Blair, Iraq, Israel and the US: Shit, Meet Fan. Finally.
It's true.
Basically, 52 former ambassadors, including the former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, have written an open letter to Tony Blair asking why, if he has no influence over American policy they believe to be deeply flawed, he is continuing to back it. These ambassadors served and were appointed under different governments.
They call for a debate in Parliament and say
They do not intend to damage Tony Blair politically, they say, but write:
I think this is one of the first times that a concerted, serious, criticism of this war has come from people who aren't former cabinet ministers with grudges or from politically important figures with no influence, like Mandela and Tutu. It can't be dismissed as kneejerk anti-Americanism, or as hysterical, given its tone, its content and its provenance, and it calls for a radical reassessment of current thinking based on nation self-interest for Great Britain. What it says about the current US/British relationship is terribly interesting too.
Basically, 52 former ambassadors, including the former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, have written an open letter to Tony Blair asking why, if he has no influence over American policy they believe to be deeply flawed, he is continuing to back it. These ambassadors served and were appointed under different governments.
They call for a debate in Parliament and say
Quote:
"A number of us felt that our opinion on these two subjects, Iraq and the Arab-Israel problem, were pretty widely shared and we thought that we ought to make them public.
"A number of us felt that our opinion on these two subjects, Iraq and the Arab-Israel problem, were pretty widely shared and we thought that we ought to make them public.
They do not intend to damage Tony Blair politically, they say, but write:
Quote:
""We do think that through lack of planning and through a misunderstanding, a misreading of the situation, we have got ourselves into an extremely difficult situation."
""We do think that through lack of planning and through a misunderstanding, a misreading of the situation, we have got ourselves into an extremely difficult situation."
I think this is one of the first times that a concerted, serious, criticism of this war has come from people who aren't former cabinet ministers with grudges or from politically important figures with no influence, like Mandela and Tutu. It can't be dismissed as kneejerk anti-Americanism, or as hysterical, given its tone, its content and its provenance, and it calls for a radical reassessment of current thinking based on nation self-interest for Great Britain. What it says about the current US/British relationship is terribly interesting too.
Comments
Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the Mr Blair should listen to the advice of the former diplomats.
"This is a most remarkable intervention in the debate about the Middle East from a group of people who are almost certainly the most expert in Britain on the issue," he said.
Perhaps Blair is just plain unable to admit that he made a colossal blunder here?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I was surprised at the decisions made by Blair w/r/t Iraq, and have long been wondering what his motivation could have been. I think that, ultimately, he decided to support the Bush admin because he felt that he could infulence events better as an insider...perhaps learning too late that this was not the case with the current US Govt. I think also that both Downing St. and the Bush admin underestimated the magnitude of the undertaking.
Perhaps Blair is just plain unable to admit that he made a colossal blunder here?
I think that may be the problem.
The entire war was based on shaky assumptions, questionable motives, and nonexistent planning. To admit a mistake in any phase of this is to allow the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.
I don't think there is a way for anybody who supported this war to say, well, we were wrong about the WOMD but right to go in, wrong about the al Qaeda connection but right about the WOT, wrong about the occupation but right about the strategy.
They have to just keep on maintaining the story no matter how far reality moves out from under them, and after a while even erstwhile allies start to notice the gap.
I had thought that he was so publicly committed to the American-led military solution because he wanted to preserve American/European relations (I could see that that was obviously important given the unprecedented nature of the current American administration; it would need radical diplomacy) and to influence America on issues he was always deeply committed to, like Israel/Palestine and the environment.
But the war happened, and there really were no WoMD, and there really were no ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda - and rather than exacting any influence, he's been utterly silent on Kyoto and the environment and actually endorsed Sharon's disengagement policy, terribly unjust and absolutely not the solution we're all need to find so badly.
On top of that, British influence in the world at large is terribly eroded, especially in Europe, and we quite clearly have no influence at all over current American policy; in London we're nervous because we're absolutely next in the firing line after Madrid (and this war was supposed to make the world safer). It's all gone horribly wrong, and Tony Blair doesn't seem to have any influence anywhere, and actively refuses to admit there's a very serious problem here at all. He's still jetting off to stand shoulder to shoulder with a man who one would have thought he would politically abhorrent.
It's really very odd.
I don't agree with anything much the Anglo-American Axis has done under the premierships of Blair and Bush, but it still strikes me that the idea that Blair and Britain "should be" on-side, is sometimes a moderating influence on US foreign policy. Or rather, if there was split in between the leaders of the Coalition, both Britain and the US would be a lot worse off and the people who oppose their policies, no better off.
Another good thread, btw, Hassan.
Originally posted by Chinney
I rather believe that the real reason for Blair?s towing of Washington?s line is that maintaining the U.K./U.S. alliance is a considered to be a ?prime directive? at Downing Street, regardless of political affiliation.
I think that this is undoubtedly true, and perfectly explicable, it's just that Tony Blair's zeal for current American foreign policy seems a little surprising.
Originally posted by Chinney
Blair ? and perhaps the U.K. as a whole ? is not ready for the trauma of a direct break, regardless of the increasing level of discomfort with Bush. And the fact that a break with the U.S. would further mean that the U.K. would turn firmly toward Europe ? a long term decision that the U.K. appears still not ready to take ? has only increased the impetus of Blair to stick with the U.S. alliance.
True, too.
Originally posted by Chinney
Another good thread, btw, Hassan.
Chinney, again, you're absolutely right.
It's extraordinary to see a Labour, supposedly left leaning(!) leader being an zealous supporter of the most extreme hard-right administration in US history, engaging in a war that was to the benefit of nobody save the bottom lines of most favored big businesses with close ties to the Bush administration. It has drained the British economy, and there is no return, (apart from their dead or wounded soldiers). The likeliest probability is that Britain was obliged to comply, with economic incentives (or threats) to support the war effort or else.The smaller, economically insignificant countries (most of the 'coalition' is made up of such) were bribed for sure. Also...take the case of Australia who supported, or should I correct myself, whose government, not people, supported the war, signed lucrative trade agreements (with Bush) in the run up to the war: but New Zealand, which attended the same meeting, whose government opposed the war, was snubbed.
Perhaps one of the reasons Blair supported Bush without question was first, the rapport that was built up in the wake of 9-11, and also, don't forget that Blair, like Bush, is a born-again Christian (sic). I wonder what kind of apocalypse they talk about on the hotline?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Blair, like Bush, is a born-again Christian (sic). I wonder what kind of apocalypse they talk about on the hotline?
I think Blair's a pretty traditional Catholic, actually. He goes to a Catholic church, anyway. I don't think he's a tribulationist Revelations-type, anyway.
Sincerely,
Shrub and his parrot.
Originally posted by segovius
Reckon these 50 diplomats and ambassadors must be Pinko Leftie Cappuccino Commies....
No just the same old failed diplomats that conjure up the same failed solutions over and over again. It's a rush to failure.
In spite of "funny" family name, happy childhood. After 50 odd years living and working in UK, now doing the same Switzerland for last 23 years. Background may be relevant.
I have long felt that the UK "special relationship" with the USA is a myth. Based on a "common" language?
Even before my birth, (almost going back to paleontology now) back in the early twenties, US films could be exhibited in UK with no language difficulties. IMHO, these factors (among others US support in WW 2 and the British reluctance to learn other languages) have led slowly and increasingly to an American influence on British culture (not always negatively). and a British tendency to lean towards the USA. Like all generalisations this one fails to represent large sections with other opinions.
In continental Europe two of the major past antagonists. Germany and France, came to realise that co-operation, even sometimes reluctant, was preferable to armed conflict. Britain had the good fortune never to experience occupation by a foreign power - and the extreme social divisions that might have ensued. My speculation is that many in the UK have not yet come to terms with history. For the US, the UK is a convenient ally at present, based on "realpolitik". Should circumstances change, the world's strongest power might shift alliegance with few qualms.
Blair, IMHO, sincerely supported the intervention in Iraq. A decision which he may or may not regret but which many others wish the United Nations could have sponsored.
Now the British people are in a kind of "No-man's land", neither fully with the European Community nor the USA.
Others better qualified than me may be able to discern how the future may develop. I remain confused.
Peace
eric j
Originally posted by Scott
No just the same old failed diplomats that conjure up the same failed solutions over and over again. It's a rush to failure.
I'm sure you can demonstrate multiple points of failure for each, but I'll settle for one, for the purposes of this thread. Good luck.
Originally posted by Scott
No just the same old failed diplomats that conjure up the same failed solutions over and over again. It's a rush to failure.
Uh, Scott.
How's the successful Iraqi project going?
-The Iraqi people are free
-We are killing regime loyalists and terrorists every day
-Americans are safer
- Our freedom has been protected
-The electricity is on in Iraq (sometimes)
-The Iraqis have hot water (sometimes)
-Iraq will soon be self governing (well kinda)
Sincerely,
Shrub
Regardless, even if the Iraq bit was going famously, you not hear from BBC, CNN, AP etc., etc.
Back on point, I NEVER EVER understood why the UK puts up with anything from America after what the US pulled basically during the whole 20th century---a campaign of "fu<k the British".
Originally posted by Harald
Uh, Scott.
How's the successful Iraqi project going?
Originally posted by Beige_G3
Please Harald! How can I count the success in Iraq
-The Iraqi people are free
-We are killing regime loyalists and terrorists every day
-Americans are safer
- Our freedom has been protected
-The electricity is on in Iraq (sometimes)
-The Iraqis have hot water (sometimes)
-Iraq will soon be self governing (well kinda)
Sincerely,
Shrub
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Uh, huh.......