Cook resigns from cabinet over Iraq

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Monday March 17, 2003

Robin Cook, the leader of the Commons and a former foreign secretary, today resigned from the government in protest over the prime minister's stance on Iraq.

Following a weekend of fervent speculation - and silence from Mr Cook himself - the minister left Downing Street before the start of today's emergency cabinet.

Mr Cook said in a statement: "It is 20 years ago that I first joined Labour's shadow cabinet. It is with regret I have today resigned from its cabinet. I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."

He becomes the first - but possibly not the last - cabinet minister to resign over the looming conflict in the Gulf. The international development secretary, Clare Short, is "reflecting overnight" on her position, a spokeswoman from her department said.

Mr Cook is now expected to make a public statement on his resignation in the Commons tonight, following Jack Straw's address to MPs at 7pm.

This could be a highly dramatic moment, as Mr Cook is a veteran Commons orator, and is expected to take apart the legal basis for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq with forensic skill.

In his letter of resignation, Mr Cook made clear that he had raised his worries over a US/UK attack over some time with the prime minister - although absolved Mr Blair from blame for the failure of the UN to secure a second resolution.

He wrote: "At cabinet for some weeks I have been frank about my concern over embarking on military action in the absence of multilateral support.

"In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support. In practice I believe it is against Britain's interests to create a precedent for unilateral military action.

"As our foreign secretary I was impressed by the energy and skill with which you ended Britain's isolation in Europe and achieved for our country equal status and influence to Germany or France. I am dismayed that once again Britain is divided from our major European neighbours.

"As president of the party of European socialists, of which the Labour party is a member, it troubles me that I know of no sister party within the European Union that shares our position."

Mr Blair, in response, praised Mr Cook's time as foreign secretary and leader of the Commons, but used the majority of his letter to justify the government's position - largely blaming the French.

He wrote; "I want to thank you for the contribution you made in your two cabinet posts, and no doubt will continue to make, to forging better relations between Britain and the rest of the EU. When the current crisis is over, this will be particularly important.

"On your resignation, I have always tried to resolve this crisis through the UN, as you recognise in your letter. But I was always clear that the UN must be the way of dealing with the issue, not avoiding dealing with it.

"The government is staying true to resolution 1441. Others, in the face of continuing Iraqi non-compliance, are walking away from it.

As I have said to you, the threatened French veto set back hugely the considerable progress we were making in building consensus among UNSC members. "

Mr Cook's colleague, Clare Short, the international development secretary, last week threatened to quit the government if an attack on Iraq took place without a second UN resolution.

Mr Cook's position as leader of the Commons, where he has done much to modernise MPs working hours while losing the battle for a more democratic upper chamber, can be easily filled - most probably by the current chief whip, Hilary Armstrong. However, the political significance lies in Mr Cook's five years as Mr Blair's first foreign secretary, the post now occupied by Jack Straw.

A PPS to Margaret Beckett, Andy Reed, has already quit over Iraq, and Mr Blair has survived a rebellion by 122 Labour backbenchers, all of whom voted for a motion saying the case for war on Iraq was "not proven".

Although the Conservative frontbench has pledged its support for the prime minister's position of allying Britain to a US-led attack on Iraq, several high-profile backbench Tories have come out against military action, including former chancellor Kenneth Clarke.

A Conservative junior whip, John Randall, has also resigned his post in the party.

Mr Cook's Commons deputy Ben Bradshaw was seen going into Downing Street before the cabinet meeting and speculation was that he will be asked to make a brief business statement to MPs outlining the timetable now the peace process with Iraq has been abandoned and war could begin.

Mr Cook's decision to quit the cabinet will cost him almost £70,000 a year in lost pay.

As Leader of the House of Commons he was entitled to a salary of £124,979. As a plain backbench MP, his salary will be £55,118 a year.

The former culture secretary Chris Smith mourned the resignation of Mr Cook, saying having the former Commons leader on the backbenches left the government "diminished."

Downing Street later announced it would publish in full the letters of correspondence between the prime minister and Mr Cook.

The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, said: "While we understand Robin Cook's reasons for resigning, disunity within the cabinet is a matter of concern at this time.

"We hope the prime minister will take further steps to ensure that his cabinet speaks with one voice."

The Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, said: "It was always likely that Robin Cook, who sought to introduce an ethical dimension into foreign policy, would find the ambiguity of the government's position too much to tolerate."

Paul Tyler, who speaks on House of Commons affairs for the Liberal Democrats, added: "The government has lost its most effective Commons performer. His leadership of the Commons gained him an unrivalled reputation amongst fellow members.

"I have no doubt he will be a formidable presence on the backbenches."

A handful of protesters shouting "Blair out" brought Whitehall to a standstill outside the gates to Downing Street as the cabinet met in emergency session.

Police blocked off one side of the carriageway as the few protesters waved placards and blew whistles.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,916123,00.html
 
WTF? :confuse3: Gonz, this was one of Blair's top men. A man of integrity. You're as bad as JesLek throwing that kind of lable out there. :disgust2:
 
I've lost faith in diplomacy. It's double speak & politically correct horseshit that has left a bad taste. I'll get over it after people realize diplomacy only goes as far as it can before action must take over. 12 years has been enough. We are not the bad guys here. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

This time, we're using leadership.
 
Anyone for the war is just a mindless drone following the flock, while anyone against it is an intelligent free thinker.

Yes, we can all read between the lines.

:rolleyes:
 
You really think that thought went in to labeling him a "rogue diplomat who endangers the world"? I did think it was mindless. Still do.
 
Yep. Diplomats are the bestestestest. They single-handedly stopped Stalin, Lennin, Hitler, Papa Doc, Baby Doc,.

Or was that American military might, I always get those confused.
 
I have to ride with SQ on this one, Gonz. You don't know what you're talking about.

He's not doing this to further his political career. If you have any doubts about that, just look at the chunk of change he stands to lose. He's ridden this horse as far as he can. Now he has to get off. I respect that. I also respect that, in getting off, he's still supporting his leader, and people as much as he can. But the failure of the UN will play heavily on this. Much as France planned.
 
We're not all playing on the same page. I'm pissed at diplomats in general & attacked this guy because he's the lead character in the story not because he personally sucks.
 
Gonz said:
We're not all playing on the same page. I'm pissed at diplomats in general & attacked this guy because he's the lead character in the story not because he personally sucks.

He's a leading character in a trilogy and you've read less than one page of it.
 
i'm not a big fan of cook, i think his time as a minister weren't his finest. he has a reputation as a clinical thinker and master of the debate but he hasn't been able to follow his convictions as he would have wanted when he was in the cabinet - most notably as foreign minister.

his decision to step down is laudable for his integrity and the value he places it and the importance of his convictions. but for many looking in from outside we have a senior politician, cabinet minister and former foreign secretary who is unconvinced by the arguments for war put to him.

if a man with those contacts, access to information (much of it likely to be well out of the public domain) and on the ground knowledge of the issues surrounding this cannot see a reason to go to conflict then i wonder if my scepticism is so misplaced after all.
 
Gotta go with Squiigy here as well (shudder).

Just because 95% of 'em are a complete waste, it doesn't mean all of 'em are. Cook was absolutely not a rogue. However, this move has zero impact in reality.
 
Back
Top