It seems that most politicians have commented on the Saddam hanging affair- that is apart from the Prime Minister, who has said that he will not make a statement until next week. What changes between now and then I do not know. But we all know that Blair likes to do things to his own timetable. He has to call the shots. One thing is certain, he will not be best pleased to learn that Gordon Brown has beaten him to it by making a statement on BBC's Sunday AM today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6238115.stm Brown joins the Prescott, Johnson school of thought of stating that the execution has been conducted in a 'deplorable' way, that they were indeed 'angered' by the leaked mobile phone footage of Iraqi officials taunting Saddam as he faced his fate.
In my eyes, the issue is less about Brown's comments fueling another feud between the Blair/ Brown camp, but is much more to do with the fact that many high profile politicians feel the need to emphasise so emphatically their opposition to the death penalty and the subsequent treatment of Saddam, while they happily sat silent in the months and weeks prior to Saddam's hanging. To think that such politicians were party to key decisions in occupying Iraq, of 'democratising' Iraq. They should know better than to make such reactionary comments.
If the actions of the Iraqis during Saddam's death was so deplorable, why did they not interfere as they have done so on so many other occasions? It is hypocritical of the New Labour Ministers to shout from the sidelines when they are intrinsically involved in the Iraq of now and of the future, like it or not. They made that decision when they entered Iraq, but they now seem to be picking and choosing their battles so as to appear as if they have the moral high ground. But Gordon, you are 'training' the police, you are assisting the Iraqi Prime Minister, you are fuelling the tensions on the streets of Iraq. You must therefore stand up and take responsibility for those actions.
An interview with an American Army officer in Iraq last week only goes to show how Britain and the USA are seeking to take the moral high ground in this debate on Saddam's hanging. The Officer emphasised that US troops were involved with the organisation of the hanging, but only until the very last minute. When Saddam entered the room where he would face his final moments, the US Army had no say in the matter. All actions were hurriedly handed over to the Iraqi PM. So why so sudden a decision to hand over responsibility for probably the most important event in the history of US/ British occupation of Iraq? If they can take such actions when a man's life is in the balance- evil or not, why can they not take actions so quickly when it comes to removing their troops from the country, of ending this disastrous affair?
Tony Blair will no doubt choose his words very carefully when he comes to making an announcement on Saddam's hanging next week. He will not want to say anything controversial, or anything which will associate himself too closely with the condemnation of the Iraqis. Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter what Blair says about the whole event. If Britain wanted to create a true democracy in Iraq, they should have had enough strength to stand up and oppose such a barbaric act of hanging whether they think that Saddam is a tyrant or not. By failing to say or do anything before the hanging just makes them as bad as the Iraqi who decided to leak those 'deplorable' images, and renders all words worthless.
No comments:
Post a Comment