One of the great benefits of democracy over totalitarianism is its ability to criticize openly and scrutinize the major decisions of government. If weight of public and political opinion is against a particular decision, there are inevitably dissenters within the machinery of government. Whilst this doesn’t prevent damaging and foolhardy decisions from being made, it does strengthen the hand of these dissenters within the government hierarchy. This usually has the effect of limiting the damage, and speeding up both the reversal of the decision as well as the learning of lessons.
This was apparent in the case of the Iraq war. The public disquiet about the UK invasion of Iraq’s four Southern provinces, and the objections of the UK Liberal Democrats to the war as a whole, did not prevent the war from going ahead, nor the UK’s heavy involvement in it. However, it did serve to limit the depth of UK involvement after the invasion, and as the occupation started to go badly wrong those senior UK military, FCO and MoD officers who were skeptical about the venture were put in a stronger position. For many, of course, the Iraq venture was a travesty of democracy, especially with PM Blair’s reported promise to President Bush to ‘prepare public opinion’ in the UK for the conflict, rather than heed the wishes of the public. Nevertheless, the process through which the UK limited its role and withdrew its troops was a sign of ‘democracy at work’, despite this being a perverse concept for many.
The recent behavior of the UK administration over a potential war with Iran, however, suggests that senior UK security, military and diplomatic officials have chosen to interpret lessons from Iraq in their own special way – to make decision-making less democratic and not to engage with the political class on the matter as far as possible. This head-in-the-sand approach to democracy is a grave error which could backfire catastrophically, and lead to the destabilization of the United Kingdom as a nation-state. Whilst we learnt that the UK monarch praised Gus O’Donnell for holding UK plc together in the economic crisis and for focusing Coalition negotiators on the long term national interest, it is now all about to be undone by the UK’s traditionally pro-Pentagon security establishment over Iran.
The UK has foolishly followed ‘instructions’ from the Pentagon and led the call in Europe to apply general economic sanctions on Iran – an act of dubious legality and outside of the legal UN nuclear sector sanctions. In addition, the UK has sent its new Royal Navy Type 45 ‘stealth destroyer’ HMS Daring, to the waters off the coast of Iran, to join other UK surface and submarine assets.
It is foolish because these steps have been sold to Downing Street as a way to put pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear weapons development – in effect as a substitute for war.
The problem is, these steps and organising a partial global boycott of Iranian oil are a precursor to war and a potential cause of it. This is because the latest November 8th 2011 IAEA report on Iran provides no evidence that Iran has a physical weapons programme, and indeed concurs with the United States multi-agency assessment in 2007 that Iran gave up is embryonic nuclear weapons programme in 2003. What’s more, the US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, very much the White House’s guy, stated only this week that Iran did not currently have an active nuclear weapons programme! One must not forget that Iran has been accused of being ‘nearly there’ with a nuclear weapon since 1984. There are many reasons to ‘pressure’ Iran on a range of matters, but Iran being anywhere near to having a nuclear weapon is not one of them.
Given that US security institutions have persuaded the UK to go along with steps to an unnecessary war, when the US Secretary of Defence (and half the Israeli cabinet, incidentally) is against it, one would expect some dissent in the UK political system.
But there is hardly a whisper. Where is the parliamentary debate ? Where are the anti-war Lib Dem voices? Has the UK Deputy Prime Minister looked past the CNN and BBC spin and actually read the IAEA’s short report? Has the Lib Dem Defence Minister got laryngitis? With hundreds of thousands of lives and the coherence of the UK socially and economically at risk, one would certainly hope so.
* Paul Reynolds works with multilateral organisations as an independent adviser on international relations, economics, and senior governance.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Iain Donaldson
Peter Martin
9 Comments
Sanctions inevitably lead to war? Sounds a bit thin.
Paul,
Like you, I have been wondering why there seems to be so little parliamentary attention to what appears to be a fast escalating crisis in Iran. The parallels with the build-up to the Iraq war are disquieting.
The Mod have stated that:
“The Royal Navy has had a continuous presence East of Suez for many years, including the Armilla patrol and its successors since 1980. While the newly operational Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring is more capable than earlier ships, her deployment East of Suez has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces a frigate on station.”
The government does have a duty to protect British and Commonwealth registered shipping in International waters, so it is hard to see how delaying such a deployment could be justified in the face of a direct threat of closure of the Straits of Hormuz to merchant shipping.
As you note above – there are many reasons to ‘pressure’ Iran on a range of matters, but Iran being anywhere near to having a nuclear weapon is not one of them. Given where we are, I have come to the view, that military escalation is best avoided by refocusing sanctions on the appalling human rights situation on Iran.
Sanctions in respect of the transfer of nuclear technology should remain focused on the nuclear arms issue. Sanctions on military and dual-use technology as well as economic and targeted sanctions on individuals should be directed at the well- documented human rights abuses in Iran. The precedent for such sanctions is the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Turkey has offered to host a meeting in Istanbul of the 5+1 (UN security council and Germany) and Iran. Iran has agreed to a meeting and this could be the venue for making progress with the requests of the IAEA for full access and Iran’s signing of the additional protocol.
As regards the human rights issue, it should be noted that 89 UN members supported the non-binding resolution passed at the end of last year calling on Iran to address this issue. See http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N11/570/99/PDF/N1157099.pdf?OpenElement
Amnesty International’s report “Addicted to Death” is also salient http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/090/2011/en/0564f064-e965-4fad-b062-6de232a08162/mde130902011en.pdf.
If there are significant and serious developments over the next few weeks, prior to the Spring Conference in Newcastle, than an emergency motion along the lines of the following, may be the appropriate way of initiating Liberal Democrat debate on the issue.
Conference believes that a pre-emptive attack on Iran will serve to undermine efforts to secure progress on the implementation of basic civil and human rights in Iran.
Conference calls on the government to:
1. Support and abide by the resolution of the 2011 Annual Congress of the European Liberal Democratic and Reform (ELDR) calling for: UK and European abstention from any pre-emptive military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, subject only to the additional proviso that Iran allow full IAEA access to its nuclear facilities and its signing of the key Additional Protocol
2. Maintain existing sanctions until Iran can establish substantive progress in complying with the promotion and protection of human rights resolution A/C.3/66/L.56, dated 27 October 2011, of the United Nations general assembly.
3. Maintain such British naval and military forces in the Persian Gulf as are considered necessary to ensure the unhindered passage of International shipping through the Straits of Hormuz.
4. Implement the Wassenaar arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies to Iran, in particular, dual use list category 5, part 2, for the export of surveillance technology in respect of equipment and software for executing signals collection from mobile phone systems.
5. Initiate an International conference with the “Five plus One”, that includes the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – plus Germany with a view to establishing a framework for implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions calling for a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
I think you’ve been somewhat misleading regarding what the IAEA report said, and have over-egged the likelihood of war (the effect on oil prices alone would surely deter even the US!).
But I do think this is an extra reason to get rid of the royal prerogative on war as soon as possible. (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16050574)
And for now the more pressing (but related) issue is Syria, isn’t it?
Another sign of the ‘stealth war’ that is building in Iran is that just this week we saw the fourth assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in two years- and don’t forget Stuxnet. This secret campaign is happening with no public debate or scrutiny anywhere in the West.
Delighted to see this article. The party seems to have gone quiet on foreign affairs full stop. No one has said anything about the drone attacks supported by this government on countries we have not declared war on, which violate civil liberties and human rights and stir up anti western sentiment.
One of the reasons so many voted for the LDs was on ethical foreign policy. If we lose this voice aswell, one wonders on what platform the party will be able to attract voters to next time round.
If LibDem ministers do end up going along with a war against Iran that will be the final stake in the heart of the party and the number of MPs we have will once again fit snuggly in the back of a taxi.
My suggestion to those that might say that I have mislead on the IAEA report is to go and read the full report itself. It clearly states that there is no evidence of diversion of any enriched nuclear material. It concurs with the 2007 US NIE that the exploratory weaponisation programme was abandoned in 2003. It also states that it MAY have taken some steps to re-start this, (mostly desk research) but offers no evidence of a physical programme other than some heavily criticized (by a prominent former US Inspector – a hawk) and material given to the IAEA by the US military allegedly extracted ‘from a laptop’ they had found, which lacks credibility in its detail. For those who believe I may have overstated the prospect of war, just recall Iraq. Of course, no two situations are exactly alike. In this case the US Defense Secretary was asked bluntly this week if Iran was actually developing a nuclear weapon, and he said ‘no’ – making more obvious what many of us practitioners have known for a long while, which is that the US is deeply split on the matter, with the Iran hawks (same as the old Iraq hawks largely) seemingly wanting war and Obama and his people (the weaker faction) wanting to avoid war.
If there are those that believe that sanctions of the unilateral US/allies type, (boycott of Iran’s oil and Central Bank), do not point to war, then just consider the Iranian rhetoric over blocking the Straits or Hormuz – which would almost certainly lead to war.
[NB. Neither I nor anyone else suggested that sanctions INEVITABLY lead to war, either with Iran or more generally]. Paul Reynolds
Don’t worry the manifesto couldn’t be clearer and this isn’t some essential compromise to save the economy, as the tuition fees decision was portrayed as.
“The Lib Dem manifesto shows that they’re the only one of the three main parties to explicitly oppose military action against Iran”.
Just read page 68 of your 2010 manifesot:. “[W]e oppose military action against Iran and believe those calling for such action undermine the growing reform movement in Iran.”
.. Another tuition fees fiasco, but this time with 2M marching ? Which LDs will resign first? place your bets.