WMD Tale

-

DECEPTION AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

AP 3 Nov 2005

Italian lawmaker: U.S. told of WMD forgeries

Senator says Bush administration was warned Iraq documents were fake

Italian secret services warned the United States months before it invaded Iraq that a dossier about a purported Saddam Hussein effort to buy uranium in Africa was fake, a lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by the nation’s intelligence chief.

“At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they (Italy’s SISMI secret services) said that the dossier doesn’t correspond to the truth,” Sen. Massimo Brutti told journalists after the parliamentary commission was briefed.

Brutti said the warning was given in January 2003, but he did not know whether it was made before or after President Bush’s speech. Brutti, a leading opposition senator, said SISMI analyzed the documents between October 2002 and January 2003.

The United States and Britain used the claim that Saddam was seeking to buy uranium in Niger to bolster their case for the invasion, which started in March 2003. The intelligence supporting the claim later was deemed unreliable.

--

THE CAKES WERE FAKE

CNN - 14 March 2003

Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

From David Ensor - CNN Washington Bureau

Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."

"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.

"We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been resolved [in Iraq]," he said.

How were forgeries missed?

But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.

Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.

Close said the CIA should have known better.

"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."

A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "

If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.

"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."

Who made the forgeries?

But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.

U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

--

BBC - 24 September 2003

No WMD in Iraq

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.

This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil.

Downing Street branded the story "speculation about an unfinished draft of an interim report".

Mr Neil said the draft report - which the source said is due to be published next month - concludes that it is highly unlikely that weapons of mass destruction were shipped out of the country to places like Syria before the US-led war on Iraq.

The bottom line is that the team has found no weapons of mass destruction
Andrew Neil

The report was still to be finalised and could undergo some changes, but the source had been told the content of some key passages which were not expected to be substantively altered.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Portillo said if these details of the report were true, it would be a "savage blow" to the prime minister.

IRAQ SURVEY GROUP

Took over WMD hunt from the US military in June
Using intelligence to build picture of Iraqi weapons programmes
Led by US general, but has some UK and Australian staff
1,300 staff include former UN weapons inspectors
But, Mr Neil added, the report would publish computer programmes, files, pictures and paperwork which it says shows that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to develop a weapons of mass destruction programme.
CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told the Reuters news agency he expected the report would "reach no firm conclusions, nor will it rule anything in or out".

--

BBC - 3 October, 2003

Stakes high in weapons report

The weapons threat was key to Blair and Bush's case for war

By Nick Assinder - Political correspondent

Tony Blair has invested everything - and most certainly his personal credibility - in the hunt for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Now the Iraq Survey Group has so far found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, although has unearthed some evidence of research and development, the prime minister's critics will have a field day.

But as each day has passed, the prime minister's room for manoeuvre has narrowed

The thing that is absolutely certain is that the stakes could not be higher.

Ever since the war ended, the prime minister has insisted he was confident weapons would be found.

And he told his doubters, with increasing irritation, that they should wait until the group reported before leaping to judgements.

Products or programmes?

On at least one occasion Mr Blair suggested he was aware of some of the group's findings.

He didn't say so in as many words, but journalists at one of his monthly news conferences earlier in the summer were left speculating that he must be confident they had found something.

Of course, that something may not have been physical weapons.

Maybe it was "evidence of WMD programmes" or "WMD products" - the phrases the prime minister had started deploying when questioned too hard.
And sure enough, that's what the group says it has found in significant amounts.

But that will not placate his critics. And the prime minister knows that full well.

Unless real weapons are found, the backlash against the war, which is already growing in the wake of the Hutton inquiry, is almost certain to escalate.

Of course the ISG report is not clear cut as all that and it is only an interim report.

Rising scepticism

The group is asking for more time to complete their search - but that is precisely what UN inspector Hans Blix wanted before the war.

But as each day has passed, the prime minister's room for manoeuvre has narrowed.

Anti-war opinion has hardened while scepticism and suspicion have increased.

It may be that a couple of months or so ago, discovery of some evidence that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction or had hidden his weapons before the conflict might have been enough.

But the series of inquiries into the war suggesting the threat from Iraq was not as serious as suggested, and the recent comments by Mr Blix that Saddam destroyed his weapons over a decade ago, have added to public distrust.

Mr Blair needs something concrete from the survey group if he is to stand any chance of finally putting this crisis behind him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3136780.stm

--

BBC: 9 July 2003

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." President George W Bush

"Given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement" White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer

White House 'warned over Iraq claim'

The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.

Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.

Both President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the claim, based on British intelligence, that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger as part of its attempt to build a nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war.

And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence.

Forged documents

In his keynote speech to Congress in January, the President said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But the documents alleging a transaction were found to have been forged.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to concede on Tuesday that the uranium claim in the State of the Union address was based on inaccurate information.

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger," Mr Fleischer said.

"So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

But a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.

Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.

That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false.

In response, a US Government official told the BBC that the White House received hundreds of intelligence reports every day.

The official said there was no evidence that this specific cable about uranium had been passed on to the president.

But in Congress, Democrats are demanding a full investigation into the intelligence that underpinned the case for war.

They have demanded to know if President Bush used evidence that he knew to be weak or wrong.

British undeterred

The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.


On Tuesday Mr Blair defended the assessment, telling a committee of MPs that it was not a "fantasy" and that the intelligence services themselves stood by the allegation.

"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said.

However, Mr Blair did not specify what that separate intelligence was.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3056626.stm

--

Claims: 'Niger uranium'

Escalation of arguments in a row over Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger.

24 September 2002

"There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government


28 January 2003

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

US President George W Bush's State of the Union address

7 March 2003

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.

We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the UN Security Council

3 July 2003

"It is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence... We recommend that the Government explain on what evidence it relied for its judgement in September that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. We further recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out whether it still considers the September dossier to be accurate in what it states about Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Africa in the light of subsequent events."

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report

6 July 2003

"It was highly doubtful that any such (Niger-Iraq) transaction had ever taken place."

Former US diplomat Joseph Wilson writing in the New York Times about his fact-finding visit to Niger in February 2002

8 July 2003

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger.

So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

8 July 2003

"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called "forged" documents, they came from separate intelligence."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair testimony to the House of Commons Liaison Committee.

11 July 2003

"The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety... Some specifics about amount and place were taken out. With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared. The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out.

If the CIA - the director of central intelligence - had said "Take this out of the speech," it would have been gone. We have a high standard for the president's speeches."

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on US President George W Bush's State of the Union address

11 July 2003

"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president. The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."

CIA Director George Tenet

12 July 2003

"The CIA expressed reservations to us about this element of the September dossier... However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US... A judgement was therefore made to retain it."

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in a letter to Donald Anderson MP, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee

--

BBC - 12 July, 2003

Iraq uranium claim sows confusion

Mr Straw says separate evidence backs the UK claim


The UK Government has defended its claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, despite the White House saying it was unfounded.

In a letter to a senior MP, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK had additional information to support the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, but this intelligence had not been passed on to the US administration.

In Washington, the CIA has accepted the blame for allowing the claim to be included in a speech by President George W Bush, even though the agency had long had doubts about its credibility.

The uranium claim was used by both governments to build a case for going to war over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Fresh doubts about intelligence information used by Britain to make the case for war have also been voiced by former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

No weapons of mass destruction have so far been found.

Mr Bush on Saturday tried to draw a line under the affair, which Democrats have seized on to challenge the president's authority.

A new opinion poll shows that public support for Mr Bush's handling of the conflict has fallen nine points to 58%.

The BBC's Nick Childs in Washington says though it's too early to say how significant the row will become, the administration is suddenly on the defensive.

Second source

The UK Government's insistence on standing by the Niger claim in spite of Washington's decision to back down has deepened confusion about the intelligence itself.

The claim was first made public in a dossier on Iraq released by the UK in September last year.

The claim was then cited in President Bush's State of the Union speech to Congress in January - in what the White House now says was a mistake.

It has emerged that long before that, in February 2002, Ambassador Joseph Wilson - now retired - was sent to Niger by the CIA to verify the claim. He reported it was unfounded.

Mr Straw on Saturday said his government had not been told of Mr Wilson's visit.

And he said separate intelligence which London had not passed to Washington in any case meant that the UK was still certain Iraq had indeed tried to get uranium in Niger.

In a letter to Donald Anderson MP, chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Straw wrote:

"The CIA expressed reservations to us about this element of the September dossier...

"However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US... A judgement was therefore made to retain it."

The prime minister's office said the extra intelligence had come from a foreign service and could not be disclosed.

A spokesman said it was entirely different from the information the CIA had disavowed.

Mr Anderson has called on the government to reveal its source to clear up the confusion.

In his criticism, Hans Blix said the UK Government made a fundamental mistake when it declared that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.

He told the British newspaper the Independent on Sunday that he believed the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, overinterpreted the intelligence Britain had.

American approach

The row over intelligence which has been dominating British politics in recent weeks has now seized the US.

In his January address, Mr Bush said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

CIA director George Tenet acknowledged that his organisation was wrong to let President Bush include the claim in his speech.

Mr Bush has given his support to Mr Tenet and said he now considers the matter closed.

However, our Washington correspondent says pressure may continue on Mr Tenet, whom some Republicans distrust for having been appointed by President Clinton.

And the Democrats also continue to press the president.

"This government either is inept or simply has not told us the truth," said Howard Dean, a contender for the Democrat presidential nomination.

An opinion poll for the Washington Post and ABC News on Saturday showed the country split on the issue, with 50% saying the president deliberately exaggerated evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and 46% saying he had not.

And the poll shows opinion becoming disillusioned with the Iraq conflict.

For the first time, more than half the respondents said there had been an unacceptable level of US casualties in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3061665.stm

--


BBC - 12 July, 2003

CIA takes blame for Iraq claims

Tenet says the CIA made a mistake

The director of the US Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that his organisation was wrong to let President George W Bush tell the American people that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material from Africa.

In a statement, George Tenet said CIA officials had failed to prevent the allegation from being inserted into the president's State of the Union address in January, despite having doubts about its validity.

This, he said, was not the level of certainty required for presidential speeches.

The statement came as senior Democrats called for an independent inquiry into the way the Bush administration made the case for war.

The BBC's Rob Watson in Washington says the White House strategy is clear - to put an end to what has become an increasingly embarrassing row, the CIA has been assigned the blame.

But there are signs that Mr Tenet's admission may not bring an end to the controversy, our correspondent adds.

British claims

President Bush has denied that he knowingly gave out false information.

In his January address, Mr Bush said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Mr Tenet, in his statement, said that although the president's words were factually correct - in the sense they attributed the allegation to the British Government - they should never have been included in the speech, given the long-held doubts that US intelligence had about Britain's claims.

The British Government stands by the allegation. Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman has said Britain had separate intelligence from that of the Americans.

The White House acknowledged for the first time earlier this week that the claim about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Niger might be wrong.

Before Mr Tenet made his statement, some US media reports were suggesting that the CIA had advised the White House to remove the claims from the speech.

Asked about this during a visit to Uganda, Mr Bush replied: "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services."

He did not answer when pressed on how the erroneous material came to be included in the address, stressing instead that his government took the right decision to invade Iraq.

Changes made

Mr Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice insisted the president "did not knowingly say anything that we knew to be false".

Putting the onus of responsibility on the intelligence services, she reiterated that the CIA had vetted the speech and cleared it "in its entirety".

If anyone had any doubts about the uranium claim, "those doubts were not communicated to the president," Ms Rice told reporters.

However, she said the CIA did make some changes to that particular sentence in the speech.

"Some specifics about amount and place were taken out," she said. "With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared."

Senior US Democrats are demanding to know what Mr Bush knew about the allegation, and who pressed for it to be included in the State of the Union address, despite the doubts of US intelligence.

One of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean, has demanded resignations over the issue.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, another Democratic presidential hopeful, said the controversy "breaks the basic bond of trust we must have with our leaders in times of war and terrorism".

Our correspondent says that most worryingly of all, perhaps, for President Bush there now appears to be a shift in public opinion with the latest polls showing that a majority of Americans now believe the White House exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3060615.stm
--

Blair feared Cook

-

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was affraid of Robin Cook who resigned as protest against the invasion of Iraq.


BBC 17 March 2003

Cook quits on principle

By Nick Assinder - BBC Political correspondent

So Robin Cook has become the first casualty of the war.

The Commons leader has resigned on a matter of principle - the first New Labour minister ever to go on those grounds - and others are certain to follow.

To state the obvious, this is seriously bad news for Tony Blair.

The MP will become far and away the most serious and senior dissenter on the backbenches - and his attacks will not be confined to this war.

Once this is all over he has the potential to be a real and powerful threat to Tony Blair, sniping at any number of policies from Lords reform to foreign policy.

Indeed, his influence may prove to be less important over the war crisis than it will be later when politics returns to what will then count as normality.

Losing Mr Cook from the cabinet under ordinary circumstances would have troubled the prime minister little.

Focal point

The former foreign secretary had been demoted by Mr Blair once and was always seen as a potential trouble maker.

It is quite possible that Mr Blair would have got around to reshuffling him out of government at some point.

He was not seen as a serious leadership challenger or even any longer as a focal point for Old Labour and left wing dissenters looking for a figurehead.

He has never been a great gang leader and previously found it difficult to attract followers most of who were attracted more to his rival Gordon Brown.

Put bluntly, he was seen as a spent force. That is no longer the case.

Ever since he was demoted he has used his position to build a base amongst backbenchers and make his mark through modernising parliament.

That has only been partially successful and the prime minister has stymied him on at least two occasions - once over changes to the appointment of select committee chairmen and again over reform to the House of Lords.

Real power

So Mr Cook has plenty of reason to feel less than superglue loyalty to his leader.

That is not, however, to suggest his action has been sparked by disloyalty. He clearly has reached his red line and is not prepared to step over it.

This is as much a matter of principle for him as it is for the prime minister.

And Mr Cook now has the real power to become the anti-war rebels' champion on the backbenches.

Possibly he remains vain enough to still see himself as a contender if this all goes wrong for Tony Blair.

More likely, he sees his role as Kingmaker in the event of that challenge. And in any case it is maintaining his integrity rather than other questions that are in the front of his mind at the moment.

However, Mr Cook is a supremely accomplished and astute political operator. So he has probably calculated the odds are heavily against a leadership challenge.

In that case, he has given up a job that was already running out of steam - thanks to his leader - on a matter of principle.

His biographers will give him a good write up for that.

--

18 March, 2003

Blair should fear eloquent Cook

Most powerful resignation speech since Geoffrey Howe

"We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat", Robin Cook

By Nick Assinder - BBC Political correspondent

There could have been no more powerful a demonstration of the opposition Tony Blair faces from his own party over his plan to go to war on Iraq.

In a riveting resignation speech to MPs, former cabinet minister Robin Cook attempted a forensic, line-by-line demolition of the prime minister's case.

And in an unprecedented show of support, his speech was greeted with a highly un-Parliamentary standing ovation and eruption of applause from a large number of Labour backbenchers.

The Commons has never seen anything quite like it and Speaker Michael Martin was forced to demand order as the extraordinary display showed no sign of abating.

This was more like an election speech or a conference performance than a resignation statement.

The prime minister, who was not in the chamber, may have felt the hairs on the back of his neck prickle as Mr Cook ended with a call for the Commons to stop the war with its vote on Tuesday night.

That will not happen. But the anti-war rebels have finally got what they have so far been lacking - a leader with the ability to scare the socks off the prime minister.

And any lingering hopes in Downing Street that the revolt may start to wane were blown away with this single, brief statement.

Incisive and devastating

Mr Cook is seen to have resigned without bitterness or ill-feeling and with his integrity and standing enhanced.

But he has put himself at the head of the anti-war movement and, in doing so, probably breathed new life into it.

He voiced his support for the prime minister's efforts in seeking a second resolution.

But he then went on to set out in the clearest and most comprehensive way yet all the strands of opposition to the government's policy.

It was the most powerful resignation speech since Sir Geoffrey Howe's famous performance which set the seal on Margaret Thatcher's future.

If anything, it outdid even that. Mr Cook has long been viewed as one of the most incisive and devastating Commons performers.

And on Monday night, as he ended a 20-year ministerial career, he brought all his qualities into sharp focus.

Mr Blair has every reason to be very scared indeed.

--

Cook wins Commons ovation

"The anti-war rebels have finally got what they have so far been lacking - a leader with the ability to scare the socks off the prime minister" Nick Assinder, BBC News.

"Without doubt one of the most effective brilliant resignation speeches in modern British politics" Andrew Marr, BBC.

Robin Cook has won an unprecedented standing ovation in the House of Commons after telling MPs why he resigned from the government over the looming war with Iraq.
Mr Cook said he could not back a march towards a war that did not have international and domestic support.

In a Commons statement that followed his resignation as leader of the House earlier on Monday, he went on to warn that international alliances of all kinds were under threat now that the diplomatic route had been abandoned.

Mr Cook, who had been a Labour front-bencher for 17 years, added that despite his resignation he wanted Tony Blair to continue as leader of the Labour Party and as prime minister.

But he said that he would vote against the government's stance on Tuesday.

"Neither the international community nor the British public are persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq," he said.

The resignation is seen as a blow to Mr Blair coming just hours before he is due to ask MPs to authorise the use of "all means necessary" to disarm Iraq.

'No weapons'

Mr Cook said that Iraq's military strength was less than half what it had been at the time of the last Gulf War.

It was illogical to argue, therefore, that Iraq presented a threat and moreover that that threat justified war.

Furthermore, he said, Iraq probably had no weapons of mass destruction in the "commonly understood" sense of being a credible threat that could be delivered on "a city target."

He drew a comparison over the impatience shown with Iraq over its failure to comply with the will of the UN and the situation in Palestine.

"It is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories," he reflected.

The former foreign secretary went on to express alarm that the US administration seemed more interested in regime change that in Iraq's disarmament.

"What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected we would not now be about to commit British troops," he said.

The BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr, called Mr Cook's performance "without doubt one of the most effective brilliant resignation speeches in modern British politics".

He said MPs applauding one another was "simply not done" and there were "pretty sick faces" among the ministers on the front bench.

"Its effect will be to rally the dissenters, the people who are going to vote against war tomorrow."

Rebellion looms

The government has blamed the decision to abandon further attempts to win additional UN backing for war on a combination of French "intransigence" and Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm.

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said: "There are only two options left - either Saddam goes into exile or he is disarmed by force."

Number 10 will now fear that opposition to war among backbench Labour MPs will crystallise around Mr Cook - the most senior figure to quit the government over Iraq.

The former foreign secretary was flanked by other ex-cabinet members Frank Dobson and Chris Smith as he delivered his personal statement.

Amid growing disquiet among his backbenchers, Mr Blair is due to address the Parliamentary Labour Party before leading Tuesday's Iraq debate.

A vote will then follow on the government's stance.

Short's questions

There had been speculation that International Development Secretary Clare Short, who already threatened to resign, might follow Mr Cook onto the back benches on Monday.

But she refused to comment as she left Monday's Cabinet meeting and there have since been mixed messages about her future.

Ahead of Tuesday's Commons debate, rebel MPs warn they will table an amendment stating there is no moral justification for war without a new resolution.

More Labour MPs than the 122 who voted against the government last time are expected to rebel this time.

Ex-Labour whip Graham Allen and a group of MPs, including Mr Smith, have drawn up the amendment.

It will say that the case for war has yet to be established "especially given the absence of specific UN authorisation" while simultaneously giving their support to British troops.

--

Cook's resignation speech

Here is the full text of Robin Cook's resignation speech in the British House of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented Commons scenes.

"This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

Backing Blair

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

French intransigence?

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

'Heavy price'

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

Public doubts

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Threat questioned

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Israeli breaches

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

Presidential differences

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government."

--

COOK PLACED BLAIR ON THE HOOK

BBC 4 June, 2003

Blair under fire over weapons claims

Robin Cook and Clare Short challenged the prime minister

Tony Blair has again insisted intelligence documents on Iraq's weapons programmes were not changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for war.

Announcing that Parliament's all-party intelligence and security committee would be conducting an inquiry into the row, the prime minister said the allegations were "completely and totally untrue".

Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said the credibility of the government was now at stake in the row.

But a Liberal Democrat motion, backed by the Tories, calling for an independent judicial inquiry, was defeated by 301 votes to 203 on a government majority of 98.

The vote, which saw just 11 Labour MPs rebel, came at the end of a debate about the Iraq intelligence.

'Deceit'

During the debate, former cabinet minister Clare Short said her briefings from the security services made her believe the intelligence had been exaggerated.

"The fact there was deceit on the way to military action is a very grave accusation because if we can be deceived about this what can we not be deceived about," she said.

Critics reportedly faced a showdown with John Prescott at the weekly meeting of Labour backbenchers.

"This is all about the integrity of the party - and the prime minister does not lie," Mr Prescott told them, according to London's Evening Standard newspaper.

In the Commons, Mr Blair backed a claim by cabinet minister John Reid that "rogue elements" in the intelligence services were briefing against the government.

But he said he was convinced that nobody from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) - which briefs ministers on security matters - was involved.

Mr Blair said one claim being disputed - that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order being given - was entirely the work of the JIC.

Launching a vigorous defence of the government's approach to Iraq, Mr Blair said work on finding the weapons was just beginning.

A newly expanded team of about 1,400 people from the US, UK and Australia was only now stepping up the search.


"I have absolutely no doubt at all that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," he said.

'Credibility at risk'

Mr Blair urged MPs to remember that as well as the weapons issue "the people of Iraq are delighted that a brutal dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands of people is gone".

But he faced tough questioning from Mr Duncan Smith after Dr Reid's allegation that "rogue elements" were feeding journalists with false information about the government's approach to Iraq.

The Tory leader demanded to know who those "rogue elements" were.

"The whole credibility of his government rests on clearing up these charges," he said calling for an independent judicial inquiry.

"I simply say to the prime minister these allegations are not going to go away."

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said: "Who are the public to trust if the government are letting it be known that they can't wholeheartedly trust their own intelligence services?"

Former cabinet minister Robin Cook urged Mr Blair to acknowledge the government was mistaken in making the 45 minutes claim, and also the separate claim Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa.

Mr Cook later accused Dr Reid of "running around lighting bush fires" with his security services claims in the hope that attention would be diverted from the central charge.


'Skulduggery'

Earlier, Dr Reid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was a "disgrace" that the integrity of the leadership of the security services was being impugned by "obviously rogue isolated individuals".

He urged critics to "put up or shut up" in the light of "15 years of evidence" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

MPs on the influential foreign affairs select committee are set to investigate the way the government presented intelligence information over Iraq's weapons.

The Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry will take place behind closed doors.

But the prime minister said its report would be published and his spokesman indicated that Mr Blair himself could give evidence to the inquiry.


Two Committees

Intelligence and security committee is appointed by and reports to the prime minister, although it prides itself on its independence. It meets behind closed doors.
Foreign affairs committee is a cross-party select committee and meets in public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2962328.stm

--

In quotes: Robin Cook

Here are some of the key quotes from Robin Cook over his political career:

"As a contribution to George Bush's war on terrorism, Iraq has been a spectacular own goal." August 2005

"It is revealing that Britain now has a prime minister who uses 'liberal' as a term of abuse, in the way that a North American politician would." July 2004

"Tony Blair is a man of immense, attractive charm, which he maintains by shrinking from disagreeable exchanges." 2004

ON BUSH: "I can just about forgive him Iraq. But dropping a Scottie on his head, that's really stupid." Berating the US president for dropping his dog, November 2003

"What has come to trouble me is the suspicion that if the 'hanging chads' of Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq." After resigning, March 2003

"Chicken tikka masala is now Britain's true national dish, not only because it is the most popular, but because it is a perfect illustration of the way Britain absorbs and adapts external influences." December 2001

"The tragic paradox of the last century was that those who murdered one person were more likely to be brought to justice than those who plotted the genocide of millions." April 2001

ON BOSNIA: "I opposed apartheid in South Africa, so I cannot accept apartheid through ethnic cleansing in Europe." March 1999

"Nothing has given me greater satisfaction in my time in office than the removal of Milosevic from office and the removal of his poisonous policies of ethnic hatred from Europe." April 2001

"Britain will once again be a force for good in the world. Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension ... Ethics will be at the heart of our policy ... The Labour government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy." (After becoming British Foreign Secretary, May 1997)

"This is not just a government that does not know how to accept blame - this is a government that knows no shame." (Response to the Scott Report on UK arms-to-Iraq, February 1996)

"We should not accept the implicit assumption of Bush's muscular foreign policy that freedom can be delivered from 38,000ft through the bomb doors." January 2005

ON WMD: "I find it difficult to reconcile what I knew, and what I am sure the PM knew, with what he said."

ON IRAQ: "The tricky thing about a quagmire is you never know you have walked into one until it is too late." 2004

--

Saturday, 6 August 2005

Robin Cook is dead

Robin Cook refused to stay quiet on the backbenches

"I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support", Cook.

Robin Cook was walking with wife Gaynor when he collapsed.


Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook, 59, has died after collapsing while hill walking in north-west Scotland.

It is believed he was taken ill while walking with his wife Gaynor near the summit of Ben Stack, at around 1420 BST, Northern Constabulary said.

Mr Cook was flown by coastguard helicopter to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, where he was pronounced dead, said an NHS Highland spokesman.

Mr Cook quit as Commons leader in March 2003, in protest over the war in Iraq.

Following Mr Cook's death, former friends and colleagues paid tribute to him.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was "an outstanding, extraordinary talent", in a statement released by Downing Street.

The Conservative leader Michael Howard said: "He is a very great loss. He was someone who made an immense contribution to our political life."

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "Scottish, British and international politics have lost a good and gifted man."

Keen walker

RAF Kinloss Assistant controller Tom Docherty said the centre had received a call about a "collapsed male walker".

"He was given CPR with instructions over the telephone from ambulance control staff at Inverness."

It is understood Mr Cook, who has two adult sons, arrived at hospital at 4pm, about 90 minutes after his collapse and was declared dead five minutes later, said an NHS Highland spokesman.

It was more than three hours before police confirmed his death, as it is believed family members were being informed.

Following Mr Cook's death, a report will be prepared for the Procurator Fiscal, as is usual in such circumstances.

Landslide win

The Livingston MP, who lived in Edinburgh, was a keen walker and cyclist and a keen follower of horse racing.

He first became an MP for Edinburgh Central in 1974 and was appointed the shadow health secretary in 1989, becoming shadow trade and industry secretary in 1992.

In 1994, he became the shadow foreign secretary, a position he held until the 1997 election.

After Labour's landslide win, he entered the Cabinet as foreign secretary.

A Cabinet reshuffle after the 2001 Labour victory saw him replaced at the Foreign Office by Jack Straw, with Mr Cook instead given the job of Leader of the Commons.

He resigned that position in the lead-up to the conflict in Iraq in protest over Tony Blair's decision to go to war.

He had been an outspoken critic of the government's foreign policy from the backbench.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4127654.stm

--

Cook will be missed

"Many in Westminster are also convinced that Gordon Brown would have offered him one of the big jobs in his cabinet"

Mr Cook was often talked of as a leadership contender

By Nick Assinder - Political Correspondent, BBC News

The death of Robin Cook not only deprives the Labour Party of one of its greatest figures, it will also diminish the House of Commons.

The former foreign secretary was one of the very few MPs - on either the back or front benches - who demanded attention when he spoke in the chamber.

His piercing intellect and ability to go to the very core of an issue, combined with a devastating ability to take his enemies to pieces was never better displayed than during the debate on the Scott report into the arms to Iraq affair during which he flayed the Conservative government.

The Commons witnessed it again just two years ago when he delivered his resignation speech after quitting the cabinet in protest at the war on Iraq.

And it was that act of principle that gave Mr Cook a new standing amongst Labour MPs and in the Commons itself.

He had always been respected, even admired - particularly by the left - but his inability to attract a "gang" around him often left him politically alone in times of need.

Enemies

That was never more obvious than during the revelation about his affair with his then secretary, Gaynor, which saw him left in the hands of the Downing Street spin machine as it attempted to minimise the consequential damage to the government.

And that affair, and the subsequent revelations by his ex-wife Margaret, continued to dog him right up until his death.

He also had the ability to rub people up the wrong way and appear aloof, even haughty - one moment friendly and humorous, the next cold and dismissive.

He had made his fair share of enemies over the years, most notably Chancellor Gordon Brown with whom he had a famous falling out.

But the two had recently put that behind them and were once again seen as natural allies.

It also seemed likely Mr Cook's resignation would, in the long term, have given his political career a significant lift.

Parliamentarian

He never delivered the sort of performance in the cabinet that his supporters had hoped for and, after his demotion from foreign secretary to Commons leader, his star was clearly on the wane.

Ironically he was widely regarded as a success in the Commons job and became regarded as probably the greatest parliamentarian of his time.

Many in Westminster are also convinced that Gordon Brown would have offered him one of the big jobs in his cabinet if, as widely expected, he replaces Tony Blair as prime minister.

And, of course, there had been times when Mr Cook had been talked of as a leadership contender himself.

But, once again, that inability to attract a steadfast following always made that unlikely - a fact he appeared to have accepted himself.

Nonetheless, there are many within the Labour party who will be devastated that the man they saw as their natural leader - even their hope for the future direction of the party - has gone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4128266.stm

--

Cook 'was poised for Cabinet job'

Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock has said Robin Cook would have returned to the Cabinet had he lived.

Mr Cook, who died on Saturday, resigned from the Cabinet on the eve of the Iraq war but Lord Kinnock said he would have been invited back as time passed.

"Robin was so good that it was unwise to do without him," he told BBC News.

Cabinet minister David Blunkett also said Mr Cook could have played a part, even under Tony Blair, as the "wounds" from the Iraq debate healed.

Brown rapprochement

There has been speculation that Mr Cook could have rejoined the government if Gordon Brown took over the premiership.

Lord Kinnock said neither Mr Cook nor Mr Brown could remember the origins of the feud between them which emerged when they were young men in Edinburgh.

But their relationship had recently been better than ever, he said.

"Their relationship was much warmer and mutually admiring than it had been for some decades, he said.

He predicted Mr Cook would have been invited back to Labour's front bench regardless of who was leader as the event, though not the implications, of the Iraq war receded.

"I am certain that such was the capability of Robin Cook and so sure-footed had been his whole conduct in the period since he had left the government that he would have been invited back to the front bench.

"And depending on the post, I think he would have been strongly inclined to commit himself again."

'True comrade'

Lord Kinnock said Mr Cook would not have worried about "pecking orders" but would have assessed how much he could achieve in a particular job.

Mr Cook managed Lord Kinnock's campaign for the Labour leadership in 1983.

The Labour peer said he felt an awful sense of injustice at the loss of a "cherished friend and true comrade".

"Robin had so much more to give, so much more to do and much more to enjoy," he said.

He paid tribute to Mr Cook's "overwhelming intellect" but said he could also be "very, very funny" with his dry humour.

Politically, the former foreign secretary had been totally consistent with his basic beliefs, said Lord Kinnock, who revealed he had tried to dissuade his friend from resigning over the Iraq war.

--

Tributes To Cook

"Robin was so good that it was unwise to do without him", Neil Kinnock,Ex-Labour leader

"Robin Cook was very brave and had more integrity than most politicians could ever dream of having", Derek Simpson, Trade union leader

Mr Cook was called one of the Labour Party's "leading lights"

Tribute was paid to "the greatest parliamentarian of our time" as hundreds gathered for the funeral of former foreign secretary Robin Cook.

Family, friends and senior politicians attended the service for the Livingston MP at St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said his Labour colleague's death had left a gap "which can never be properly filled".

Mr Cook died last weekend at the age of 59 after falling ill while walking in the Scottish hills.

The mourners were led by Mr Cook's wife Gaynor and his sons from his first marriage, Peter and Christopher. His ex-wife Margaret attended with partner Robin Howie.

His election agent Jim Devine, a close personal friend and the best man at his second wedding, greeted mourners.

Delivering the principal tribute to Mr Cook, the chancellor said his colleague was "taken from us at the height of his powers".

'Greatest parliamentarian'

"His mission and his achievement was not just to make great speeches but to advance great causes - and he did.

"This is how I believe we best remember Robin, not just for what he said and how he said it but what he stood for - the greatest parliamentarian of our time, who put all his talents and his life at the service of the greatest causes of our time.

"Whenever there was injustice he sought to right it, wherever there was poverty he fought a war against it."

Readings were also given by Mr Cook's children, Glasgow MP Mohammad Sarwar and racing pundit John McCririck.

He attacked Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is abroad on holiday and did not attend the service, for delivering a "snub" to the Cook family.

He said his decision "demonstrates a petty vindictiveness and a moral failure, opting to continue snorkelling instead of doing his duty".

However, Mr Devine responded: "John McCririck was wrong to say those things. It is not what Robin would have wanted."

The service was led by the Right Reverend Richard Holloway, former Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

He told mourners that as an avowed atheist Mr Cook would have raised a "quizzical eyebrow" at the service being held in St Giles Cathedral.

But he said it was an "entirely appropriate" venue because, like late First Minister Donald Dewar, Mr Cook was "a Presbyterian atheist".

And he added: "This historic cathedral is not just the home of a Christian church, it is an important place in the civic and community life of Scotland.

"So it is entirely fitting that it is where we meet to give thanks for one of Scotland's greatest sons and in which to express our feeling of sorrow and loss at his untimely death."

Christopher Cook read from his father's political memoir The Point Of Departure, while his brother Peter chose a passage from Germinal by Emile Zola - one of his father's favourite books.

The service also featured a recital by traditional musicians Aly Bain and Phil Cunningham.

Floral tributes were placed outside the doors of the cathedral on the city's Royal Mile.

The square next to St Giles is usually bustling with festival performers, but was cleared of entertainers for the funeral.

Many people stood behind crowd barriers to watch mourners arrive and then listen to the service on a loudspeaker.

After the service the funeral cortege left for a local cemetery and a private burial.

Mr Cook collapsed while hillwalking in the Scottish Highlands last weekend.

He was pronounced dead in hospital after he fell eight feet down a ridge, near the summit of 2,365ft Ben Stack.

A post-mortem examination concluded that he died from hypertensive heart disease.

Global Praise

Politicians from around the world have paid warm tribute to former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook after his death.

Mr Cook collapsed while hill walking in north-west Scotland. The 59-year-old resigned from the Cabinet in 2003 over the Iraq war.

Tony Blair called Mr Cook "an outstanding, extraordinary talent".

Tory leader Michael Howard praised his "immense" contribution to UK politics. Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said he was "deeply saddened".

Mr Cook was with second wife Gaynor when he was suddenly taken ill near the summit of Ben Stack.

He was flown by coastguard helicopter to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, where he was pronounced dead, said an NHS Highland spokesman.

His wife travelled to the hospital on Sunday afternoon to formally identify the body arriving at about 1300BST (1200GMT) with a police escort and Jim Devine, who was her late husband's election agent.

She spent about 20 minutes at the hospital's mortuary building.

His former wife, Margaret, said their two adult sons were "gutted" by the tragedy and were heading to Scotland.

"He was so young and had so much to offer," she said. "In these troubled political times he was a heavyweight on the right side, not least on the war in Iraq."

'Enormous contribution'


Mr Cook's death means there will be a by-election in Livingston, where Mr Cook was MP.

He entered Parliament in 1974 and was a key figure when Labour was in opposition, mounting a damaging attack on John Major's government during the Arms to Iraq affair.

He served as foreign secretary from 1997 to 2001, when he was demoted to leader of the Commons, where he steered a modernisation process.

In 2003, he resigned from the Cabinet on the eve of the Iraq war, arguing that military action was unnecessary.

After his death, Mr Blair said: "This news will be received with immense sadness, not just in Britain but in many parts of the world.

"Robin was an outstanding, extraordinary talent - brilliant, incisive in debate, of incredible skill and persuasive power."

Commons man

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called Mr Cook "the greatest Parliamentarian of his generation" and added: "I deeply mourn his loss."

Chancellor Gordon Brown said: "I admired and valued Robin as a colleague and friend and as one of the greatest parliamentarians of our time.

"His wife Gaynor and his two sons are in our thoughts and prayers."

Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock predicted that Mr Cook would have returned to Labour's front bench had he lived.

And Work and Pensions Secretary David Blunkett said Mr Cook should be remembered for major achievements, including protecting people from genocide in Sierra Leone.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also paid tribute to the former foreign secretary as a "partner on a wide range of issues".

"Throughout a rich and varied life, Mr Cook displayed exceptional intellect, eloquence, vision and passion in the domestic and international arenas alike," a spokesman for Mr Annan said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid tribute to a "passionate defender of human freedom and dignity."

She said: "As foreign secretary, he played a key role in ending ethnic cleansing and building peace, stability and democracy in the Balkans. We mourn his passing."

Michael Howard said: "Robin Cook's contribution to British politics was immense.

"He was a politician of principle who fought hard for the things he believed in. He will be greatly missed."

And Mr Kennedy said: "Scottish, British and international politics have lost a good and gifted man."

Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general and UK defence secretary who enjoyed a 40-year friendship with Mr Cook, said he was "a formidable politician who firmly stamped his identity on British politics".

'Political strength'

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mr Cook's Tory predecessor as foreign secretary, said his "political strength" had come from his "ability to represent what many might see as a more true reflection of the Labour party than Tony Blair's".

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said Mr Cook's loss would be felt deeply in the Muslim community, particularly because of his opposition to the war.

Meanwhile, human rights group Amnesty International said Mr Cook would be remembered as a "significant" campaigner.

Derek Simpson, general secretary of union Amicus, said: "Apart from being extremely intelligent, Robin Cook was very brave and had more integrity than most politicians could ever dream of having."

Horse racing was one of Mr Cook's passions and he spent time as a newspaper tipster.

Channel 4 racing pundit John McCririck said: "He was so intellectually stimulating and your brain came alive when you were with him."

More Tributes


REVEREND RICHARD HOLLOWAY
"This historic cathedral is not just the home of a Christian church, it is an important place in the civic and community life of Scotland. So it is entirely fitting that it is where we meet to give thanks for one of Scotland's greatest sons and in which to express our feeling of sorrow and loss at his untimely death."


CHANCELLOR GORDON BROWN
"His mission and his achievement was not just to make great speeches but to advance great causes - and he did. This is how I believe we best remember Robin, not just for what he said and how he said it but what he stood for - the greatest parliamentarian of our time, who put all his talents and his life at the service of the greatest causes of our time."


CHRISTOPHER COOK
"When I was 12 my dad said to me, in a friendly way, 'By the time I was your age, I had read all of Dickens and most of Scott'. Twenty years later, I'm afraid I still can't claim to be as well read as my dad was before he was even a teenager. But I did at least manage to read his book whilst there was still time to discuss it with him."


MOHAMMAD SARWAR, LABOUR MP
"Robin was a man of great integrity, courage and vision and, more important for me, he was a friend. I have been involved in politics for 30 years and, in that time, I can honestly say I have never come across a more principled politician."


RACING PUNDIT JOHN McCRIRICK
"I believe the prime minister's snub to Robin's family, to millions of new Labour voters, demonstrates a petty vindictiveness and moral failure, opting to continue snorkelling instead of doing his duty."


LORD FOULKES
"I just think it was a pity it was spoiled by John McCririck. What he said was inappropriate for a funeral service. He was also wrong in what he said. Tony Blair will lead tributes to Robin Cook in London, which will be an even bigger occasion than this."


SHAHID MALIK, LABOUR MP
"He had the respect, presence and gravitas that most parliamentarians can only dream of."


Scottish politicians are among the dozens of people to pay tribute to the late cabinet minister Robin Cook who died while hill walking in the Highlands.

SCOTTISH SECRETARY ALISTAIR DARLING

I have known Robin for 30 years, he was my predecessor as MP for Edinburgh Central and a neighbour as well as a colleague.

He was one of the outstanding parliamentarians of his generation and his contribution both in and out of government was enormous.

I shall always remember Robin as a warm and witty companion. Scotland has lost one of its finest parliamentarians.



CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER GORDON BROWN

Robin's mastery of the House of Commons was acknowledged on all sides and his incisive mind, forensic skills and formidable and wide ranging debating prowess were seen by the public very clearly.

When in opposition he led the response to the Scott Inquiry and when in government he became a great reforming leader of the House of Commons.

His books and articles as well as his speeches confirmed him as a singular political talent - a colleague whose sharp analysis and shrewd tactical sense were matched by great insight and political courage.

All of us recognised that his disagreements over Iraq arose from principle.



LABOUR PARTY CHAIRMAN IAN McCARTNEY

Robin was a good friend, a highly respected politician and a great servant of the Labour Party.

The thoughts of Labour Party members will be with his family at this very sad time.



WILLIE DUNN, CHAIRMAN OF THE LIVINGSTON CONSTITUENCY LABOUR PARTY

Robin will be sorely missed in the constituency as well as a quality politician in parliament.

He always fought on behalf of local people no matter what elevated office he was in.




LORD ROBERTSON, FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL

Robin was a formidable politician who firmly stamped his identity on British politics.

In the confrontation with Saddam in 1998 and in saving Kosovo from Milosevic the following year, we led difficult and controversial campaigns to do what was right and necessary.

He was admired and respected by his friends and feared by his opponents and leaves a big gap in British and international political life.



MARGARET COOK, ROBIN COOK'S EX-WIFE

He was so young and had so much to offer.

In these troubled political times he was a heavyweight on the right side, not least on the war in Iraq.

He was an absolute brilliant, gold standard, in opposition.

He just knew how to do the background work and was a brilliant orator.

The Scott Report was his top point in his career and he totally confounded the government of the day.

I don't think he handled power well because of the necessary conflicts and deviations with his own essential personality and ethical style.



BRIAN WILSON, FORMER LABOUR MP FOR CUNNINGHAME NORTH

I think he was an absolutely top rank politician. He will be best remembered for his parliamentary performances, that was where he was at his peak.

In a way he was an unlikely figure to be able to command the House in the way he did, it wasn't by physical presence, not even by voice it was by force of intellect and force of debating power and there are very few in modern politics who would fit that description.

An important thing in all of the national tributes is that he was an absolutely first class MP and before that an absolutely first class councillor.

--