LONDON, 29 April 2004 — A letter arrived at Number 10 on Monday addressed to Britain’s No. 1 man. The letter, signed by 52 former ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officers, described Prime Minister Tony Blair’s policy toward the Middle East as “doomed for failure”. It reminded him of his dangerous allegiance to the American president and criticized his attitude toward the Middle East.
The letter described President Bush’s plan for the Arab-Israeli conflict as “one-sided and illegal” and showed dismay at the prime minister’s endorsement of the plan. It urged Blair to either start influencing US foreign policy in the Middle East or to stop backing it all together.
The ex-diplomats told Blair that they “have watched with deepening concern the policies which (he has) followed on the Arab-Israeli problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States”.
The ex-diplomats expressed fear that the Arab and Muslim world would see the US-British alliance as “partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq”.
No other prime minister has ever faced such huge public criticism by former diplomats expressing their concern about some aspects of the official British policy. Then no other British prime minister has transformed British foreign policy so fundamentally as Blair has done. Today much of Britain feels bewildered and exasperated by the actions of their prime minister.
The young, charismatic and dynamic leader Britain elected, and who won two landslide victories, has turned his back on the nation. Perhaps “young” is not what Britain needed. Has “young” become “easily led”? Has “young” become “puppy”?
Although Britain once led the world’s largest empire, it managed to move away from being an imperial nation in the last century. By the 1990s Britain saw the emergence of a new politics that saw London as a leader in world politics. However, Blair’s close identification with America, especially after Bush came to power, has changed all that. Almost everything Blair does today comes as a blow to Britain’s national interests and global stature.
The war in Iraq, hugely opposed to by the public, sent Blair running desperately to seek parliamentary approval. Desperation made him tell a few lies. He pledged to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — one year on it looks as though he has forgotten about the “45-minute” threat to Britain from Saddam’s imaginary weapons. He assured a democratic and stable Iraq but fighting has not ceased and innocent Iraqi blood continues to be shed. And finally, Blair assured Parliament that the invasion of Iraq would facilitate an Arab-Israeli settlement. Two weeks ago he signed away Palestinian rights by pledging to support the Bush-Sharon disengagement plan and rejected suggestions that the plan is a departure from the road map plan that promised a Palestinian state by 2005.
George Bush acts the way he does in the Middle East because he has to court Jewish votes and has a massive Jewish lobby pressing him firmly in the US itself. Blair does not have such domestic compulsions. So why is he so adamant about promoting Israeli interests to the detriment of Palestinians?
On Sept. 11, America realized that oceans are no longer a means of defense. Maybe this explains why America has been on the attacking side in wars against countries worldwide. Since World War II, it has invaded or sent troops to Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala (three times), Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Somalia, Grenada, Dominican Republic and many more. In sharp contrast, Britain has only been at war five times since WW2. So why has Blair committed us to a dangerous alliance with the United States?
The letter from the ex-diplomats show that Blair’s foreign policy in the Middle East is not one that represents Britain’s traditional objectives. The resignation of two Cabinet ministers over the War in Iraq shows that Blair’s Middle East policies are not in line with the Labour Party agenda either.
Clearly, there is hidden agenda behind Blair’s policies, one that neither Labour, Tory, nor the British public at large know about. However this can’t remain a mystery for long. But by the time the people realize Blair’s intentions Britain might have paid a huge price — in lives lost in wars in distant lands and lost prestige in Europe and the Middle East.
