This interview was first published in Christian Socialist Magazine.

Since she left the Cabinet and the helm of DJID, Clare Short has been outspoken on Iraq. We asked her about that, about other conflicts, the UN, arms control and what makes her tick.

What do you think the long-term consequences of the conflict in Iraq might be?

I fear they could be many more recruits for al Qaeda, more bitterness and more division and unhappiness in the Middle East. But we should be determined to do all we can to ensure that is not the future. This situation could be so bad for the world that whatever mistakes we think have been made up to now, we still have to search for the positive way forward. For the sake of the people of Iraq we must support them in building their country.

We must hold the US to its support for the road map and establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel by 2005. Bush's recent remarks are very welcome, and we must ensure that the US sustains a commitment to the road map without modification. That is so important: if we don't get that, the ongoing bitterness and anger will spread, divide the world and produce all sorts of ugly consequences.

Are you hopeful about Israel/Palestine?

It is very difficult to be objectively hopeful since the failure of the Oslo peace accords. But Bush has said he wants to be personally committed to peace in the Middle East, and he's arranging meetings with Abu Mazen and Sharon. That is good news, but we shouldn't complacently think it's fine, because the possibilities for it going wrong are enormous. But we have to work for it and live in hope, otherwise you lose all energy for progress.

What about the rule of law and establishment of order in Iraq? What do you see as the best way for that?

The Afghan model of interim governments, consultations with the people over the constitution, then elections, all led by the UN, could have been followed in Iraq - but it's a bit more complicated than that. My own view, sadly, is that, although our Prime Minister was saying he was sure there would be a second resolution, he had agreed a date for military action with the US and privately committed the UK to being there with the Americans, come what may. Because it was done secretly the preparations for afterwards were not properly made.

There were figures in the Washington administration spotting which Iraqis were going to be allowed to take over Iraq. These were illegitimate aspirations under the Geneva Convention because occupying powers should get UN help to bring a legitimate government into being to do that.

The UK should have said to the US we can only come with you if you do it right, and this means, first, publishing the road map and making progress so people in the Middle East feel something is changing; second, exhausting other options, including the Blix process, indicting Saddam for war crimes, lifting sanctions and having a big humanitarian effort; and third, if these don't work, uniting behind the authority of the UN to take military action.

But we didn't do this and I think a secret deal was done on a date to go for military action come what may. That meant it wasn't a just war and explains the chaos we've got now. That is why I can't remain a member of the Government because I think it's indefensible.

You're referring to the 6-point plan put together by Jim Wallis of Sojourners and others? You obviously liked that ...

Absolutely. The American churches - and this was remarkable - have never previously been as united in opposing military action. They were trying to get a hearing in the US and thought that by coming to London they might get Tony Blair to listen to them, and that might be the lever to get America to reconsider. They movingly brought with them the Bishop of Jerusalem. I knew Jim Wallis through the work on poverty, and I was a kind ofintermediary in getting Tony Blair to see them. They were hoping he was listening and looking for an alternative path. I think looking back he wasn't, the commitment had already been made.

I said to them, it's no good just to say ‘no': we have to say things are not OK in Iraq. Containment wasn't working. Saddam was defying the UN, the people were suffering and we had to find a way that dealt with the problem but didn't mean an immediate commitment to war. But I don't think anyone was listening. The UK and US weren't looking for another way, therefore they didn't fulfil the requirements of the teaching of the Just War because there has to be no other means.

It would be very good if people throughout the Muslim world knew that the American Christian churches were opposed. Because we have a president and prime minister who make a lot of their religious convictions I'm sure many people in the Muslim world feel it was a Christian-approved war, whereas churches and faith groups in Britain and America opposed it.

Do you take seriously the teaching on the Just War?

Yes, I think it's a very good teaching. It has close parallels with Muslim teaching.

A role of the church, with its prophetic tradition, is to come up with creative alternatives ...

I think the American churches did. The tragedy is it was late and wasn't listened to. If you've got a really wicked ruler - a Mugabe or Milosovich - who hurts and terrorises their people and destroys the economy, is the only instrument we have to declare war on the people? Can't we get some more sophisticated way of targeting the tyrant?

You clearly see the UN as pivotal. How do you view the way things are going in terms of the UN'S role?

Those who wrecked the UN process have a cheek when they go on to say it showed the UN as being weak. If we suddenly break with the UN process, don't allow Blix to be completed or the UN to resolve this crisis which previously it was dealing with (1441 was a UN resolution, the sanctions were UN sanctions ...) and then say the UN is useless, this is an extraordinary way of behaving. It's weakened the UN and this is a real danger for the world.

In this post-Cold War world we've got a lot of instability and chaos. Without the UN we have only got power without a sense of injustice, and that's very dangerous. We must help the UN reassert its authority and increase its efficiency - which it is doing: Kofi Annan is a great reformer. We need the UN. America needs the UN. American power cannot make America safe. In fact, American power can anger the world and make America more unsafe.

It is shameful that the resolution giving the UN a role in reconstruction has no role for the weapons inspectors. They must return and get to the truth on WMD. The role given to the UN in helping create a legitimate Iraqi government diminishes its normal authority: it is just another partner with the coalition, whereas as everyone understands international law it should have had the leading role.

Iraq has many educated people and natural oil wealth. Just a bit of support for a few years, and it should be a comfortable middle-income country.

Let's broaden this out to other conflicts. Do you see the UN having a role in the Congo?

The UN is involved in the Congo. It's such a complicated conflict. It's been grossly misgoverned and with such rich minerals it's been a target for the wrong reasons, for exploitation. Mobutu was propped up with western aid even though he mis-governed his country and supported the genocide in Rwanda and this led on to the current conflict. But recently we've had a very positive South African engagement, UN involvement in the transition to a united government, and a peacekeeping operation to disarm the genocidal forces trying to attack Rwanda and Burundi.

So the UN is involved and doing the right things, but it's very low down the agenda of the international community. A hundredth of the attention that was directed to getting Iraq to war would get Congo to a sustainable peace that would also secure the future of Rwanda and Burundi. With countries putting a few more troops into the UN peace-keeping operation there could be a peace and the chance of a decent future. Congo is a Highly Indebted Poor Country so it could get debt relief and an economic and social reform programme, and that would make Rwanda and Burundi safe.

Oxfam claims there are loopholes in the UK arms export regulations: guns are off our streets but there are no rules to prevent arms dealers going elsewhere.

Robin Cook did very well in getting the regulations tightened for arms exports for the EU, including a provision that we shouldn't sell poor countries arms that threaten their sustainable development. We had these shameful decisions over military radar systems for Tanzania which they couldn't afford and which breached the rules. Since Tanzania there's been a review and promise of some tightening but it's been a fantastically painful battle.

Number 10, the Foreign Office and the DTI believe it's their duty to promote the sale of UK arms. I think the economics behind it are nonsense. What you need are fair rules in the international system and for British companies to operate within them, not try to push British arms sales come what may.

Looking back on six years at DflD, what gives you the most satisfaction?

My ambition was to make Britain a leading player in international development and to lead a clarity of commitment of all the agencies that play in the international development system to measure the success of reform against the systematic reduction of poverty. This reflects the values of social justice the Labour Party exists to serve. The world will only be safe if there is more justice and the poor of the world have a chance of a better life. DflD is a very fine organization with brilliant and very highly motivated staff who will go on working for those values. I hope it's a permanent part of the UK government system.

DfiD is now seen as the most effective development agency in the international system; It's very influential in the World Bank, the IMF and the other international agencies, and that's a proud role for Britain. This country lost an empire and didn't find a role. There's a role for us, the fourth biggest economy, in working for a more just and sustainable world order. It's also in our self-interest.

You'll go on campaigning from the back-benches?

Sure. I'll try to keep an eye on DfID but I hope that everyone else who cares about development will too - because there are other parts of the Whitehall system that hate it, institutionally not as individuals. The Foreign Office used to ‘own abroad' and felt threatened by DflD's success. I'm sure there will be efforts to weaken it.

You've described yourself as an uncomfortable member of the Catholic Church but the Christian ethic still appears to inspire you.

I was bought up as a Catholic and it meant a lot to me. But I have ceased to be a practising Catholic. I disagree so strongly with the teachings of the Church on contraception and so on - I just find it unbearable and unforgivable. Yet a lot of that commitment to truth and justice and something beyond oneself is very deep in me and has helped to form me.

I come from Irish Catholicism with its history of colonialism, suffering and persecution. My great-great-great-grandfather came to Birmingham to escape the potato famine and we've been in my part of Birmingham ever since. I feel very close to that history. I take my Mum to Mass most Sundays but I don't believe in lots of the dogmatic teaching. If I say the Creed I can say ‘I don't really agree with that' and ‘I don't really agree with that'. But I have my own belief that what God is is goodness and we all need to believe in something bigger than ourselves. Truth and beauty and justice go with goodness, and there's nothing finer for us to aspire to in our lives and none of us will be as good as we want to be. That's the route to happiness and a better world and the answers to the misery of the world. That has come out of my Catholic childhood, but I'm not sure the Pope would recognize all of the detail!

Did you draw upon some residue of faith to help you cope with all the recent press vilification?

I believe in truth and doing the right thing for its own sake. It was extremely unpleasant. There should be some examination of conscience by those involved in this nasty kind of briefing stuff. I was sad to leave the department but I am very glad to be out of the nastiness.

What are your plans now?

I would like to speak out more on Iraq and other things I think are wrong without getting into personal vilification and bitterness. The media want to personalise it but I don't because it's much too serious and it is not personal. I want to be able to discuss these issues in all their seriousness without there just being personal unpleasantness.

Do you think the Party has been damaged?

The challenge for the Party is to renew itself in power. It's taken some wrong routes, but this Government has done some very good things, and I don't see any better alternative. We must get it back on the straight and narrow without losing the third term. The soul of the Party has been hurt. I had many letters saying ‘I'm leaving the Party, I'll never vote again'. We've all got to not go there, because if people of conscience turn away politics is left to the cynical. The Left, which believes in social justice, is driven partly by anger at injustice, but that's a negative emotion. It's right - righteous anger - but you don't get transformation until you also have inspiration about how things can be better.