Turning circle
On board the PM's plane: Part of political reporters' DNA is the ability to sniff out the faintest whiff of a U-turn.
So, when those of us travelling with the prime minister were briefed that that he'd be calling for a reappraisal of strategy in the war on terror, noses began to twitch. But on hearing the speech in full it became clear that, like the lady, the gentleman at Number Ten was not for turning.
There was no reappraisal, no re-think of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or Britain's approach to Israel's war in Lebanon. Far from it. Instead Tony Blair painted the picture of a global struggle between moderate and Reactionary Islam, between freedom and repression, democracy and theocracy.
It is incredible to me, he said, that so much Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of global terrorism is our fault.
He criticised coverage of the war in Lebanon for not recognising Israel's predicament. In that respect, the prime minister has now left a land where his views are the received wisdom to head home to a country with, it appears, grave doubts about his analysis.
So where then was the reappraisal? Where the re-think? Not on the war on terror itself but on the need to have a "hearts and minds" strategy to match the military one. Tony Blair used his speech last night to spend the political capital he has gained for standing shoulder to shoulder with America for so long. He argued that only an alliance of moderation could take on what he has dubbed the "arc of extremism".
And that alliance would only emerge IF moderate Muslims saw that America believed in the need to create a Palestinian state. Nothing else, he said, was more important to the success of our foreign policy. In truth this is not a re-think at all. Straight after 9/11 he declared that the kaleidoscope had been shaken and that the world could and should be re-made starting with solving the Palestinian crisis.
But now he is trying again - saying, in effect, to the US and Israel there is no military solution to your insecurity. Will they listen now? After all, it is not just in the White House that Tony Blair is hailed as a hero - in hotel lobbies and restaurants people stand and clap on gaining a glimpse of America's ally-in-chief.
The doubt though - just as it was over the Iraq war - is when Tony Blair says "yes but" do they hear the "yes" but not the "but". It's a doubt unlikely to be troubling the man upfront in first class who - in his speech to Rupert Murdoch's executives - declared that his inner self-confidence was complete.
• After an extraordinary few days - you can read all my posts from the USA by clicking here - I am now heading off on my family hols and am leaving Newslog in the capable hands of James Landale, chief political correspondent of News 24. As Arnie would say, I'll be back.
I'm 
Comments
Nick - I don't think it was much of turning circle at all. A turn would mean calling for an immediate ceasefire, or pulling out of Iraq. No, what this speech was all about was Mr Blair reaffirming his learned belief that there are specific ways of fighting Islamaphobia and Islamic Extremism, and that a campaign of terror along will not do that. He suggests that to win over 'the East', the West needs to rethink a strategy that they clearly have been peforming badly at.
On another note - enjoy your holiday, I hope its not 76 days like the MPs, and surely by going away, you are ensuring that there will be a world shattering crisis during that time? (As a Newsnight Editor recently said, will you be looking over your shoulder to ensure that Mr Landale doesn't permanently take your seat!?).
The West is not responsible for the upsurge in global terrorism ? I seem to recall Tony Blair stating, several times - and on the record - that "the world is now a safer place since the removal of Saddam Hussein". Yeah, right ...
TB’s use of the word renaissance is quite significant. He may have undergone a degree of a renaissance himself over the last few days – BUT ONLY A DEGREE and this only as a result of major reservations being expressed in one way or another by his Cabinet colleagues and possibly by his electorate. Nonetheless, for him it may be a substantial shift.
Although it had something of an ‘all things to all people’ flavour, it was significant that in a major speech within the USA he was critical, albeit rather gently and diplomatically of major tenets of US policy, including world trade and climate change. He was critical of isolationism and, to some extent of the ‘it’s all about them, not about us’ War on Terror approach to dealing with extremism.
If he has really acknowledged this need for a pluralistic approach, then we are making progress. However, if it does really remain incredible to him that much of Western opinion sees the development of global terrorism as ‘our fault,’ then he really ought to indulge himself in a review of the last 200 years of world history over the summer break, with particular focus on the post WWII era. Extremism after all does not develop of itself. It is like toothpaste, it only appears when it is squeezed out as a result of intense outside pressure. Just consider briefly some of the history of the Palestinian people over the last 60 years and the intense feelings of subjugation, humiliation, impotence and frustration they must feel.
Taken altogether, he is mainly voicing significant criticism of the USA’s self interest primacy, ‘God Bless America’ policy, which has been personified in George W Bush and hopefully this will be political capital well spent. He is putting down a marker for the UK to take a greater lead in world affairs on the basis of values, but he has some work to do on these values and the UK has some work to do to clean up its own act first.
I think Tony Blair’s view of the world is wrong. The constant battle to keep Europe and the west at the centre of everything that happens in the world is misguided to say the least.
We must accept a multi-polar view of the world where there are a multitude of epicenters; we must also accept a world where western philosophy is no longer the accepted universal truth. Until we do that there will always seem to be a battle, we the West foisting our version of democracy on a part of the world that does not seem to want it.
We must also be seen to be even handed, our failure to accept the Algerian democratic results because they chose an Islamic party in favour of military dictatorship was disastrous, and our failure to accept Hamas was hypocritical and shameless. Hamas should have been given a chance to prove that they also wanted peace. Instead we tried to destroy their government immediately. We do not want democracy in the Middle East to tell the truth, can one imagine Pakistan a country with nuclear power, home and base to the Taleban becoming a democracy? I think not.
The battle we are fighting at the moment is largely that of West trying to keep control ideologically and economically against what was once our colonial hegemony trying to break free and wanting more of an equal say in how things are run.
We will never win this battle unless we start to treat the world as equals without Europe and the west being at the epicenter of everything that happens.
The battle is not about Islam it is about empowerment of nations and peoples.
Perhaps the tragedy of Blair's closeness to America is that he is right, both about the centrality of the Palestinian question, and the need to win the war by staying loyal to our liberal (in the European sense) values. However, he's hitched his wagon to an administration that just can't understand that. President Gore, I'm sure, would have taken a very different view.
Who are these naive people who think Blair is going all the way to America to critise his fans?
Of course, there is no U turn. He is not going to risk a Mel Gibson.
But like MGibson, he will find that the Americans have a favourite past time - turning hot or cold in a snap of their fingers.
Thanks Nick for highlighting Blair's comments immediately after 9/11 that resolving Palestine was key to Middle East peace. Nothing happened that time, what will happen this time?
Whilst Blair's speech offers some hope for us, I can't help thinking that he'll never back up his words with actions.
I believe that we have been sold the idea that islamic terrorism is the wests fault so many times by both moderate and extreme muslims that the media and the oublic are beginning to believe it. On this I agree with TB that we should stop thinking like this because in reality it is totally wrong and the whole principle of islamic terrorism is based on a ridiculous misinterpretation of the holy book. From what you have said on this though Nick I can't see any aspects where TB has changed his tune on anything!
P.S. Enjoy your Holiday Nick!!!
"Arc of Extremism" - sounds like another soundbite in the "Axis of Evil" tradition.
Don't believe a word of this, neither the US nor Blair intend to anything about Palestine - they are colluding by inaction with the Israeli land grab.
nick - wish you would stay away PERMANENTLY - fed up to the back teeth of your acting as Downing's Street's unpain spin doctor.
91Èȱ¬ needs a credible political editor not a sycophant
Yes, he's going to do very well on the US lecture circuit.
Funny how British ex-Prime Ministers seem so popular at that, yet so despised at home.
Something amiss with our political system?
Andrew
At last it seems as though Blair is developing some intellectual coherence to the foreign policy objectives of the West. There needs to be a narrative that unites the superficially disparate battles at home and abroad.
What is a little annoying is that Blair feels the need to continually pinch from Churchill...'arc of extremism' vs 'iron curtain'. Far from adding weight to his oratory it simply seems to confirm he is a mere shadow of the great man.
Nick -
Anniversaries are in the air!
Blair's description of "An arc of extremism" stretching across the Middle East - is a crude attempt to echo Churchill's "Iron Curtain" (falling across Europe) speech at Fulton, Missouri of 1946.
However, the policy of delay and inaction by the US and British governments over the Israeli campaign in Lebanon reminds me more of British and French secret collusion with the Isrealis over the invasion of Egypt and the Suez canal of 1956.
Nick - if this was a real blog, we could perhaps look forward to notes from your hols? If you have a colleague standing-in for you, I suspect this is not a blog at all, but simply an old-fashinoned political notebook/sketch. Surely having someone look after your blog is like lending out your your toothbrush?!
A "hearts and mind approach"; the "arc of extremism". I can barely contain my fury with this man (Blair). Is there no end to the meaningless phrases and soundbites??!! Why in God's name does no one ever seem to challenge him more on this point?? What the hell does this rhetoric actually mean?! Must stop now or my keyboard is going to break, along with some major blood vessels in my brain.....
"The West is not responsible for the upsurge in global terrorism?"
And with that comment Mr Blair demonstrates what a sophist he truly is. I cannot believe that he has no knowledge of the history of the last century, especially of the Middle East. The West has a pivotal role in the structure of the Middle East and its politics. To deny it is simply dishonest. This quote is designed to throw smoke over the whole issue.
Is Blair a visionary or just another self-serving politician.
If there is a choice between being admired by the richest nation on earth or pilloried by the poor of the Middle East, is Blair's vision of the future like his inner confidence now complete?
Same old failed policies then, just hanging onto to America's coat-tails.
Seems our dimwitted PM can't see that his 'arc of extremism' has been caused by the policies of the USA and Israel,with the supine backing of the UK, over the last fifty years.
Time we developed an independent foreign policy and removed those who want the UK to be a US client state from power.
I find Tony Blair chooses the most bizarre locations and audiences for his more 'thoughtful' speeches. If he is really so much for a self-determining Palestinian state - and let's face it that is the *only* solution to begin a path to peace - why not say it repeatedly to public press conferences, in the House of Commons, proclaim it to the world loudly, even say it alloud to George dubbya when the microphones are switched on? For a Prime Minister wanting a legacy in history, he couldn't do better than that.
I get it. We don't like people who blow up other people for ideals we don't share. To show them the folly of their ways - we blow them up.
Nice one.
Tony; you are part of the arc of extremism - not the solution.
Blair (who claims to be a Christian) pretends that he has not noticed that Israel has - in a wholly disproportionate military response - destroyed the infrastructure and economy of Lebanon, including roads, bridges, power stations, hospitals, schools, ambulances, factories, crops. Nor, apparently, has Blair registered the fact that just one Israeli bomb killed more women and children (Lebanese) than all the Hezbollah rockets so far.
The West's war of terror, yes war OF terror, breaks international and humanitarian law, breaches the First Protocol of the Human Rights legislation, and - of course - inflames Muslim sensibilities across the globe.
to head home to a country with, it appears, grave doubts about his analysis. not to mention his sanity.
you may as well go on holiday as your simplistic view of world politics together with the rest of the bbc (forget hutton) means you cant really appreciate the issues at stake here
hopefully the us will listen to mr blair and force the pace on creating a palestine state now
but if reactionary islam is allowed to win democracy will fail and sections of society like women will continue to be treated like sub humans
I have read the whole speech. Any "yes, but" requires detailed textual analysis which is not one of George's strengths.
As for the Israelis, they will ignore a sub-text which is practically subliminal; they will, of course, say "Amen" to the concept of "an arc of extremism", never thinking for a moment that their recent actions makes them part of such an arc.
have a lovely holiday Nick
Grumble grumble...if only we all had a job where we could fly off on a tour of the States and then come home only to head off again for a holiday.
Have a nice time. I'll try not to envy you too much.
It's good to see that, even though he wasn't allowed to visit Syria, our visionary leader found somewhere else to go "just to talk".
Afghanistan was and is a just cause, the country was riddled with terrorist training grounds and that needed to be addressed. Iraq is much more contentious. We were sold the Iraq war on a platform of WMD, now we are told it really was about regime change. That is a clear breach of the UN charter and an infringement of the right to self-determination enshrined in international law. Further the Iraq adventure was undertaken despite the fact that the majority of people in this country were against it, which calls into question the nature of democracy. Next we have Gitmo, Gitmo is an example of how little faith we have in our legal systems. Imprisonment without trial is not a great example of our value system at work.
Mr Blair applauds the Israelis for withdrawing from Gaza, but since withdrawal Israel continues with its policy of targetted assassination. This policy has resulted in countless civilian casualties, attempting to kill a terrorist with a missile or bomb is not an exact science. Hamas are elected to power and we in the west respond by cutting off all funding to the palestinians, in short we punish the palestinian people for their choice. Today we are watching the destruction of Lebanon, an action that will achieve a lasting peace for nobody.
I think Mr Blair is simply perpetuating the myth that all groups engaged in terrorism have the same agenda, a view popularised after 9/11. This is a view I do not subscribe to, it is a dangerous view of the world in that it masks issues that we could perhaps address.
One thing is clear, the problems of the ME will not be resolved by force of arms, neither will it be possible to bring a lasting peace until the palestinian issue is resolved. Further the palestinian issue will not be resolved by Israel simply taking a unilateral position and creating a Palestinian ghetto. A prosperous Palestinian homeland will do more damage to global terrorism than any armed intervention ever could.
Mr Blair's speech is interesting in only one area, it clearly identifies how you defeat an ideology and brings into focus how far from that strategy we have drifted.
I can't see much chance of resolving the troubles in Israel/Palestine until Israel pulls out of the occupied territories. I can't see much chance of Israel pulling out unless the US cuts off their enormous subsidies. I can't see the US doing that unless ... no, I just can't see them doing that at all. Certainly not just because Tony Blair says so.
Blair is a neocon - discuss...
The following is an extract from a comment I sent to The Guardian on 19th July; I think Blair's remarks will be interpreted as such by Muslim fundamentalists through-out the world.
"My analysis of what is happening in the Middle-East is as follows:
1) The Israeli leadership is convinced that Iran in particular and Muslim fundamentalists in general will not stop their aggression so long as they have the capability to offer it. Iran’s developing nuclear capability together with their tendency towards martyrdom has turned that Israeli conviction into a strategy of pre-emptive action; the abductions have been used as a trigger to execute that strategy.
2) Iran and Muslim fundamentalists in general do indeed seek the annihilation of Israel. They believe the diplomatic weakness of the Bush administration arising from its failure in Iraq and to confront either Iran or N Korea, combined with European and Russian antagonism towards Israel presents a very favourable context within which to contrive a crisis from which Israel is bound to made to retreat by the US. Once weakened, Israel will be subjected to repeated attacks, retaliations and imposed retreats. They believe it is impossible for Israel to beat them completely but that, by means of Iranian nuclear weapons it is, at last, becoming possible for them to annihilate Israel – they don’t care about cost – and they intend to so as soon as they can.
3) If the above is correct then sooner or later Bush, Blair and Putin will come to believe their only viable option is to support Israel to the hilt while they still have a chance of success."
* Keith Donaldson wrote:
"if it does really remain incredible to him that much of Western opinion sees the development of global terrorism as ‘our fault,’ then he really ought to indulge himself in a review of the last 200 years of world history"
Actually, it's you who ought to review the last two thousand years of world history. Do that and you might appreciate how genuinely peaceful Islam isn't.
So Mr. Blair is just now coming to realise the momentousness of America's decision to invade Iraq and of his manipulation of intelligence which conned the House of Commons into supporting military action, is he? Hopefully American politicians will check themselves in future when they apply the word "visionary" to the Prime Minister.
What depressing and distressing reading the speech to the World Affairs Council makes. He talks about the need to "bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine", but continues to expend more energy bending the truth to justify his past actions in Iraq and his present inaction towards Lebanon. The result is not some elegant, overarching theory about global values as he wants to think, but a contradictory, confused and confusing crush of disparate facts and self-delusions.
If the war on Iraq was fought in the cause of "values change", why was it justified by national self-interest to Parliament with the infamous forty-five minutes claim?
If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about enforcing a change of values that threatens the existence of the Syrian or Iranian regimes, how can Blair expect them to react other than to fight for survival in opposition to the UK-US alliance?
If Blair knew his actions in Afghanistan and Iran were existential wars against reactionary Islam, wasn't it dangerous and stupid to destroy Iraq's infrastructure and administration utterly, leaving a political vacuum for reactionary Islam to fill?
If the future is to be defined by openness and engagement with the world, why does he threaten Iran and Syria with confrontation if they question the notion of "values change"?
I can be clear that war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks on western targets and still understand that Islamist terrorism predates the fall of Saddam. Why can't Blair, given these are "existential battles"?
If Blair recognises that the stagnation of the peace process in Palestine has squeezed moderates out of government in Gaza so that Hamas has become the best hope of the "Arab street", why is he not at all forthright in condemning the reactionary initiative of the Israeli government in Lebanon? How has his muzzled inertia towards Tel Aviv helped foster the conditions for subduing radical Isalmist activities in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Palestine or even Britain?
For years now, I've been waiting for Blair to provide a cogent analysis of the situation he has dragged our country into in the Middle East. Once again, he disappoints. Radical Islam is like revolutionary communism apparently, according to Blair. As he commits more and more British troops to the cause of "values change", perhaps he might reflect that Lloyd George's administration sent my grandfather and thousands of British soldiers like him to fight the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution. The effect was to strengthen the resolve of a weak Soviet regime and to rally support from a wary people to it and its unpalatable doctrines.
Happy holidays to you, Nick, and thanks for keeping the Newslog open while you're away.
Global terrorism not the West's fault? Strewth!!
Nick-I am a Muslim and find it absolutely degrading that an inept hypocrite like Blair comes to tell me about Islam. What's so offensive to me is that Blair is an intelligent guy who had bright ideas when he started off as PM. Now he refuses to acknowledge murders carried out by the Israelis and insists on lying to get his message across. A guy like that should keep to himself instead of judging others! The Hezbullah have blood on their hands, but so do Israel, the US and the UK. They should ALL be prosecuted for deaths of children and women.
When you have become as inept as Blair, you should stop making comments on others and take a long hard look at yourself. And if he likes what he sees, well we should exile him to Texas!
Nick,
TB is now locked into a "Circle of Hypocrisy".
His "values" (Christian) are right (because he says so) - Anyone not agreeing with his values is de facto wrong.
Having recognised his own military actions have solved nothing he wants us to believe Islamic nations should change their values to "ours" (i.e. his) or...er...or...er...or we might have to take military action against Syria and Iran.
Tony Blair can call for "hearts and minds" policies all he likes, but I'm not convinced that either the US or Israel will listen. I sometimes think that, despite all its claims to the moral high ground, Israel is not really interested in peace until it has finished the security wall, which, like it or not, will be the new Israeli international border. Remember "facts on the ground"? Peace now would oblige Israel to comply with UN resolutions to quit the occupied territories, including the strategically placed settlements, and return to its pre 1967 borders. Without pressure from the US (which will never be forthcoming) that is just not going to happen, and I think Blair knows it. The "two state" solution will be a non-starter without implementation of resolution 242. The similarities between the situation in the Balkans and the Middle East are quite striking, yet in one NATO with US involvement took action, in the other the US is hopelessly partisan. I see no hope for peace for any of us for years to come, and by the time the incumbent in the White House changes it will be too late. Tony Blairs legacy is looking more stained by the day.
Resolving the Isreal-Palestinian problem will do nothing. If Isreal were to disappear tomorrow would the Middle East suddenly become a beacon of enlightenment? Until the Arab/Muslim world stops blaming Israel and/or the West for all their woes, reform their backward religion and stop repressing their own peoples with despotic regimes then a 'war of civilisations' remains inevitable.
Tonto - don't be ridiculous - plenty of 'real blogs' use guest bloggers when they go away on a break.
have a good one Nick!
Nick, Blair's latest sound bite "arc of extremism" is typical of his failure to see the big picture or anything that conflicts with his messianic views.
I would rephrase his utterance as either "arc of anger" or "arc of reaction".
Doesn't Blair realise that his, Bush's and Sharon's actions and lack of them where appropriate, have created a seething anger amongst many people worldwide and until fundamental grievances have been addressed violence will continue and escalate.
Regards,
Jack,
Liverpool
This brings to mind a comment made by Burce Schneier (https://www.schneier.com) in a podcast I was listening to on the way into work today. Was the $200 billion cost of the Iraq value for money, i.e. did it make us $200 billion safer, and most definitely the answer to that is NO. None of this is making the West (or Israel even) any safer, all these actions are to pander to some perceived opinion but certainly put any thought behind it and you have to say that today we are in a far worse position than we were on 10.11.2001
Nick
Your post suggests that you may be star struck when Blair speaks to you.
As I see it there have been anti-western radicals in the Muslim world since the mid-19th century at least but like anti-liberal radicals in other parts of the world they had mostly been ignored by the people. But today what they say seems to resonate with the experiences of arabs and muslims and that has made them a force in the "arc of extremism".
Why do these people have such influence now and not before? the answer I think is that their message that the west is anti-Arab and anti Muslim appears to make sense to many ordinary Arabs and Muslims.
Consider this: Israel has been in breach of security council resolutions to withdraw to its 1967 borders for almost 40 years; there are illegal settlements in the West Bank; East Jerusalem has been illegally annexed and Israel has developed nuclear weapons in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty. The West's response to all this does not compare with its response to Muslim breaches of the same kind.the Us has even said that Israel may keep some of its illegal settlements!
Compare this with the west's reaction to the arabs: Hezbollah's breach of resolution 1559 has been met with the destruction of Lebanon, while the US has acquiesced; Iraq was attacked becuase it was believed to be in breach of security Council resolutions; Iran's attempt to acquire nuclear technology is met with confrontation and threats. Jewish victims of wartime land seizures in eastern Europe have restitution of their property while Palestinians victims of land seizures in Israel still live in abject misery in refugee camps. Israel refuses even to allow these people home while throwing its doors wide open to jewish immigration from Russia and other parts of the world.and to add insult to injury, the weapons by which palestinian society and now lebanon are being taken apart is provided by the US.
Does this narrative suggest that the West has been even-handed in its treatment of Arabs and israelis? Is this narrative not likely to play to arab fears that the west is anti-arab and anti-Muslim? Does Blair's language of an "arc of extremist" (by which he seems to mean radical Muslims) give the impression of even handedness? Is this not the same man who talked to Gerry Adams before the IRA agreed to disarm?
If there is to be a sustainable peace, there must be as Blair says a solution to the palestinian issue. Painful though it may be Israel must pull out of the West Bank, dismantle the settlements and leave East Jerusalem. If a security wall is to be built it ought to be within the 1967 borders, it must (as must Iran) give up nuclear weapons and there must be a fair resolution of the problem of the refugeees. Hezbollah must be disarmed. The West must be prepared to use force if necessary to achieve all of this by all sides like it has done in Serbia and in Iraq to ensure that Israel as well as the arabs comply with the security Council resolutions. And the palestinians must have a state.
Machiavelli pointed out the in prince that people will forget the death of individuals sooner than the loss of land. He may have been talking about the Palestinians.
My instinctive view is that military action can not achieve a solution to insecurity on the part of the USA and Israel. Quite the reverse. The loss of every Arab civilian's life in this conflict will escalate the Arab perception that the USA and Israel are against them.
Mr Blair is way off track in representing my views, and I detect the views of many others. But I'm not sure that he cares. Could he be more interested in assuring his next career step in the USA.
Here we go again. It's no reappraisal, just more simplistic, bash-em-all foreign policy by threats which doubtless plays well with a US audience. Is it part of a cease-fire deal with Israel for Blair and Bush to get tough with Syria? Blair says Syria must come into the international community, or else. It is the international community that has excluded Syria, by aggressive rhetoric, economic sanctions and threats of military force. Why not try some carrot instead of constant stick? A readiness to offer back the Golan in accord with UN resolutions would be a start. Or treating Syria with some respect as a secular society moving itself towards democracy and a market economy. Syria is in fact a tolerant, moderate country, but Bush and Blair's soundbite politics might well soon turn it into the extremist state they claim to want to avoid.
Rob, Damascus
I listened to much of the speech yesterday with mounting annoyance at his arrogance - in his mind he is right and we are wrong for not thinking as he does. He won't accept that different views and values (to use his in term) are possible. Why doesn't he just turn back to the US and stay there since they are on his wavelength and love him so much?
Nick, thank you for your updates these last few days; they've been fascinating. Have a lovely holiday, you deserve it!
Is it just me, or is Blair looking and sounding increasingly deranged and messianic these days?
His so-called "values" and judgements are right and the majority is wrong.
He is going down in flames as leader but is making sure he is on good terms with those who will give him directorships and lucrative speaking engagements.
Falling out with his only real ally, the US, won't pay off his mortgage.
Regarding the Middle East peace process, his speech was full of platitudes and sound bites. He was promised action by George Bush for supporting the invasion of Iraq and got nothing. The reputation of the UK has rarely been lower.
People have been killing each other for thousands of years in the name of religions, we grew out of it a hundred years ago in the west (bar some kid like behaviour in NI). The reasons for why the US actually went into Iraq, might be for money or oil, or it might be as i believe TB thinks that you have to start somewhere, in helping a moderate democratic base survive in the area. If its money, then at least you can count it, if its the other then at least somebody is trying.
we supply isreal with wepons of mass destruction.
Blair's speech indicates that he continues to be quite detached from reality. He appears to be having a debate with himself as no-one else is taking much notice. All the UK/US/EU actions in the Middle East over the past 60 years have done nothing to change the fact the concept of "nations" and "democracy" have no real meaning there. Until 50 years ago many of the people living in the middle east owed much greater allegiance to their tribe than to any concept of "state". Borders mean nothing - take the Kurds for example. Sunis hate Shias, Moslems hate Jews, Jews hate Palestinians,Iraqi's fought Iranians, Iranians didn't want to be Persians. Blair and Bush think that they can adjust all of this with a series of wars and "hearts and minds" campaigns. This is naievety at its most extreme. The only people who benefit are the arms manufacturers. If you stick your hand into a wasps nest, you get stung. Blair should have the sense to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and leave them all to kill each other. After all - the oil will still be there when it's finally over.
I am no fan of Blair, but I thought his speech (or at least the way it was portrayed on the 91Èȱ¬) seemed quite astute. He delicately balanced the need to keep people from both right and left onside. I'm worried about the soundbites though. As other people have noted, "arc of extremism" is very similar to "iron curtain" or "axis of evil". It's just that the langage is getting ever more moderated. I expect a further eroding of the terrorist threat in future speeches. The "arc of extremism" will become a "patch of trouble" and finally "a lone nutter".
Mr Blair's world view seems to be that it is legitimate to flatten the houses of ordinary civilians in a war on terror as long as you follow that up by offering the displaced population a few Hershey bars as compensation. Mr Blair is only now fooling himself to think that in a battle for hearts and minds that political sweeteners have more human resonance than blood, bone, bricks or mortar.
Nick - forgot one thing: seeing as all the Politicians are disclosing (or not) their holiday locations, will you confirm yours? Or is it a National Security Secret?!
Chris Patten (best PM we never had and someone who would most certainly not have got us into the Foreign Policy pickle we're now in) said recently that Tony Blair believes strongly in the convictions he holds - while he holds them. I think this sums up our bewitched, bothered and bewildered leader better than anything else I've heard. He really should be put out of his misery - he is become an embarrassment.
So Mr Blair's 'inner self-confidence is complete'. Now I know for sure that he is a very, very dangerous indiviual.
When Blair says that "we are ... fighting for the values we believe in" what are these values? Agressive war? No, sorry, 'humanitarian intervention'. Disappearance and torture? No, sorry, 'extraordinary rendition'.
If Blair is fighting for our 'freedom' and 'democracy', then why the hell does he legislate for detention without trial or even charge? Why does he treat Parliament with utter contempt, and indeed even try to abolish it with his Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? Why the attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? Why a national ID register of such totalitarian ambition that a project of this scope has never been attempted before in the world? How come Britain is the most surveilled country on earth?
Blair's values are mass privatisation and war. Permanent war and jingoism. Hence, 'Britishness' days.
The main mystery is why we continue to appease and lend our ears to a man who conspire with a foreign government to lie the people of this country and our elected representatives in order to plan and wage aggressive war?
For Nick Robinson to say that what Blair says is 'received wisdom' in the United States is preposterous. It is received wisdom by the Republican right; and by the Cheyneys, the Wolfowitzes, the Rumsfelds, i.e. by the people who members from Bush senior's administration called, even in the early 90's, 'the crazies'. But to say that almost all informed opinion agrees is absurd.
Lets just hope that Blair and his toadies realise that the blood of the Lebanese is equally on his hands as the butchers who cimmitted the atrocious war crimes in Lebanon.
Becket "agonises" over her impotence and claims others are doing the same which is piffle, referral to the UN General Assembly would be a good start, prosecution as a Genenva Convention Signatory would also be a good start...
But, hey, how about stopping the arms sales from the US stopping over eh?
Or even better, stop selling Israel the arms and fuel that is being used to kill those women and kids.
Blair has turned traitor, he is no longer listening to the Cabinet his peers, he is no longer listening to Parliament his contemporaries, he is no longer listening to the British people... HIS MASTERS yet if Israel or the US speak he jumps ready to attention.
The best thing right now is for the Conservatives and the Lib-Dem's to work together to bring about a vote of no confidence and then arrest the criminal for his part in the illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan and his part in allowing the Lebanese to be slaughter.
Then justice will be done...
Good grief, after having to listen to all the tripe Bush and Blair came out with I should think you'd need a holiday! I do wonder how others perceive their brand of Christianity, when they can't even acknowledge the cost to ordinary Lebanese and Iraqi people but are blinded by their view of terrorism.
Thanks for the perceptive comments -but shouldn't you be blogging about the hols, too?
Perhaps it is because I am an old withered cynic that the similarity in the statements of Blair on Hezbollah and Thatcher on the Africa National Congress comes to mind.
Hezbollah does have support amongst the Shia in the Lebanon, hence they are part of the government. Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist and the ANC used violence to achieve its aims: however, it still became the governing party in South Africa. I suspect Hezbollah will remain part of the government of the Lebanon despite everything Bush and Blair have said.
The only long term effect the Israelis are having is to increase Syrian interference in the Lebanon
As usual the anti Blair hatchet team are out in force. Whatever he says they will condemn. The reality is that Israel has been under attack by Hizbollah for some years. Iran and Syria have never been prepared to give any form of diplomatic recognition to its existence. It was not until 1988 that the PLO were prepared to accept its right to exist- something Hamas and Hizbollah are not prepared to do. Tony Blair and Angela Merkel realise this which is why they were not prepared to allow the EU to be bounced in supporting a French surrender to terrorism.Unti I read the other comments posted I thought Nick did not like TB. Enjoy your holiday and come back ready to highlight the humbug of the hatchet anti Blair caucus.
I think that TB's credibility in the ME is now so shot that he has as much chance as any of us here in solving the Palestinian problem.
By his actions and alliances he has ensured that he himself cannot directly contribute to solving the single most important issue in this region, whether as PM or "retired statesman".
Unless a few statesman-like platitudes help. How galling, and how badly thought-out.
A career of speachifying beckons, in which a high moral stance will feature prominantly in the knowledge that he himself won't be held responsible for carrying anything through, or need to deal with the real issues, or the real protagonists.
Easy writing, easy money. Hope he enjoyed the dry-run.
Absolutely right about the media coverage. The average reporter makes little effort to present a balanced, unbiased view. The general coverage of the Israel/Lebanon conflict is very one sided. The nadir so far was the 91Èȱ¬ reporter questioning the existence of Hezbollah rockets. One has to search hard to find quality coverage like Allan Little's 'Fault lines - Lebanon, 91Èȱ¬ Radio 4'. You yourself Nick, in this article, refer to the conflict as Israel’s War; in the process adding your own little bit of spin on events.
I hope that Tony Blair has returned to a firestorm in Westminister (figuratively speaking). I hope that Labour MPs will not allow Britain's security and reputation for adroit diplomacy and balance to be sacrificed to the remorseless selfishness of one man - who, as we know now, is not even a socialist.
Enjoy your holiday Nick, I think Tony blair is about to go on his summer holidays, the problem though is "he'll be back" too!
Tony has realised the obvious fact that US is failing to scare those who are not afraid of death. People who dont mind dying for their cause, need to be persuaded by other means. Guns and bombs dont frighten them. What is a F-16 going to do to a suicide bomber? Only one terrorist has to get through and we are back to square one. US believes that it can use force to make the fanatic submit. This is clearly not going to happen. Tony is urging the US to look at the underlying causes that enrages people against the west. And he thinks wests double standards and injustices are the problems. He wants an end to suppression of the Palestinians people. If he really means what he says, then it was a major speech. Otherwise, military action and threats to muslims nations will generate more insecurity inacross the Islamic world. Tony says talking will do not good than shooting. He predicted that west will lose war on terrorism if it does not lower its guns.
This is a pathetic attempt to wriggle out of severe problems at home. The Cabinet and the Labour party appear to be in open revolt - the banning of flights from Prestwick, Straw's remarks (incidentally, Irwin Stelzer claims he was sacked as Foreign Secretary at the behest of the White House because of his Muslim constituency) and the quite unprecedented "deranged" attack made by the Labour MP for Merthyr Tydfil.
Blair still can't admit he was wrong over Iraq and, even if he did change his views, he has too much baggage to be ever trusted again.
When I was a child, I thought the World progressed, in an orderly fashion, from barbarism to civilisation. I put my faith in my elders and betters, and believed that those who were running things were in control of the affairs of men. Now I am grown, I realise that those in charge are worse than incompetent; they are congenitally unsuited to shaping history in a fashion that leads to Justice, Peace and Prosperity.
It seems self-evident now that Bertrand Russell was right: "the trouble with this world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of self-doubt". No one full of self-doubt ever falsified a dossier. Enough said.
Funny how people always think everyone thinks like them.
People say Blair is despised in this country yet I, and many like me consider him a good PM. I like the guy!
People need to realise that there is a silent majority in this country, with which he is quite popular.
Just because the leftys are always the ones making all the noise doesn't mean they are the majority!
Nick,
I think most people give too much importance to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair. They may be powerful as leaders of two strong countries but neither has any vision for the future of Middle East. England has created Israel as well as Quwait, Lebanon (with help from France) and Afghanistan and it has never learned that arbitrary borders do not work. Islamic radicalism will grow and that's mainly because of the policies of Israel, England and USA. It is too much to expect a policy shift from Mr. Blair when his current US trip was primarily to prepare resources when he resigns. After all, he'll need a job when he leaves Downing Street! I have one question for Lebanese though: Where is your military to protect your country against Israeli atrocies? Aren't Shiia and Hezbollah (however odious they may be)your countrymen also? So, my comment to Mr. Siniora, please stop crying on TV and get your military out there to defend your country. You may be wiped off but at least, you'll have your dignity intact. Revolutionary wars can not be relagated to other countries.
IF Tony Blair is returning to a country that has a largly different opinion this is not supprising. There is always plenty people in this country who would not support Israel, Britain or America whatever they do anywhere, ever.
However the role of the 91Èȱ¬ in Britains ignorence and anti-semitism can not be underestimated.
The 91Èȱ¬s current stance has rendered the 91Èȱ¬ erelivant to this wars future outcome. America Britain and any other allined country of the west, now know whos side the 91Èȱ¬ is on and have discounted its contribution.
The 91Èȱ¬ has done more to polarise political debate over the last 4 years than they have for the last 40, which is saying something.
There is so much happening in the world this very day relivant to this WAR, that the 91Èȱ¬ does not inform the British public of, it would take a whole book to describe it.
Thank your god for the internet.
Indeed a rethink is required by all parties involved in this 'War on Terror".
It is easy to forget that pre 9/11, Bush Junior was already planning to spread abstract nouns like, 'democracy' and 'freedom' in the middle east. Many commentators and conspiracy theorists actually believe that Bush was simply given the means to make his fundamentalist ideas a reality by the terrorist attacks.
Both Bush and Blair's fundamentalist belief that there is 'good' and 'evil' meant they never really had the diplomatic vocabulary to really make a difference in the middle east or the wider world. Even at home they are polarising opinions let alone thousands of miles away. Would it be so difficult to consider that increasing Police powers, political alienation and the ID card may well create an environment where libertarian terrorist groups could be formed at home.
We can never win hearts and minds whilst our own democracies are essentially hypocracies and vast sways of public oppinion are continually ignored by politicans who are increasingly seeing themselves as an interpretation of Plato's ruling elite of Philosopher Kings. A ruling elite who seem to do what 'they' want, not the electorate wants (this happened with Oona King who went against her electorate and voted for the Iraq War and ended up losing her seat to George Galloway). Politicians must understand that they exist as a mouth piece for the people they represent, not themselves, they are not entitled to their own views or opinions professionally. Before we can have any hope of tranporting democracy abroad we must have democracy at home. Quite simply Blair and Bush needs to start looking to make Britain and America better and less oppositional to their governments before they go making more enemies abroad.
What their behaviour does prove is that religion and politics do not mix and how foreign policy based on simplistic biblical dogmatism is a recipe for disaster.
As an atheist I feel marginalised and I see the extremist on both sides in this war and I'm not happy about either for both are terrorising, killing and breeding hate.
If this 'war on terror' does not immediately base its philosophy on diplomacy rather than warfare the civilised world will continue to be threatened.
As Putin said there is more to this then meets the eye?.I wonder if we are looking at a land grab? Israel needs more land.As for Blair well Thatcher finished us off internally as one nation Blair has finished us off externally with his warmongering don`t think we have ever been held in such low regard by the rest of the world as we are now.
Actually James you are quite good at standing in for the other bloke...A luxury not shared by Tony Blair when he is away.
It was a brilliant speech though it took me a while after reading it to modify my thoughts. I am not a labour voter so bear with me. Even so I thought it a very accomplished bit of speech writing..and delivery. Then it struck me "Who was this aimed at? After all their are only two people on the planet who can do anything about the Israel Palestine Lebanon problem (Who will listen) and one of them wrote the speech!
Was it a cry for recognition since it would appear that the other pair of ears (President Bushs) dont want to listen to our man? Was it to appease the British Press?...If it was it didnt work too well as he was pretty well savaged on return. I suspect it was all of the above to some degree.
I had the distinct impression that Tony Blair is out there on his own and that non of the other leaders are anywhere close to understanding this mess.
I try to imagine the same speech written by the leader of France Germany or some other country in Europe but it doesnt gel.
I try to imagine a counter speech by the leader of Iran or Syria..but the mind boggles.
I'm really quite bored of the pharse "...not for turning"