Words of War and Peace

In the last week, two speeches have been showing up in e-mail boxes around the world. Each is a rallying cry for a different constituency. The first, an address given by British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a Labor Party conference in Glasgow, Scotland, on Feb. 15, is a passionate explanation of the potential need for war in Iraq. The other, a Feb. 12 speech by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) on the Senate floor, questions the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Both have been praised for their intelligence and conviction at a time when debate at the highest levels seems strangely muffled. Abridged versions of the speeches follow:

*

I hope, even now, Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, with or without Saddam. But if we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, then ... the menace will grow; the authority of the U.N. will be lost; and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody.

Yes, let the United Nations be the way to deal with Saddam. But let the U.N. mean what it says; and do what it means.

What is the menace we speak of? It is not just Saddam. We are living through insecure times. Wars; terrorist threats; suddenly things that seem alien to us are on our doorstep, threatening our way of life.

... [We are seeing] the threat of chaos; disorder; instability. A threat which arises from a perversion of the true faith of Islam, in extremist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. It arises from countries which are unstable, usually repressive dictatorships which use what wealth they have to protect or enhance their power through chemical, biological or nuclear weapons capability which can cause destruction on a massive scale.

What do they have in common, these twins of chaos -- terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction? They are answerable to no democratic mandate, so are unrestrained by the will of ordinary people. They are extreme and inhumane. They detest and fear liberal, democratic and tolerant values. And their aim is to destabilize us.

... These states developing weapons of mass destruction, proliferating them, importing or exporting the scientific expertise, the ballistic missile technology; the companies and individuals helping them: they don’t operate within any international treaties. They don’t conform to any rules.... And the terrorist groups already using chemical and biological agents with money to spend, do we really believe that if Al Qaeda could get a dirty bomb they wouldn’t use it?

... At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored. If we do not confront these twin menaces of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, they will not disappear. They will just feed and grow on our weakness.

When people say if you act, you will provoke these people; when they say now: Take a lower profile and these people will leave us alone, remember: Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., not the other way round. Were the people of Bali in the forefront of the anti-terror campaign? Did Indonesia “make itself a target”? The terrorists won’t be nice to us if we’re nice to them.

... No one seriously believes [Hussein] is yet cooperating fully. Most people don’t really believe he ever will. So what holds people back? What brings thousands of people out in protests across the world?

... It is as one woman put it to me: “I abhor the consequences of war.”

... Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.

But there are also consequences of “stop the war.”

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. ... This isn’t a regime with weapons of mass destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers, which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this. I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honor. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this: If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are 1 million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

... If the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen. They will never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist nonetheless.

Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane.