Blair puts job on line
icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk Feb 19 2003 By The Journal Tony Blair yesterday put his leadership on the line over Iraq by declaring he would do "what is right" irrespective of the political risk to himself.
The Prime Minister staged his monthly press conference yesterday in the wake of new polls showing 52pc of people opposed to war and his own personal ratings on the slide.
But he faced down mounting public pressure by insisting he was willing to take military action against Saddam Hussein even if it costs him his job.
Asked about the threat to his own leadership, he declared: "There are certain situations in which you've got to say to people this is what I believe and this is what is right." Mr Blair's defiant comments followed remarks by his Chief Whip, Durham North West MP Hilary Armstrong, that he was "aware of the risks" to his position.
Senior North-East MP and former armed forces minister Doug Henderson warned Mr Blair his stance on Iraq could cost him the premiership.
"I think he possibly is putting his leadership on the line but I think he is very wrong to do so," the Newcastle North MP told The Journal. "He has failed to take account of Labour Party opinion and the leader of the party should do that. If he does not, they won't support him," he added.
Mr Blair's speech came the morning after an inconclusive EU summit in which France demanded UN weapons inspectors be given more time.
In a careful performance he sought to keep up pressure on Saddam while still saying there was "no rush to war". But his attempt to reassure the public was last night undermined by news the US administration is drawing up a fresh UN resolution authorising military action.
Yesterday's polls showed only 35pc of the public is satisifed with Mr Blair's performance, compared to 49pc a month ago.
Celebrity support for the anti-war movement was further boosted by designer Katherine Hamnett, with t-shirts bearing the slogan "Stop War".
Mr Blair said anti-war protesters should listen to the testimony of Iraqi exiles on the horrors of life under Saddam.
In an attack on French leader Jacques Chirac Mr Blair warned a split between America and Europe would endanger world security. Mr Blair reaffirmed his backing for a UN resolution but refused to be drawn on a timetable for one.
Newcastle Central MP Jim Cousins last night praised Mr Blair's courage. "Whatever view I take of the Prime Minister's position, I recognise it as an honourable one he is prepared to see through, and I respect that," he said.
But Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said: "Mr Blair implies anyone not yet persuaded of the need for war is somehow less moral than he is. A lot of people will resent that."
Council set to oppose war
Tony Blair will this week face fresh opposition to his stance on Iraq from one of his own flagship North-East councils.
Labour members of Gateshead Council will be tabling a tough anti-war motion to Friday's council meeting.
It will say a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is "neither necessary or justified and would produce incalculable risks to international peace and stability".
And it will call on the Government not to commit British forces to a pre-emptive attack on Iraq unless proof of weapons of mass destruction exists and the full support of the United Nations and Nato is forthcoming.
Labour member of the council's ruling cabinet Peter Mole said: "Participation in such an attack would be likely to have serious damaging effects on Gateshead's social and economic welfare and endanger the safety of its citizens."
Energy 'vital strategic concern'
A conflict with Iraq was partly about oil supply, a leading industry figure suggested yesterday.
David O'Reilly, chairman and chief executive of Chevron Texaco, said there was a view among some sections of the public the conflict was about nothing but oil and that was not a good enough reason to go to war.
But he said the diversity and continuity of the world's energy supply were vital strategic concerns.
"National security and energy security are not one and the same thing but they are clearly intertwined.
"It's hardly surprising that current events have put our industry in the spotlight," he told the Institute of Petroleum annual lunch at the Dorchester Hotel in London.
It was not unexpected that the Iraq conflict should be used by some as a vehicle to attack the industry.
"I am talking about the protests that say `no blood for oil'," he said.
"The slogan rests on two assumptions, first that the conflict with Iraq is about nothing but oil and second that energy security is not a legitimate reason - even as one among many - to go to war."
Mr O'Reilly said a recent Gallup poll showed that almost two-thirds of Europeans saw Iraq as a threat to world peace, and a "shocking" 70pc believe that oil is the main reason the US wants to intervene in Iraq. "You saw the many millions of people who protested around the world this past weekend and some of them surely hold that view.
"I would argue that `no blood for oil' has caught on partly because our industry's reputation is so impaired that the protesters can discredit action in Iraq simply by associating it with us."
He urged oil companies to boost their reputations and said the challenge would be with them regardless of whether there was a peaceful outcome to events in Iraq, crisis-wracked Venezuela or North Korea.
"If we don't act together to address this challenge our prformance will be impaired and our basic mission imperilled," he added.