As I've just commented on Iain Martin's blog on the WSJ, there are more shades of grey, not to mention ironies, to Clare Short's position on Iraq than people generally notice.
The uber-irony of her evidence as I heard it was that actually she was in favour of regime change in Iraq, even by force if necessary.
Let's leave aside the fact that Tony Blair got castigated for even hinting at such a position in his Fern Britton interview, while Short can say it pretty much explicitly and still get a round of applause at the end of her appearance before the Iraq inquiry.
Anyway, she was in favour of regime change even though, as we know, it would have been illegal. This is a much more robust position (Dare I say almost neo-con? Although liberal interventionists and neo-cons converge on the same policies from different starting points) than Blair’s WMD-related stance was. Her only qualification was that it should have been approved by the UN security council.
Although I'm not clear why she made UN approval a condition for Iraq but not for the intervention in Kosovo, which she supported.
Short also regretted how the Iraq war had killed of the doctrine of liberal interventionism and the 'duty to protect' when states mistreat their citizens. So again, that points to someone not afraid of intervention.
Although there are plenty of grounds for criticising her, the idea that she is a 60s throwback is not one of the, A few more shades of grey are needed.
And it's fun to spot the ironies in the Iraq debate as well.
Recent comments