posted on the web on March 16 2003

Country Data

Full Name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Capital: London Population: 59,778,002 (2002 est.) Location: Europe Total area: 244,820 sq km Language: English Ethnic groups: English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8% Religions: Anglican 44%, Roman Catholic9% Currency: British Pound IGO memberships: G-8, EU, NATO, UN, UNSC, WHO, WTO Internet site: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Source: CIA World Factbook, Spiegel Jahrbuch

Iraq is definitely the buzzword at the moment and no matter who you talk to in bonny Scotland, you know they’ll have an opinion on the apparently imminent war in the Persian Gulf.

Of course, we are not entirely isolated from the American stance on this war, given that nearly 20% of our students come from ‘over the pond’. However, one of the startling things about the students from the USA is that they are almost entirely pro-war: not in keeping with my observations of general opinion in the US. I can only assume that in a foreign land, they feel the need to justify their nation’s actions and that is understandable, given the amount of hostility they receive from many people.

As a founding member of the United Nations, the UK is morally responsible for its survival and that goes a long way to explain Tony Blair’s anxious attempts at working within a UN framework. What is not so clear is why Blair shows little backbone in telling President Bush when he is wrong. It is perplexing that despite the highly intelligent and experienced cabinet behind Bush, he was still so ill advised as to deliver his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, possibly the worst diplomatic move since the Kaiser’s interview with the Daily Telegraph (1908). It appears as though this alone may have landed the US and its allies in the predicament of having to deal with Iraq, North Korea and possibly Iran all at once. Yet even before this blunder is resolved, Rumsfeld sends a right hook straight into the jaw of his NATO allies with the ‘Old Europe’ speech. All this forms the image of US foreign policy in the UK. Is it any wonder some are sceptical of a war?

Of course, the UK is certainly not without faults of its own, what with the government’s hailed dossier on Iraq being a ‘cut-and-paste’ operation from some poor postgraduate’s dissertation and the charge that the government helped to build an Iraqi chemical plant in the 1980s despite having been advised that it may be converted for weaponisation programmes. Maybe this is why there is also a certain tolerance of the US executive. Either way, the Blair administration - to coin a phrase - is firmly set on the path to war and no volume of public protest is going to change that.

So why the erratic reaction to US policy amongst the UK population? It all centres on the British split personality. We are largely Euro-sceptic. It feeds our primordial urges to cheer at tabloids portraying Chirac as a slimy invertebrate and rejuvenates us to be seen once again as a ‘Big Boy’ on the international stage, with Europe being tossed aside as a relic. However, this is short-term euphoria, which ebbs away given the seriousness of the international situation. Our other side is more rational. We question why anyone should be able to choose the political ideology of another country, or who has the right to overthrow - even less murder - a head of state. We also shed a tear for those wretched poverty-stricken Iraqis, who have experienced nothing but war and persecution, whilst we continue to adorn ourselves with expensive cars and jewellery. It’s ‘Id’ versus ‘Ego’ and we just can’t decide.

Country Data

Full Name: Republic of Iraq Capital: Baghdad Population: 24,001,816 (2002 est.) Location: Middle East Total area: 437,072 sq km Language: Arabic Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20% Religions: Muslim 97% Currency: Iraqi dinar IGO memberships: UN, WHO Internet site: Iraq.net Source: CIA World Factbook

Of course, the real blunder in this episode is that the job should have been finished first-time round. It was twelve years after the close of the Gulf War and four years after the weapons inspectors left Iraq that the cogs began to turn again. The case for war was no different than it had been for the past decade. As the UN was brought into the argument, more excuses were needed to persuade the ever-growing number of nations involved that something extraordinary had occurred to spark an offensive stance against Iraq after all this time. It was a mistake to use the ‘War on terror’ and the ‘moral argument’ as excuses for a war - they only allowed more counter arguments to enter the arena.

The fact is, Saddam Hussein is a ruthless but intelligent man. You need only look at his ability to climb the ranks of the Ba’ath Party to see that. He flaunts his ability to evade international scrutiny and exploits the rules that constrain the UN, whilst ignoring them himself. He is a modern day tyrant who should be stopped and it is puzzling why the international organisation that sprung from defeating such a tyrant fifty years ago made no provisions for - in fact restrained itself from - preventing a similar crisis in the future. President Bush Snr. had the - albeit fragile - support of the world during the Gulf War and should have foreseen that opposition to a regime change in Iraq would only grow as time passed. It is this negligence, or perhaps optimism that led to our current crisis.

Whilst I can’t say that I speak for all British citizens, I would suggest that many would agree with my argument that Hussein is the bad guy, but as for a resolution to the crisis, there is no such homogeneity. I suppose its befitting of a nation that is rich in cultural diversity and at least at present bridging the gap between Europe and America.

Richard Allen is a student at the University of St. Andrews, UK.