcher. The man of principle, an uncompromised alternative to the natural successor ( Brown to Thatcher’s Major ) who, if he fails actually to take over from the PM, will at least be rewarded the eventual winner with a major cabinet post. Chancellor, I imagine.

  2. Paul Craddick Avatar

    I was struck by – if memory serves – a footnote in “Allies” by William Shawcross: Paddy Ashdown noted in his memoirs that Blair, having looked at classified material, was very concerned about Saddam’s capacities and intentions back in ’97.
    Of course, “concern” isn’t the same as being ready to take the nation to war, but from the start Blair seems to have held the view that Saddam was a malevolent brute that had to go.
    That Blair’s concern was raised in 1997 affords an interesting perspective on the matter of intelligence on Iraq allegedly having been “sexed up” in the immediate run-up to the war – it had been the longstanding view of American and British Intelligence that we ought to err on the side of believing that Saddam possessed WMD stockpiles and clandestine programs. At the very least, not to have been gravely concerned in light of this conviction would have entailed gross dereliction of duty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *