Friday, Sep 17, 2010
Gulf News
Former British premier could have made a difference in Iraq, but did nothing
Former British prime minister Tony Blair was awarded the 2010 Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Centre in the United States earlier this week for his “steadfast commitment to conflict resolution.”
There’s got to be a terrible irony there; awarding the current Middle East Quartet representative a medal for his peace efforts at a time when the Palestinians and Israelis are talking peace under the guidance of the Americans and completely excluding the man of the hour.
Blair might have been the architect of peace in Northern Ireland but he remains guilty of standing firm and actually speeding the US-led war on Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and devastated the country in so many ways. And he is very much guilty of neglecting his duties as envoy of the Middle East Quartet of the UN, the EU, the US, and Russia to focus on his personal career as a speaker and now a published writer.
Blair has the credentials to make a difference but has so far failed himself and everyone else around him, which is why he should be stripped of his peace envoy position immediately.
Many people were optimistic when Blair came to power in 1997. The charismatic young prime minister, who championed a “new Labour” party was promising in many ways. Things began to change when the terrible tragedy of September 11 took place.
His shoulder to shoulder approach to the US became problematic especially when innocent civilians were killed in Afghanistan.
Things took an even uglier turn when US president George W. Bush masterminded a US-led invasion of Iraq, using weapons of mass destruction as the pretext. But whereas the US government didn’t face major domestic resistance to the plan, Blair had to deal with heavy opposition.
The decision to grant the US total and unequivocal support cemented his status as Bush’s obedient servant. Internationally, and especially in the Middle East, Blair became a joke.
In his book, Blair writes on his decision to go ahead with the war: “Do you really suppose I don’t care, don’t feel, don’t regret with every fibre of my being the loss of those who died?” And not just British soldiers but those of other nations, most of all of course the Americans but also the Japanese and Dutch and Danes and Estonians ….” It is this intense loyalty to the Americans that’s troubling.
That Blair decided to champion America’s war in Iraq and completely dismiss public anger back home meant his identity as an independent and strong leader of Britain was swept aside. Blair could have stood up to Bush and he could have asked for more time to think the invasion through but he decided to lead the war.
In that regard, Blair (along with Bush) is considered a war criminal by Britons and Arabs alike. The former prime minister also makes a strong case for the fact that he didn’t anticipate the high level of destruction following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But what would have compelled him to think that things would go smoothly after the overthrow of Saddam Hussain? Blair’s politics of conviction is not very convincing. And it is a little too late now to try to open up the debate on Iraq all over again via his book. Opinions have been formed and will not be coerced by his arguments.
Most dangerously, Blair comes across in his writings as an ideologue, as opposed to America’s pleaser. Every action he has committed following the 9/11 attacks and concerning the Middle East is justified one way or the other and he is unabashed, refusing to yield any ground.
This means that his actions cannot be judged simply within the UK-US relations context where Britain’s waning clout in the world has been at the centre of things. He was a neoconservative not by name, but by nature.
Blair’s insistence to defend his decisions in Iraq is troubling. He writes, “I cannot, by any expression of regret, bring to life those who died; but I can dedicate a large part of the life left to me to that wider struggle.” But since leaving Downing Street and being appointed Middle East envoy, Blair has done the exact opposite.
A very rich man by now, he has been making the rounds at various functions and across countries to give one of his very lucrative lectures. Without a doubt, writing this book was therapeutic for him even if he never apologises for his wrong decisions. It offers great insight into his personality but nothing more.
It is my conviction that Blair will be remembered as the man with blood on his hands — book or no book.
Blair’s politics of conviction is not very convincing. And it is a little too late now to try to open up the debate on Iraq all over again via ?his book
By Manal Alafrangi?Opinion Editor
Gulf News 2010. All rights reserved.
