DUBAI: The British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s March 21 speech defending his country’s foreign policy seems fairly benign until one delves between the lines.
It has been billed by the press as a defence of decisions made to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in light of Blair’s diminishing popularity.
It might be. But on the other hand, it could be an attempt at setting us up for an endless war scenario in the name of defending "our values".
There is no doubt that Blair is a natural salesman. Unlike his pal across the pond, he rarely trips over his words and never purses his lips or sneers. Blair is also a master of self-deprecation and gives the appearance of a boyish "hand on heart" honesty that is so easy to fall for.
Blair’s good guy outer façade is so perfected that people around the world are genuinely bemused as to why he slavishly supports the Bush administration’s misadventures. During my travels when people realise I’m British and the conversation turns to politics, I’m often asked why Blair chose that route.
A few years ago, my answer would have been on the lines of Blair having being dragged behind Washington kicking and screaming on the strength of the strong and historic trans-Atlantic relationship. I was wrong.
The fact is Blair is a cross between a neo-conservative and a member of the religious right in Labour’s clothing even at a time when many of the staunchest neo-conservatives and their supporters are undergoing a dramatic change of heart themselves.
Even Francis Fukuyama, a former neocon, sometimes credited for writing an essay that sent Bush to war, is saying mea culpa to any journalist who will listen. Blair, however, is as passionate about the cause as ever. So, what exactly is the cause? The answer lies within Blair’s recent speech.
Unless we articulate a common global policy based on common values, we risk chaos threatening our stability, economic and political, though letting extremism, conflict or injustice go unchecked," he says. What he means, of course is that the world must adopt Western values or be damned.
And if some countries refuse to toe the line, then here is the nub. "The consequences of this thesis is a policy of engagement not isolation, and one that is active not reactive." This is the neoconservative policy of pre-emption or first strike, which flouts provisions of the post Second World War United Nations Charter.
Then playing good cop as opposed to George Bush’s jingoistic ‘America first’ style evidenced by the President’s own speech made on the same day as Blair’s the prime minister says:
"I believe we will not ever get real support for the tough action that may well be essential to safeguard our way of life; unless we also attack global poverty and environmental degradation of injustice with equal vigour.
You must admit. It’s a clever way of hanging on to the moral high ground that translates to "we’ll bomb and occupy countries we don’t like, while distributing largesse to the starving in those that are too weak to be a perceived threat".
Blair was further masterful enough to empathise with the anger felt by most in the Muslim world due to abandoned Middle East peace process and says he understands the view of those who fail to perceive Afghanistan and Iraq as success stories.
But, then, in the next breath, he claims that terrorism committed by Islamist extremists is the result of a Madrassa-nurtured ideology that is being exported around the world and proceeds to lump together Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Lebanon’s Hizbullah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Chechen militants and Iraqi insurgents, as though they are all components of one giant anti-Western conspiracy.
While it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood was born from an ideology based on a rejection of Western materialism and sexual mores, the Palestinians, like the Iraqis and the Chechens, are struggling to break the yoke of occupation.
Columnist Simon Jenkins clearly gets how disingenuous the above really is. Writing in the conservative Sunday Times, he says:
"Terrorism is not, as Blair keeps calling it, an ideology. It is a weapon, like a gun or a bomb. It can kill people and destroy property but it cannot win arguments or topple governments".
Interestingly Blair brings Iran into the picture not because of its alleged pursuance of a nuclear weapons programme but due to hypothetical future links with Al Qaida. "True the conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to Al Qaida and, therefore, would never supports its activities," says Blair before luridly adding: "But as we know from our own history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change. Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy." Remember the failed attempts to put Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden on the same page.
A leaked top secret memo from a British diplomat John Sawyers to colleagues in the US, France and Germany, that was published in the Times, may shed some light. It urges a united offensive to secure "a United Nations resolution that would open the way for punitive sanctions and even the use of force if Iran were to refuse to halt its controversial nuclear programme".
Both Bush and Blair have more synchronised speeches in the pipeline. So get ready to either polish your anti-propaganda antenna or get a thick pair of earmuffs.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-daily/29-03-2006/world/w15.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment