FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Tony Blair Versus the British People

by ANDREW MURRAY

One man against the British people. In Britain, at least, this is Tony Blair’s war now, and his alone. The people whose views he was elected to represent want none of it. The streets of London will tomorrow bear witness to that truth.

It seems certain that the rally against the impending attack on Iraq will be the largest political demonstration in British history. Perhaps it is less a demonstration, more an assembly of a people, rejecting senseless war. It will certainly be a rebuke to those who argue that no one cares any longer about politics. Against a background of the worst crisis in international relations for a generation, and a week in which the government did nothing to stem a mounting atmosphere of public tension, the demonstration also represents a refusal to be rendered powerless.

Blair’s fabled propaganda machine has laboured might and main for more than a year to convince the British public that being hooked to the back end of Bush’s wagon train, as it moves to war, is the place to be. As his spin efforts descend to the level of the comic–filching students’ theses and passing them off as the work of “British intelligence”–it is abundantly clear that he has failed. This has turned the issue of war into an issue of democracy as well. If, after a year of persuasion, the government has failed to convince the country that war is necessary, it simply has no right to proceed.

The “collateral damage” of Bush’s war drive is mounting daily–the cohesion of Nato, the chimera of a common EU foreign policy (and Blair’s fantasy of being at the heart of Europe) and the post-1945 structure of international law included. All of this seems merely to be whipping the US political class into a still greater frenzy of bellicosity. How long before France is officially designated a “rogue state” and Gerhard Schroder becomes a card-carrying member of the “axis of evil”?

It now must be clear to everyone that the US is hell-bent on war at any price, scattering to the winds any and every sensible proposal for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in its rush to get the shooting started. A fatal game of catch-22 is being played with the Saddam regime, in which every discovery of an unauthorised weapon is hailed not as evidence that UN inspections are working but as proof of Iraqi duplicity, while every failure to find such weapons is evidence that they are being concealed. But who can still believe that this has anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, any more than it has to do with terrorism? It has become an exercise in US military-political machismo.

This week’s historic worsening of relations between the major powers is a warning that one nation’s determination to enforce its global hegemony is bound to lead to endless and escalating conflicts. Bush and Blair are now playing Osama bin Laden’s game. He, more than anyone, seems to be looking forward to the war as a chance to replenish his ranks. He knows that every shot of Iraqi children being pulled lifeless from the rubble will send hundreds of recruits flocking to al-Qaida’s banner.

The prime minister’s last hope–not of preventing military conflict, which he shows no signs of any longer seeking to do, but of pacifying at least a section of his critics–lies in a second UN resolution. Yet he has devalued the UN, both in this crisis and for the future, by his declarations that he will only go the UN route if the UN acquiesces in advance to the Blair-Bush position.

Jack Straw is fond of waving aloft his well-thumbed copy of the UN charter. Perhaps he could identify which clause codifies the “unreasonable veto”, a concept introduced into international law by the prime minister last week. In fact, if a proposal is vetoed by the UN, it does not go ahead. Yet the prime minister, echoing the US president, arrogates to himself the right to declare such a procedure “unreasonable”. With such an attitude, which would make a nonsense of any rule-based or legal system, the British government is treating UN procedures with contempt.

A second resolution driven through the security council against this background of intimidation loses any moral authority. It cannot now make a wrong war right. Tomorrow the world will say no to war in rallies across the globe. But London will be the most important–because ours is the war leader who can be broken. And if he remains deaf to a nation’s plea for peace, he will be.

ANDREW MURRAY is chair of the Stop the War Coalition, which is organising tomorrow’s demonstration in London with CND and the Muslim Association of Britain. He can be reached at: apdmurray@hotmail.com

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail