UK - Ex-GM Minister on Iraq War - World's big problem is the US

"[Getting rid of a murderous regime in Iraq] was not the reason why we went to war. My view is that we went to war because America wanted to establish a political and military platform in the Middle East, it saw a need for oil and of course it wished to support Israel. Weapons of mass destruction, if they existed, even on the most threatening predictions, were certainly not going to put Europe or the US at risk. But Tony Blair took the view that if you are a close ally you have more influence than if you are a protagonist.
That is a view which still prevails. The problem is that Bush is not
Clinton. The biggest political problem in the world today is the
overwhelming power of the US. That is very serious for the world order. How
you deal with an aggressive unilateralist like America is a problem for us
all, but there are no easy answers. My view is that we should not get too
close to America. It is an important friend and ally, but in the end we
should make our judgments about where the public interest lies and we should
take note of public opinion in that as well.”
Michael Meacher, UK Government Environment Minister with responsibility for
GMOs sacked by Tony Blair June 2003
London Times, 20 June 2003 (full report below)
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-719747,00.html

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on
terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure. Counterterrorism
is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and
defense. The Bush administration is primarily offense. I continue to be
puzzled by [the Iraq] war. Why was it such a policy priority?"
National Security Council's senior director for counter-terrorism, Rand
Beers, who resigned from the Bush Administration March 2003
Washington Post, 16 June 2003
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2003Jun15.html?nav=hpto
p_tb

" [In the White House] It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is
an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to
prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity
about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost
agenda."
Rand Beer's wife
Washington Post, 16 June 2003
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2003Jun15.html?nav=hpto
p_tb

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
 nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
Tearing Down Biotech's 'Berlin Wall'
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/genomicsparadigm.htm
The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsantoMASpossibilities.htm
============================================================================
=
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-719747,00.html
London Times,
June 20, 2003

World's big problem is the US, says Meacher
By Tom Baldwin

WORLD peace and the future of the planet are threatened by the overwhelming
power of an “aggressive and unilateralist America” run by a right-wing
President with close connections to the oil industry.

Such is the view of Michael Meacher, who until being sacked, or “liberated”
as he put it, in last week’s reshuffle had spent six years as Environment
Minister. During his period in office he was described as Tony Blair’s green
fig leaf, a lone voice supporting environmental policies or even the last
Bennite in government.

In an interview with The Times, Mr Meacher insisted that none of this was
really true. He is his own man and a supporter of the Prime Minister and of
a Government that has worked as a team since coming to power to “embed a
fresh approach to sustainable development”.

His charity does not, however, extend across the Atlantic to George Bush,
with whom Mr Blair has forged a close alliance in the war against terrorism.
Mr Meacher’s departure from the Government comes as the Kyoto Protocol for
tackling climate change is “on the cusp” of international ratification,
despite the US President’s opposition.

He said that America’s stated reasons for refusing to sign up are
“ridiculous and wrong-headed”. The cost of adhering to the protocol, he
said, would be between 0.1 and 1 per cent of the extra growth predicted for
America by 2010. “They say, what about the rest of the world like China and
India? But those coutries will only come on board if the rich nations show
they mean business.”

Instead, he suggested that a more sinister motive may lie behind Washington’
s decision as he highlighted the new US investments in oil production in
Africa and South America. “Everyone knows that George Bush is a Texas oil
man, his family have long-term connections, nearly all his senior advisers
and closest aides have connections to a very, very powerful oil industry,”
he said. “I think that is a relevant consideration. They believe in the oil
business and the traditional way of generating power and if they gain
personally that is a bonus.”

Mr Meacher said that these interests played their part in the decision to go
to war in Iraq: “America is pursuing future oil supplies with extreme
vigour, so it is difficult, when you look at Iraq, which has the second
biggest oil reserves in the world, not to think it was a factor.”

He did not, contrary to reports at the time, oppose military action. “What
persuaded me was the idea that getting rid of a murderous, barbarous,
genocidal regime responsible for millons of deaths overrode anything else,”
he said. “It was a justification for military action.” He added: “It was not
the reason why we went to war. My view is that we went to war because
America wanted to establish a political and military platform in the Middle
East, it saw a need for oil and of course it wished to support Israel.
Weapons of mass destruction, if they existed, even on the most threatening
predictions, were certainly not going to put Europe or the US at risk. But
Tony Blair took the view that if you are a close ally you have more
influence than if you are a protagonist. That is a view which still
prevails. The problem is that Bush is not Clinton.”

Mr Meacher is deeply concerned about the US “occupation” of Iraq and the
sidelining of the UN, suggesting that Mr Blair should start puting some
distance between himself and Washington. “The biggest political problem in
the world today is the overwhelming power of the US. That is very serious
for the world order. How you deal with an aggressive unilateralist like
America is a problem for us all, but there are no easy answers.”

Mr Meacher denied that Britain had been too soft on America on Kyoto, saying
that Mr Blair had been taken by surprise by Mr Bush’s decision to oppose
ratification and had since tried to bring the US “on board” for a programme
to reduce fossil-fuel emissions through technological change.

Since being sacked last week, however, he has focused his efforts on the
looming government decision on allowing commericial production of
genetically modified crops. Mr Meacher said that the GM food lobby had
already won its battle in America, partly because of the links between the
Washington Adminstration and firms like Monsanto.

Mr Meacher talked about the “happy days” spent negotiating with his EU
counterparts on the environment, suggesting that Europe, which has risked a
trade war with the US by opposing GM food, could be a bulwark against
Washington. He promised to be a “sympathetic but critical friend” of the
Government, saying it had done much good for the NHS and education but
should pay more attention to a traditional Labour agenda of tackling poverty
and improving equality.

>From his new position on the backbenches, however, he will have already
discovered that his views about Mr Bush chime with those of many of his
colleagues. “My view is that we should not get too close to America. It is
an important friend and ally, but in the end we should make our judgments
about where the public interest lies and we should take note of public
opinion in that as well.””