with the full text.

Here's part:

The US choice to go through the UN over Iraq was a vital step, in itself and as a symbol of the desire to work with others. A broader agenda is not inimical to the US; on the contrary. For example the US decision to back a new relationship between Nato and Russia has made both missile defence and Nato enlargement easier and less divisive.



The price of British influence is not, as some would have it, that we have, obediently, to do what the US asks. I would never commit British troops to a war I thought was wrong or unnecessary. Where we disagree, as over Kyoto, we disagree.

But the price of influence is that we do not leave the US to face the tricky issues alone. By tricky, I mean the ones which people wish weren't there, don't want to deal with, and, if I can put it a little pejoratively, know the US should confront, but want the luxury of criticising them for it. So if the US act alone, they are unilateralist; but if they want allies, people shuffle to the back. International terrorism is one such issue. The fanatics have to be confronted and defeated - in ideas as well as militarily as I shall say later. WMD is another. I want to make it clear. In February 2001, at my first meeting with President Bush I said this was the key issue facing the world community. I believe that even more today. The latest revelations about North Korea are a manifest wake-up call to the world. This shouldn't divert us from tackling Iraq and WMD. There will be different ways of dealing with different countries. But no one can doubt the salience of WMD as an issue and the importance of countering it. North Korea's weapons programme and export of it, the growing number of unstable or dictatorial states trying to acquire nuclear capability, the so-called respectable companies and people trading in it: this is a real, active threat to our security and I warn people: it is only a matter of time before terrorists get hold of it. So when as with Iraq, the international community through the UN makes a demand on a regime to disarm itself of WMD and that regime refuses, that regime threatens us. It may be uncomfortable, there will be the usual plethora of conspiracy theories about it; but unless the world takes a stand on this issue of WMD and sends out a clear signal, we will rue the consequences of our weakness.

America should not be forced to take this issue on alone. We should all be part of it. Of course, it should go through the UN - that was our wish and what the US did. But if the will of the UN is breached then the will should be enforced.



I especially liked this part:

But the price of influence is that we do not leave the US to face the tricky issues alone. By tricky, I mean the ones which people wish weren't there, don't want to deal with, and, if I can put it a little pejoratively, know the US should confront, but want the luxury of criticising them for it. So if the US act alone, they are unilateralist; but if they want allies, people shuffle to the back.

All sorts of nations, especially several of the European nations, are quick to complain but very slow to offer assistance beyond lip service. Perhaps they should put up or shut up.