FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Tony Blair Versus the British People

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:
September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail