Freedomvrights.com

Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan

Home

Articles

Books

Biography

Contact

 Tony Blair: Elder Stateman, or Political clown?

by

Joseph B.H. McMillan

 

When Bush and Blair first met, Bush famously remarked that the only thing they had in common was their toothpaste. Since then, Blair has been at pains to stress that he shares American ‘values’.

So what exactly are these ‘values’ he shares with Americans?

To find out, we have to journey back to September 28, 1999. A time when Blair and Clinton were formulating and trumpeting the Third Way - not to be confused with the Third Reich.

The Third Way was big on ‘justice’, or even better, ‘social justice’. Blair and Clinton had attained ‘enlightenment’! They had discovered the source of ‘evil’ in the world – and it was the dreaded “forces of conservatism”.

This Third Way, incarnated in Britain as New Labour, would, according to Blair, “sweep away those forces of conservatism and set the people free.”

It would be the “progressive force that defeats the forces of conservatism. For the 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism and socialism but between the forces of progress and the forces of conservatism.”

At that time, Blair was not, of course, concerned about Islamic terror – because Britain was harboring some of the worst advocates of such terror –much to the irritation of even Britain’s close allies like France. Those enjoying ‘asylum’ in Britain were even regarded as dangerous Islamic extremists in countries like Egypt. But let me not digress.

So who, exactly, are these “forces of conservatism”?

Well, they are “the old order … for all their language about promoting the individual, and freedom and liberty, they held people back. They kept people down. They stunted peoples’ potential.”

“The forces of conservatism allied to racism are why one of the heroes of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, is dead.”

“It’s why another, Nelson Mandela, spent the best years of his life in a cell the size of a bed.”

“And though the fact that Mandela is alive, free and became President [of South Africa, that is, not the United States, in case anyone was wondering], is a sign of the progress we have made: the fact that Stephen Lawrence is dead, for no other reason than he was born black, is a sign of how far we still have to go.”

“And they [the forces of conservatism, in case you hadn’t got the message] still keep opposing progress and justice”

"It is the task of justice to collaborate in supporting and protecting the people as a whole against those individuals who, because they lack a social conscience, try to shirk the obligations to which all the members of the community are subject, or directly act against the interests of the community itself." Oops, sorry, that last quote was Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag on 30th January 1937. Just sounded so similar, I got a little confused with all my ‘justice’ references.

That makes me a little uncertain about this: was it Blair, or Lenin? I really can’t remember. But here it is anyway: “And now, at last, Party and nation joined in the same cause for the same purpose: to set our people free”.

Free from what? From “libertarian nonsense masquerading as freedom.”

To free us from our heritage, our grandparent’s “generation … of deference and prejudices: racial, sexual, social.”

And how do we do that? Well, “this generation wants a society free from prejudice, but not from rules, from order.” And, of course, that is exactly what Blair gave them. In a few short years, over 700 new ‘crimes’. ‘Hate Crimes’ came high on the list, and when it was difficult to get them through Parliament, he simply let the prosecutors make them up. Hence we have this from England’s principal prosecution agency, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): “Homophobic crime is any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim or by any other person.” Muslims, of course, wanted the same license to silence their critics, and Blair worked hard to give it to them.

You can see why Bush could find nothing more than toothpaste in common with this man. But 911 changed all that. Blair became Bush’s ‘staunchest’ ally. But was he really? Whose ‘interests’ exactly was Blair looking out for?

When it came to Afghanistan, Blair did little more than the other nations that backed the United States. And, at least, he has candidly admitted it was because of Britain’s inability to defend itself – although that is a direct result of he, himself, having effectively dismantled the British armed forces. “If America were to pull up the drawbridge … the terrorists would attack the rest of us. And if America did withdraw: if when Kosovo came up, they said no; told us to sort out Al Qaida in Afghanistan ourselves; said we could tackle nuclear proliferation on our own, WHERE WOULD WE BE?” So spoken at London’s Mansion House on November 15, 2004.

Now, at least we can detect an element of national ‘self-interest’ in those statements, which is, of course, what ‘leaders’ of countries should pursue. But was this professed ‘patriotism’ also the motivation behind support for the war in Iraq? Was it even the real reason for supporting the United States in Afghanistan?

These “new radicals”, as Blair calls himself and his “Party”, are nothing more than the ‘old radicals’ in suits. Their heroes were the likes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and Yasser Arafat of the PLO.

So, as early as October 12, 2001, a month after 911, we find Blair vying with bin Laden to be the champion of the Palestinian cause. In an article for “Muslim Media” called “Working for peace for Muslims and Non-Muslims Alike”, he says this: “Usama bin Laden likes to pretend that he speaks for the Palestinian cause.” Silly bin Laden, didn’t he know that Blair ‘speaks for the Palestinian cause’? As, of course, does Blair’s wife Cherie. Speaking to reporters in June 2002, with Queen Rania of Jordan, she said: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress."

But Blair doesn’t only speak for the “Palestinian cause”; he also speaks for the Muslim cause. In the same article for the “Muslim Media”, he says this: “Historically, Islam has been very tolerant of other religions. The Muslim world was a beacon of civilization and tolerance when Europe was in the dark ages.” Judging by his “forces of conservatism” speech, he obviously thinks that we ‘conservatives’ still are in the dark ages. But at least Blair, and his “new radicals”, with “Party and nation joined in the same cause for the same purpose” are there to “set [us] free”.

So am I suggesting that Blair’s real motivation for joining the war in Iraq had nothing to do with British national interest, or support for America, but was motivated by his support for the Palestinian cause? Yes! That is exactly what I am saying.

This is what Blair said in the Commons on March 18, 2003: “I do not believe that there is any other issue with the same power to reunite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine.” In return for backing the war, Blair said he should have insisted that Bush “recognize the fundamental overriding importance of starting the Middle East peace process.” In the end Bush did, and we got Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon!

But, in spite of that Commons statement, the New Statesman in Britain reported on March 24, 2003, that that is exactly what Blair did insist on, and got. “Blair struck an explicit deal with George W Bush … for a step-by-step process leading to the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005”

This “deal” was confirmed by Blair’s Deputy, a certain John Prescott, when he let the cat out the bag in a meeting with Muslim MPs in August 2006. He is reported to have said the Britain “had only given support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map. But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that.”

Now, we do really need to reflect on that for a minute.

As I have already said, before sending his citizens to war, and risking their lives, any responsible leader should consider, first and foremost, his country’s national interest. He should consider questions like these: Can we win? – no need for Blair to worry, he had his big buddy on his side, as he did in Kosovo; The reasons for war? – it seems that Blair probably knew they were what his Deputy would call “crap”; Should I sacrifice the lives of my citizens to support an ally, even if I don’t believe the war is just? – Since Blair had decimated the British armed forces, he had little choice, because the British may need America to defend them one day, or help bomb some far away country like Serbia because Blair decides “it is right” to do so; Am I committing forces to fight another man’s ‘personal vendetta’?

I raise this latter point, because many of Blair’s citizens, and “new radicals” in his “Party”, believed that that was in fact the real reason for the war in Iraq - Bush’s personal vendetta with Saddam. Saddam himself also thought there was a personal vendetta, which is why he challenged Bush to a duel. Now, wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books – making our leaders duel to resolve their differences? They needn’t duel to the death, although that would be more fun, but simply a good ol’ dust up. I expect that they would put much more strenuous efforts into their discussions if it were their lives, or even pride, that were on the line. We may also get some real men as leaders again – men like Margaret “the Iron Lady” Thatcher – I expect she could have dealt a few lethal blows with that handbag of hers. But then again, Putin, with his martial arts expertise, would probably rule the world.

Anyway, getting back to Blair’s support for the war in Iraq, the only real ‘reason’ that we can discern is his eagerness to promote the Palestinian cause. A ‘cause’ that massacres innocent men, women and children. A people who celebrated on the streets on 911.

So, on the eve of war, Blair is not preoccupied with the preparations for war, he is ‘fretting’ about the Palestinian cause. British lives are sacrificed in a war that, by all accounts, he didn’t believe in. Lives are sacrificed, not to defend Britain, or support an ally, but to support the Palestinian cause.

I wonder how many British troops realise that they are fighting and dying because Blair wanted to display his “new radical” credentials for the Palestinian cause? Blair would argue that they were in fact fighting and dying in the cause of ‘justice’ for the Palestinians.

Now that this Political Clown is the envoy of the Quartet for the Middle East ‘peace process’, for which read the capitulation of Israel, I should give him a little advice about invoking ‘justice’ in support of his every argument.

He should remember what the philosopher Alf Ross said about ‘justice’. “To invoke justice is the same thing as banging on the table: an emotional expression which turns one's demand into an absolute postulate. That is no proper way to mutual understanding. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with a man who mobilises 'justice', because he says nothing that can be argued for or against. His words are persuasion not argument.”

I doubt that the clown will take the advice; he’ll be too busy ‘banging on the table’ about the ‘justice’ of the Palestinian cause.

Copyright © Joseph B.H. McMillan 2005 All Rights Reserved

Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights is now published in the US! Click here to purchase your copy from Amazon.com.

 

Home | Articles  | Books | Biography | Contact

Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007