Meacher attacks US motives in Iraq Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Friday June 20, 2003 Sacked environment minister Michael Meacher has joined the growing chorus of scepticism over Saddam Hussein's weapons programme, saying that the US president, George Bush, invaded Iraq because the US wanted a "political and military platform in the Middle East". Mr Meacher, who left the government after six years service in the prime minister's reshuffle last week, told the Times in an interview that even if WMD existed, it could not threaten Europe or America. Instead, he claims the war was over "a need for oil and ... support for Israel". The former environement minister - who says he feels "liberated" since his sacking - also criticized GM crops in the Commons yesterday, calling them "neither safe, nor necessary, nor desirable". That criticism is especially stinging since he was the minister responsible for government policy. Mr Blair has called for a public debate on the issue. Critics of GM, however, claim that the prime minister is sympathetic to the case for GM crops and criticise the recent honours given to those connected with the bio-technology industry in last week's honours list. Today Mr Meacher, a survivor from the 1970s government of Jim Callaghan, criticises America as "aggressive and unilateralist", and says of President Bush: "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. "I think that is a very relevant consideration. They believe in the oil business and the traditional way of generating power, and if they gain personally from that is a bonus. "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. "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." He concludes: "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 may have learnt of some possible antidotes to US power when he attended by the book launch of George Monbiot's The Age of Consent earlier this week. The environmentalist proposes a world parliament based on population sizes to counteract the US's power.
Actually, I suppose it would be better if the US was a militarily weak and ineffectual power, then it would be the rule of the bin laden's of this world.
I think the real issue is a lack of balance of power worldwide. With only one superpower, the potential is greater with this situation that a singular power of this kind may be going unchecked by any other standards than what the "might makes right" philosophy that many here subscribe to dictates. History has show that singular powers tend to corrupt, or ignore the ideas of those who are not "on board" as the power rolls out.
Those singular powers of the past were royalty or dictator based, so I think the theory, at least applied to the present day, is flawed.
The danger exists still. If not for a two party system, and vigorous challenge by the party not in power, the potential is there, and many see the potential. When you get a president, house and congress, and supreme court all of the same ideology...you in effect have unbridled power.
That latency is what some are concerned with. There are some also believe the the average American is acting more out of fear than reason in their decision making when they pull the lever. It is a concern I share. Political decisions need to be rational, not fear based. We have a blueprint for what happens when people give into fear and hold up leaders who promise to remove that fear though agressive means.
The lack of aggression has been the cause of our previous lack of effectiveness. The voting public is sick and tired of "we can do it through diplomacy." It simply hasn't worked.