Sir, I agree that the questions posed by my former colleague, Sir David Goodall (letter, January 27), need a clear answer from the Government.

But I suggest that there are other questions to which the answers are, as Sir David put it, still bafflingly unclear: in particular, what do the Americans propose to do, after (or if) an invasion of Iraq has taken place?

Do they propose to install a military government? Or even to reinstall the Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad? How will the different parts of the Iraqi population (and in particular the Shia majority) be represented in any future administration?

Are reports correct that the Americans hope then to turn their attention to the “democratisation” of other parts of the Middle East, such as Syria and Saudi Arabia? If so, how do they propose to achieve that? Do the Americans really believe (as has been alleged in a number of reports) that regime change in Iraq, and perhaps elsewhere, will ease the path to a Palestinian state? And if so, what is the logical explanation for this belief?

I believe that these questions also need a clear answer from the British Government, if not from Washington. It is not enough, in my opinion, for our ministers to claim repeatedly that no decisions have yet been taken, and that the sort of questions Sir David and I have posed are hypothetical, and therefore presumably irrelevant.

Yours sincerely,
PATRICK WRIGHT
(Head of HM Diplomatic Service, 1986-91),
House of Lords.
January 27.

From Mr Quentin Langley

Sir, Iraq had an active chemical and biological weapons programme in 1998 (leading article, January 25).

Saddam Hussein has access to a catalogue of evidence showing what has happened to the programme in the years since then. If it has been closed down he has documentation showing how the chemical and biological agents have been disposed of, what has happened to the plant and to which peaceable projects the scientists have been reassigned.

As a matter of logical necessity Saddam’s evidence must show either that he is in full compliance with UN resolutions dating back to 1991, or that he is continuing to defy them. Those who believe that the matter is still open to doubt and that the UN inspectors require more time need to explain one thing. If Saddam’s evidence proves his innocence, why is he hiding it from the inspectors?

Yours faithfully,
QUENTIN LANGLEY,
55 Hillview Court,
Woking, Surrey GU22 7QW.
January 28.

From Mr Jerome Gardner

Sir, Mr D. M. Ashford (letter, January 23) states that:

The best moral justification for the US and UK to liberate Iraq is that these two countries would be acting in advance of international law, and thereby helping to reform it.

I am no lawyer but this appears to be a very dubious premise indeed. Surely acting “in advance” of any law is nothing less — or more — than an assault upon its legitimacy.

I also question Mr Ashford’s secondary “test of success” regarding any war in Iraq, ie, how soon a stable democracy is established there. I find it extraordinarily imperialistic to suggest in 2003 that the forced imposition of a Western political system on an Islamic country is per se either a virtue or a test of success in this context.

Yours sincerely,
JEROME GARDNER,
Morticombe, Cherrybridge,
Barbrook, Lynton, Devon EX35 6PE.
January 23.

Explore Letters

• Feedback