SHE HAS FOOLED MANY, THIS TIME, LIKE POODLE, THE MONGREL IS GONNA FOOL NOBODY NO MORE!!!!!!

The war of Clare's ego



There is some confusion about what to make of the extraordinary stunt pulled by UK international development secretary Clare Short on 9 March 2003, when she accused prime minister Tony Blair of being 'reckless' in his strategy over Iraq and announced her intention to resign if Britain went to war without a second UN resolution.


Some, like Alice Mahon, a long-term Labour backbench anti-war campaigner, greeted the attack as 'hugely significant', and an expression of principle. 'We have been subjected to quite a lot of misinformation, dodgy dossiers and black propaganda about the reasons for this war', she told BBC News on 10 March. 'Clare Short must know where many of those bodies are buried.' (1)


But Mahon herself has not always been so confident in Short's conviction. Just a few weeks ago, when asked if she was disappointed that Short had not yet resigned, Mahon said: 'I never ever in a million years thought that Clare Short would give up her job for this war or any other…. I think most of us realise that Clare will do anything to keep the position that she's in.' (2)


So what has pushed Short to take a stand now? More to the point - what's this stand about? It's certainly not to do with political principle, or being anti-war.


Clare Short is no stranger to resigning. She gave up her position as a front-bench Opposition MP during the first Gulf War of 1991, which was led by Conservative prime minister John Major. Short resigned in opposition to the Labour Party's support for the allied bombing campaign - but she was never opposed to Western intervention in Iraq. 'It's the nature of the bombing that I'm worried about. People not having water and food. It's got nothing to do with the liberation of Kuwait', she said back then (3). Short, of course, preferred the sanctions route - death by slow starvation to the people of Iraq.


(Although it should be noted that, even then, there was a strong element of 'me' to her anti-war stance. Denying any principal differences with the Labour leadership's support for the all-party consensus on the war, she said: 'This is about me being silenced. All decent people are worrying and agonising about this war.') (4)

Those at the heart of the government are using the war to express broader disaffection

Fast-forward a few years, and Short had turned into a hawk - at the forefront of NATO's military intervention in the Balkans. 'The truth is this is a war. Wars are vile', she said - but that wasn't the point, because for Short, NATO's war against the Serbs in Kosovo was against 'an evil, monstrous regime that has caused a terrible war and displacement, raping and killing people in Bosnia' (5).


The Kosovo war of intervention, for Short, was 'a challenger for our generation. We must do what is right otherwise evil will triumph, Europe will have fascism back in it and all the instabilities that will lead to increasing conflict'. 'We've got to do what is right and we will do it', she said in 1999 (6). One wonders if Blair borrowed her notes for his recent statements on Iraq.


Short's transition from the dove of the first Gulf War to the hawk of the Balkans has prompted some commentators to try to find some logic. In one reasonably perceptive comment, published in the Daily Telegraph in 2001, right-leaning Robert Harris summed up the 'Short Doctrine' as holding that 'it is perfectly acceptable for Britain and America to intervene with massive force against a repressive regime…provided that we have no vital strategic interests in the area', whereas it is unacceptable to intervene against a similarly repressive regime if there is a clear Western interest in doing so. (In this case, Harris was talking about America's retaliation to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.) (7)


But Harris credits Short with too much consistency. After all, she has only just started opposing war on Iraq - and she's not even really doing that.


The UK Guardian's website has a handy record of how UK politicians have voted in key parliamentary votes:
In March 1998, there was a vote to allow UK military action against Iraq if a peace bid failed. Clare Short voted for.


In November 2001, there was a rebel vote against the UK government's backing for air strikes on Afghanistan. The rebels voted for; Short voted against.


In September 2002, there was a vote on an emergency Iraq debate in the House of Commons. Rebels voted against a procedural motion to adjourn the house following the emergency recall of parliament. Short did not vote.


In November 2002, parliament voted on UN resolution 1441. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment limiting justification for war with Iraq without further UN sanction. Rebels voted for the amendment; Short did not vote.


On 26 February 2003, MPs voted on an anti-war amendment in the Iraq debate, tabled by former Cabinet minister Chris Smith and Tory MP Douglas Hogg. Rebels voted in favour; Short voted against. (8)
Not much of a record, then, for somebody who has suddenly chosen to style herself as an anti-war rebel. Especially when you consider that Short is not planning to resign if there is a war - only if there is a war that the United Nations does not formally support. Especially when you consider that she was only provoked to make this bold gesture after a swathe of minor parliamentary aides - whom Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn scathingly terms the 'pygmies' in 'the Ministry of Paper Clips' (9) - threatened resignation first. Whatever prompted Short to ring up the BBC on Sunday night with the bombshell of her threatened resignation, deliberately bypassing the prime minister or any other method of political accountability, it wasn't a principled stance against war on Iraq. It looks more like a personal statement - not by a Cabinet minister about the war, but about Clare Short by Clare Short. And while she might be going against her own party, in this she is merely following a broader political trend.


From the Labour MPs furiously voting for 'Not yet' amendments on Iraq to the insignificant aides making a name for themselves through talking up their intended self-sacrifice, it seems that all are echoing that ubiquitous slogan of today's so-called anti-war movement: 'Not in my name.'


This is not political leadership, but its opposite

Just as the members of the public who protest on the streets of London are fuelled as much by their distrust of politicians and disengagement from politics as they are by any concerns about the fate of Iraq, so those at the heart of the government seem to be using the war to express their broader disaffection. The message is, 'You may be in my party, I may have dedicated my life to serving the government, but you don't speak for me. Only I speak for me'. Which is disturbing, to say the least.


It is bad enough that certain sections of the public to feel disengaged from politics, and to express their frustration and alienation by abdicating all responsibility for whatever the government does. 'Not in my name', 'Not yet', and 'We need the UN' are all expressions of this. But when those in the government start singing from the same hymn sheet, one has to ask: where does the buck stop, exactly?


When even a Cabinet minister is so ill-prepared to take responsibility for the actions of a government of which she is supposed to be a part, preferring to broadcast her personal objections across the UK media instead of fighting them out with her colleagues, this is not political leadership, but its opposite. It is a self-conscious abdication of responsibility, for the sake of an individual ego.


There's nothing brave or admirable about the likes of Clare Short attacking the government from within. What public life needs are more people prepared to fight, to lead, and to take responsibility, and fewer moral cowards looking to nurse their gripes in public.
 http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DCC5.htm