LONDON: The prime minister seems genuinely frustrated that we don't share his analysis and complains that it is "not easy to persuade people of all this". Perhaps the message is wrong?
In the year since the invasion of Iraq we have seen public opinion in the UK and the rest of the world swept aside, the UN sidelined, allies spurned. The US president has ignored advice from the CIA, the State Department and even the Pentagon. When respected former UN ambassadors and foreign secretaries such as Sir Crispin Tickell and Douglas Hurd have joined the ranks of the critics, the criticism should not be taken lightly.
The gravest error is the continuing insistence that Iraq is the front line in an uncompromising "war" against terrorism. The prime minister lumps together all the elements of resistance and calls them "fanatics and terrorists", while praising moderate members of the Iraqi Governing Council. But if members of the IGC are resigning in protest at the way the occupation is being handled they must be sensing a shift in the public mood.
Not everyone who opposes the coalition is a terrorist. If Iraq is a haven for Muslim terrorists it is because of the invasion; there was no proven link with Al Qaeda before. We cannot expect Iraqi society to quietly wait for democracy to be delivered according to the coalition's timetable. We should not confuse nationalism with Islamic terrorism. The perpetrators of the Madrid bombs are not the same as nationalists in Iraq, as the prime minister seems to believe.
There can be no negotiation with Al Qaeda, and Osama's truce offer was repellent. But the principal battle in Iraq is about winning hearts and minds not eliminating fanatics. The 600 dead in Fallujah, including women and children, cannot all be fanatics but such carnage will breed fanaticism.
Britain's reluctance to criticize US strategy in Iraq will be seen as complicity and will reduce our credibility in the Arab world and our opportunities for acting as a restraining influence.
Certainly, we must stick to the date of June 30 for a handover to an Iraqi interim administration; backtracking will be seen as an attempt to prolong the occupation. But that handover must be to a legitimate authority, with limited powers while elections are prepared and a constitution drawn up.
We must recognize that many Iraqis don't trust the coalition to deliver genuine sovereignty, and fear the West's history of intervention in their internal affairs.
The best way to ensure the legitimacy of a transitional administration is for the widest participation of Iraqi representatives and the fullest participation of the UN. The US and UK ignored the UN at the start of the military action; it was only a full year later that Tony Blair called for their fuller involvement.
The second error, perhaps a strategic mistake, is the US endorsement of Israel's unilateral actions regarding the Palestinians. Tipping the scales so far in Israel's favour risks fuelling resistance in Iraq and extremism across the world. Again, British criticism was muted and will be seen as complicity.
If Tony Blair is finding it difficult to persuade people that he is right, it might be because a heavy-handed and good versus evil approach in Iraq and a one-sided policy in the Middle East is seen by most observers as self-evidently wrong.
If the prime minister wants more support he needs to display a more coherent and autonomous grip of international realities and to put some distance between Britain and a US administration pursuing policies which are not in our interest. -Dawn/The Observer News Service.
