Blair, the Special Relationship and the Clash of Civilisations
David Blackburn 12:02pm
So far so good for John Rentoul: Blair’s walking it, but there have been intriguing moments. The suggestion that Blair’s foreign policy was motivated solely by vanity is false. The former Prime Minister’s thinking is extremely coherent. That is not to say that he is right nor to deny his obvious vanity, or to overlook that this may simply be Blair in matinee idol mode. But he subscribes to an ideology.
He stated, once again, that he saw 9/11 as an attack on “us”, not just America. The language is redolent of Samuel P. Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilisations. Blair perceives a band of religious fanatics and a crucible of oppresive rogue states which desire the West’s destruction. Iraq fell within this category as a consequence of its alleged WMD programme and its blatant flouting of UN resolutions and sanctions.
This cultural battle is ongoing. One of this morning’s developments is that the envoy to the Middle East believes that resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict peacefully is the key to defeating this threat, and specifically Iran, because peace in Palestine will attract a wider coalition in confronting this threat and diminish the recruiting power of al Qaeda and its affiliates. Indeed, that has always been his position. He related his frustration with George Bush’s reticence on the matter during the initial phases of the War on Terror.
The impression is that the Bush and Blair Special Relationship was an open ideological/cultural marriage; at not point was it conditional or secretive. Blair was adamant on this point. He denied that he had made a secret deal with Bush at Crawford and characterised their relationship as “an alliance” based on mutually shared perceptions, as it has always been:
I don’t doubt Blair on this point; it explains why Halliburton did so well out of Iraq whilst Corus did not. However, if Blair was so convinced of the importance of creating a free, democratic state in Iraq to overawe a global threat, why did he abrogate his responsibilities in Basra? Are his recollections influenced by a modicum of calculated hindsight? As he admitted to "making a mistake" during the Fern Britten interview that seems at least possible.“You have to understand that this was not a contract… it was not a case of I’ll do this for you if you do this for me.”
Previous
pete-s
January 29th, 2010 12:21pm Report this commentIf he was so keen on getting a UN resolution, why did he not embarrass, Germany because they would not get paid for their loans, Russia because they would not get paid for their arms, France because they would not get the promised oil contracts.
This is never mentioned!
Vulture
January 29th, 2010 12:23pm Report this commentI wouldn't pray John Rentoul in aid: he is one of the few journalists whose tongue has remained firmly rammed into Blair's fundament since Year Zero (David Aaronovich is another)- while his more cautious colleagues have been slowly withdrawing theirs.
If Bliar were faced with a harsh inquisitor with his own lawyerly slickness, rather than the tame elderly stooges who comprise the Chilcot panel he might not seem as smooth and winning as you say he is.
And if the Crusade to free Iraq was such an open and shut case why did it necessitate duplicity, deceit, and downright lies to his own Cabinet, to Parliament, and not least to the poor deluded people?
Robert
January 29th, 2010 12:41pm Report this commentI'm sorry he comes accross as a well versed chap who has taken a long time to learn this off pat. I'd not trust this bloke at all. Blair to me has lied and still lies
Ian Walker
January 29th, 2010 12:59pm Report this commentThere was a small slip from Blair, in my opinion, where he started talking about going to war being a decision based on risk.
This seems to mark quite a departure from his stated view that he was "convinced" that WMDs were in the country.
John Wilkes
January 29th, 2010 1:00pm Report this commentI haven't heard it all but those who have speculated that Gordon Brown has the most to fear from Tony Blair's appearance are surely being proved right. Whether he is right or wrong it at least refreshing to hear the argument put in a detailed and coherent fashion. The comparison is not a good one for the current incumbent and provides further evidence that he amplifies his incompetence with a lack of intellect.
Moreover, whilst I would criticise Tony Blair for doing little about it, he is right that Israel/Palestine is the key to all of this. The middle east surely poses the threat of Iran and militant Islam against Israel. It is essential in the interests of the West for this to be kept under control. Israel cannot be abandoned without surrendering to those in the middle east who are relentless in their opposition to the West. Wasn't the best argument for sorting out Iraq always to bring generalised security to the area and provide a warning to Iran? Therein lies the incompetence. So badly was it done that it has merely added to the instability (similarly Afghanistan)and created more and more danger which we are less able to find the resources to fight.
Beer Moth
January 30th, 2010 8:59am Report this commentIan Walker.
War is always based on risky decisions, WMD or no. What slip?
Back to top