One elderly delegate, however, voiced his disagreement rather loudly, and was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for his troubles.

Hailing the recent U.N. recognition the international community has a "responsibility to protect" all people from genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, Straw said had this responsibility been in place at the time of the Iraq invasion, the international divisions that resulted might have been avoided.

In the case of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Britain, alongside the United States, had "worked tirelessly for an alternative," he told the conference's foreign policy debate. However there came a moment when they had to judge which was "the lesser of two evils," he said - "to stand by and allow these monstrous regimes to go on defying the international community, or to act.

"In each case we chose the latter course. And I believe we were right to do so."

Straw acknowledged that last week's unrest in Basra - precipitated by an attempt by British troops to rescue two soldiers arrested by police - had been "serious," telling delegates: "We can expect more dark moments." But transforming any nation that had been ruled by "violent dictatorships" into one where people ruled themselves took time, he stressed.

"That's why we are there in Afghanistan and Iraq, just as we were in Kosovo, Bosnia and Sierra Leone."

Britain was in Iraq under a unanimous U.N. Security Council mandate, he stressed, and was there for "one reason only - to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation."

It was at this point that an elderly delegate on the balcony - who like many in the hall had been engaged in disgruntled muttering throughout - shouted shrilly:

"That's a lie, and you know it!"

All heads in the audience flicked suddenly toward the balcony as some five security guards descended on the gentleman, who was later revealed to be 82 years old. As he continued to shout and struggle against the guards grabbing at his arms and legs, a man in his 30s pleaded "Just leave him alone."

Within moments he too was swept out by a gang of guards, who lifted him from his seat by the arms and legs and dragged him out of the hall, as he asked repeatedly: "What have I done?"

The elderly gentlemen was then spared the manhandling suffered by his interlocutor, and was allowed to walk out of the hall, escorted on both sides. It later transpired he was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

But as delegates looked on slightly aghast, Straw pushed valiantly on, elucidating his belief in the necessity of promoting Labor's democratic values abroad. Needless to say, no one else dared interrupt.

However the elderly gentlemen was not the only delegate who managed to voice his discontent at the government's Iraq policy.

Barry Camfield, assistant general secretary of the Transport and General Worker's Union, one of so-called Big Four unions in the Labor movement, used an address during the debate to express the union's opposition to the "illegal invasion and Iraq and the continued occupation."

Many other trade unions, including the Trades Union Congress, were joined with the TGWU in calling for British troops to be pulled out, he said, to considerable applause.

Prime Minister Tony Blair "was wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he was wrong to support the neo-conservative Republican party in their battle for regime change and he's wrong now to dig our country ever deeper into the crisis that is Iraq," he said.

"Astonishingly, a Labor government continues to be the crutch that George W. Bush leans on. We give him the credibility to maintain his continued occupation."

"I ask you in all conscience, are 100,000 civilians dead a price worth paying? Are the scores of British soldiers dead a price worth paying? The total destruction of large cities and a country in chaos, where the government lacks legitimacy precisely because it depends upon foreign military occupation - (is this) a price worth paying?"

Camfield said that while the union welcomed democratic change, it was not sustainable unless the Iraqi people won those changes for themselves.

"You can't force democracy on people by means of war, invasion and occupation, unless of course you intend to stay for a very long time.

"Let's hope the model is not the one suffered by India for three centuries. Let's bring our troops home."

The vociferousness of anti-war delegates did not match that at last year's conference, when delegates tabled an emergency debate on whether to withdraw troops from Iraq.

However then the Big Four - TGWU, GMB, Unison and Amicus - who together command 40 percent of the conference votes - were persuaded to vote against a motion to do so, which was then defeated by a thumping 86 percent to 14.

This time around, however, the Labor leadership will be worried by the TGWU's decision to reverse its position on a pullout.

Last week's apparent breakdown in relations between Iraqi authorities in Basra and British troops controlling the area has led to a torrent of calls for withdrawal.

Violence broke out in the city when British forces tried to rescue two special forces soldiers who had been arrested by police. Rioters attacked troops and set their armored vehicles alight, forcing them to withdraw; however a later raid on a house in Basra was successful.

The Ministry of Defense later said the two men had been handed over to Shiite militia; Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said he would no longer cooperate with British troops until he received an apology and compensation for the raid.

Some 10,000 people marched on London Saturday in protest at Britain's continued presence in the beleaguered nation. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, formerly Blair's envoy to Iraq, warned Britain might be forced out if the situation became so chaotic there was "no reasonable prospect" of holding it together.

A string of reports in the media at the weekend suggested the MoD was considering a phased withdrawal beginning in May; reports later denied by Defense Secretary John Reid, who insisted there would be no "cut and run" from Iraq.

However a well-placed Foreign Office source told United Press International Monday that it was indeed hoped that security conditions would allow the first troops to return home during the first half of 2006.

With pressure from his core supporters mounting, Blair will no doubt be hoping that this turns out to be the case.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express