I don't think anyone expected anything different, especially after Alistair Campbell's unrepentant performance at the Chilcot inquiry, but Blair's smug self-belief (not least in his own ability to manipulate the arguments to suit his purpose)was galling. Steve Richards in the Times on Saturday hit the nail on the head; the inquiry members focussed on arguments that have been picked over ad nauseam (did he lie in the presentation of the intelligence, was the war legal) rather than focussing on the basis for his original judgement that it was Britain's role to side unwaveringly with the US, come what may.
For me, the moment when Blair became seduced by Bush was on the occasion of Bush's speech to Joint Congress on September 20th, 2001. It was a magnificent speech (kudos to the writer) containing the memorable sentence; "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies, justice will be done". Blair was watching from the gallery and positively puffed up with pride when Great Britain was singled out for specific mention and he was personally thanked for coming ("Thank you for coming friend") From that point on it was more important to Blair to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US than to act in the best interests of Britain. (The comparison with reality TV contestants competing to be BFF with Paris Hilton springs to mind) Unfortunately his initial judgement (that 9/11 changed everything regarding policy towards Iraq) was not questioned in detail, and it should have been. Blair's stock response that "it was a judgement that I took", as though that absolves him from all responsibility, is simply not good enough. What are we supposed to say - oh, that's all right then? When a CEO of a company makes an equivalent error of judgement he is usually fired. Why should the Prime Minister of Great Britain not be held to a similar standard?
There is so much to find disturbing in Blair's testimony. But for me, perhaps the most disturbing was his assertion that "It is important for a British Prime Minister to establish a strong and close relationship with the President of the United States". Based on his actions, what he meant by this was that it is important to reassure the President of the United States that we are always, unquestionably and unquestioningly in his camp. Again, how is this in the national interests of Great Britain? Much as I like and admire America and Americans it's time for British Prime Ministers to wise up and realise that Great Britain's best interests lie not in playing kid brother to the mighty US, but in acting like a grown up in the EU.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that there is something rather embarrassing about the way Blair sucked up to Bush - the Americans must have been laughing behind his backm and probably continue to do so. However, I'm not sure that the whole of Europe exactly covered itself in glory over the Irag war either. I think, for example, that the world has moved on from the sort of blatant self-interest exhibited by French foreign policy - though I'm not saying for one moment that the alternative should be to adopt the role of sanctimonious World Policeman. I also agree that we should learn to get on better with our European colleagues, and we can start by not letting them run rings around us as Brown has recently done. But whilst we shouldn't suck up to the Americans, there's not much point in pissing them off either. At the end of the day, we do need them more than they need us. Blair is a politian, and therefore a fucking weasle; on top of this, his religious zeal sometimes encourages him to do "a mean thing for a holy cause" - which is of course exactly what we criticise the Muslim fundamentalists for. I think we're better off without him, and thank goodness he didn't make it to Euro President......!
ReplyDelete