Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East

[cut]

Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East

More than 50 former British diplomats have signed a letter to Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy.
The 52 ambassadors said it was time for the prime minister to start influencing America's "doomed" policy in the Middle East or stop backing it.

They told Mr Blair they had "watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in Parliament.

No-one was yet available from Mr Blair's office to comment.


'Highest urgency'

The diplomats, who include former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv among, believe their attack is unprecedented in scope and scale.

The prime minister is urged to sway US policy in the Middle East as "a matter of the highest urgency".

"We feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment," the letter said.

The document's coordinator Oliver Miles, a former ambassador to Greece, said they did not intend to damage Mr Blair politically but simply wanted to make their voice heard.



There is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure
Excerpt from the diplomats' letter

BBC News Online's World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds said: "The list of names includes many former ambassadors in the Middle East and the publication of the letter shows that their frustration at Iraqi and Middle East policy has broken into the open.

"The views expressed are widely felt by officials in the Foreign Office though they are not shared by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary."

The 52 diplomats urged Mr Blair to use his alliance with Mr Bush to exert "real influence as a loyal ally... If that is unacceptable or unwelcome, there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure."

Mr Blair has been a staunch ally to US president George W Bush in pursuing the war in Iraq.

'Backward step'

The ambassadors accuse the US-led coalition of having "no effective plan" for Iraq after the war and an apparent disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians.

They said Mr Blair had "merely waited" for the US to advance a "road map" for peace that had raised expectations of a lasting Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

They condemn Mr Bush's decision to endorse an Israeli plan to retain some settlements in the West Bank as an illegal and one-sided step - and criticise Mr Blair's public support for the move.

"Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land," the diplomats said.

They urged Mr Blair to act urgently to challenge the UK's portrayal as a partner in US policies condemned by the Arab and Muslim world.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3660529.stm

Published: 2004/04/26 15:11:28 GMT

© BBC MMIV


I actually agree with these guys, not because that 50 British diplomats are not likely to be wrong. I think Blair probably would agree with them too. But a things are in Iraq and with al Qaida any sign of disagreement or distancing in foreign policy between the US and the UK would be jumped on by the likes of Bin Laden. I think Blair went for it because it's the lesser of two evils.

What do you guys think?

[oldsoak]

Blair would be damned if he did, he'd be damned if he didnt. Bluntly put, if we didnt show and then needed the help from the Yanks a few years later, what would be their attitude to us ? If we dont ally ourselves with the US, who are the alternatives ? What are their capabilities and inclinations ?
rgds

[Threelions]

Blair would be damned if he did, he'd be damned if he didnt. Bluntly put, if we didnt show and then needed the help from the Yanks a few years later, what would be their attitude to us ? If we dont ally ourselves with the US, who are the alternatives ? What are their capabilities and inclinations ?
rgds

I agree whole heartedly with the 50 diplomats. i read their full letter on the BBC and they are bang on. Blair is in serious need of a re-think on hios policies in the mid-east, not only for the benefit of the people in iraq and Isreal, but also for the british people as a whole, and for the sake of his own job. As far as fearing the US and helping us goes i think that is an extremely daft argument. it all goes back to that old lesson your mum taught you, "if your friends jumped off a bridge would you?" The yanks have turned their backs on GB several times , and we handled things, then being who we are allways jump to their callling. Rather then follow the states off the bridge lets stop and think. Maybe everyone is better off if we dont follow them off, and instead try and prevent them from jumping off the bridge.

Cheers

[Old300]

Hasn't Blair said time and time again that, if the US hadn't been inclined to invade Iraq, he'd have urged us to do so?

The point is this: the conventional wisdom is that Blair has followed Bush around like a poodle, but there's a lot of evidence, beginning with Blair's own statements (take those with as much salt as you please), that Blair is doing what he thinks is best for Britain.

Moreover, Blair has had a tremendous influence on US policy in the Middle East over the past few years: President Bush absolutely did not want to go to the UN over Iraq; Blair made him go once and, having got the Resolution that we wanted (1441), sent him back again for another one. Blair also persuaded the President to re-start the Palestinian-Israeli peace process in the months leading up to the Iraq war last year - again, against Bush's own judgment on that matter.

Those 50 diplomats may be right. Perhaps Britain's policies in the Middle East are disastrous. But if that's the case, it has less to do with what the President wanted and more to do with what the Prime Minister wanted.

[cut]

Hasn't Blair said time and time again that, if the US hadn't been inclined to invade Iraq, he'd have urged us to do so?

The point is this: the conventional wisdom is that Blair has followed Bush around like a poodle, but there's a lot of evidence, beginning with Blair's own statements (take those with as much salt as you please), that Blair is doing what he thinks is best for Britain.

Moreover, Blair has had a tremendous influence on US policy in the Middle East over the past few years: President Bush absolutely did not want to go to the UN over Iraq; Blair made him go once and, having got the Resolution that we wanted (1441), sent him back again for another one. Blair also persuaded the President to re-start the Palestinian-Israeli peace process in the months leading up to the Iraq war last year - again, against Bush's own judgment on that matter.

Those 50 diplomats may be right. Perhaps Britain's policies in the Middle East are disastrous. But if that's the case, it has less to do with what the President wanted and more to do with what the Prime Minister wanted.

I agree but the problem I have with Blair giving his full backing to Bush is that he didn't try to influence the US at all. Maybe this was because he felt that this would hand ammo to the terrorists but I think there is a way as with the run up to the Iraq war to influence US decisions and yet not give anything away.


Blair has never said to Brits that he would have pushed to go to war in Iraq, he could have done with clinton I doubt he did. He may have said that early on to sweet talk americans but that was the extent of it, to make you guys think that you weren't the only ones to want this.

[usa320]

old300 hit it dead on the money.

[oldsoak]

Unfortunately world politics is full of tit for tat exchanges. Friendship is a nice term for something that doesnt really exist at Government level. To use an example, the UK is probably a little more worried about what the US thinks about the UK than it is about what the Ugandans or Finns think of the UK. Why ? Because the US could screw our interests more than the Finns or Ugandans. The Suez crisis showed us how dependent we were on US opinion and thats why we dumped our French and Israeli allies. We need US favours if we're to carry on getting involved as we have all over the world and sometimes favours get called in.

[cut]

old300 hit it dead on the money.

Apart from the first line about Blair saying would have pushed for a war in Iraq if Bush had not.

I'd say he is right but opposition to Blair in this country would respond by saying, he may have got Bush to go to the UN but what good did it do? And can you name a single thing that Blair has done that resulted in a difference in action?

Blair has also done nothing since despite the fact that the British armed forces have, we are not getting anything back for our work and people are starting to get frustrated, what is the point in our lads working so hard if we can't do what we think is right for Iraq (i.e. not being so harsh) instead of watching all our hard work and money that we invest in Iraq go to ****, all this for George Bush? He's not worth it.

[oldsoak]

Its the devil or the deep blue sea, I'm afraid. The UK has fostered a reltionship with the US over time in preference to that of the EU. This enabled us to get help off the US when we needed to and kept us in a pole position in NATO. It also enabled us to keep the EU at an arms length, which suited our purposes. Blair is caught in a no win situation, and its not just because he's Blair - I'm afraid any British politician would have had to do what he has done, and that pack of jackals in the commons knows that full well. Yes , we are in a fix and no, I dont know of any other course of action.

[cut]

Its the devil or the deep blue sea, I'm afraid. The UK has fostered a reltionship with the US over time in preference to that of the EU. This enabled us to get help off the US when we needed to and kept us in a pole position in NATO. It also enabled us to keep the EU at an arms length, which suited our purposes. Blair is caught in a no win situation, and its not just because he's Blair - I'm afraid any British politician would have had to do what he has done, and that pack of jackals in the commons knows that full well. Yes , we are in a fix and no, I dont know of any other course of action.

I agree but I refuse to believe that it is a no-win situation there's always something that can be done.

[oldsoak]

There is always summat we can do ! :) but I am b*gg*red if I know what it is. I just hope we can all hand it over to the locals asap so we can all eff orf home before we all loose more men.

[Old300]

oldsoak, I understand your country's predicament - you are indeed inextricably tied-up in America's policies. And yes, y'all did have a choice between us and the EU. But consider that choice for a second.

Would your foreign policy be any more independent if you'd chosen to follow the lead of France and Germany? What if there were (as there no doubt soon will be) a real EU foreign policy?

That's the trouble with being at the top of the second tier of world powers (after us, and, perhaps, but not necessarily, China and Russia). You are powerful enough to be important, but not powerful enough to be truly independent. So you must choose a leader.

And I would suggest that, for all our faults, your natural and preferred leader remains the US. It's not just that we speak the same language and watch the same entertainment and have a shared history. Most of us see the world in fundamentally similar ways: we want freedom, capitalism, and order and, unlike your continental neighbors but much like us, you have the history, inclination, military, and economy to achieve them.

You're tied to the right bloc

[oldsoak]

Realpolitik ! - good point old300

[cut]

oldsoak, I understand your country's predicament - you are indeed inextricably tied-up in America's policies. And yes, y'all did have a choice between us and the EU. But consider that choice for a second.

Would your foreign policy be any more independent if you'd chosen to follow the lead of France and Germany? What if there were (as there no doubt soon will be) a real EU foreign policy?

That's the trouble with being at the top of the second tier of world powers (after us, and, perhaps, but not necessarily, China and Russia). You are powerful enough to be important, but not powerful enough to be truly independent. So you must choose a leader.

And I would suggest that, for all our faults, your natural and preferred leader remains the US. It's not just that we speak the same language and watch the same entertainment and have a shared history. Most of us see the world in fundamentally similar ways: we want freedom, capitalism, and order and, unlike your continental neighbors but much like us, you have the history, inclination, military, and economy to achieve them.

You're tied to the right bloc

neither bloc is right for us so, no we are not tied to the right bloc. The question is where do we have more influence the US or the EU. Well normally it would be the EU by far, joint biggest power in the EU at least, but because of the unusual chummy relationship between Blair and Bush there was hope that we could get a UN approved conflict rather then an all out war of aggression.

If we had got a war thorugh the UN, the EU would have been all for it, the protestors would have little to protest about and best of all for us we'd get what we want something accepted by both camps. If we had gone with the EU, either the US would have gone to war without us, but that would have been unlikely, especially since Spain and Italy would have been under far greater pressure not to go with the US. If we had been with the EU and hadn't gone to war when it wanted to, there would have been a major rift between, the EU (inc. UK) and the US on it's own, practically unreconsilable.

So what we did was our best option, unfortunately coupled with the lack of patience from Bush the UN didn't give it's approval and the UK was stuck with the US (along with spain and italy so it wasn't too bad).
But we are still on the wrong side, far too close to an increasingly less moderate US. Since the end of the war relations between the UK and the rest of the EU ahve improved and we once again are bridging the with a foot on either side, but as the gap gets larger we are going to have to choose a side, and that will have to be the EU because under Bush the US is moving further away from the center unlike the EU. That of course will change with Kerry in power, but if Bush stays, we'll have to stop being so close to the US. Either by Blair realising that and distance himself from Bush or he will be voted out.


The US may have similar ideals in terms of freedom, capitalism, and order, but we are not going to be dictated to, we need our say on these matters, if the US continues to ignore us, we can easily instill these ideals into the EU along with Italy and Poland, because we are listen to their not ignored like our "relationship" with the US.

[Old300]

cut, I believe that Britain would have less influence within a formal EU foreign policy regime than it has had and has in her informal alliance with the US. I could point to lots of examples of UK influence on US foreign policy (and you might be able to give examples of UK influence on the development of a united Europe... although I, for one, can't think of any), but that's probably a less effective argument than the following:

The reason the UK would have less influence on a future (and inevitable) EU foreign policy is because the UK wants different things than many of your neighbors. Both New Labour and the Tories (and even many Lib Dems) believe in humanitarian military interventions and have the wherewithall to undertake them; your country is still committed to many of the most important symbols and tools of sovereignty (currency, military, independent alliances); and among other things, Britain does not have a recent history of, on the one hand, shameful aggression (Germany et al.) and, on the other hand, shameful defeat (sorry: France, et al.) in Europe, and therefore does not have any reason to subsume its sovereignty into a larger state.

I know I didn't convince you of anything here, cut. I just want to suggest to you that the EU is and shall ever be run by France and Germany (the new entrants not withstanding), and that those countries have many different goals and interests than your country does. And while the US and UK also have differences, they are less important than those between the UK and its continental neighbors; but if that should change, the informal nature of your alliance with us would allow you to take another side. That wouldn't be possible if your foreign policy were dictated to you by a bunch of Belgian civil servants, would it?

[cut]

cut, I believe that Britain would have less influence within a formal EU foreign policy regime than it has had and has in her informal alliance with the US. I could point to lots of examples of UK influence on US foreign policy (and you might be able to give examples of UK influence on the development of a united Europe... although I, for one, can't think of any), but that's probably a less effective argument than the following:


Firstly I want to point out that Britain has been totally commited to the US during the recent Iraq campaign, what have we got to show for it, had the war happened without us it would have been no different. Hence the war has not gone as we would have wanted, take as evidence for this the letter sent to Blair from the diplomats.
There is however little to show for the EU argument (which applies I mean) because there this is the first issue to devide the EU and the US like this, in affect the first time we've had to choose.




The reason the UK would have less influence on a future (and inevitable) EU foreign policy is because the UK wants different things than many of your neighbors. Both New Labour and the Tories (and even many Lib Dems) believe in humanitarian military interventions and have the wherewithall to undertake them; your country is still committed to many of the most important symbols and tools of sovereignty (currency, military, independent alliances); and among other things, Britain does not have a recent history of, on the one hand, shameful aggression (Germany et al.) and, on the other hand, shameful defeat (sorry: France, et al.) in Europe, and therefore does not have any reason to subsume its sovereignty into a larger state.


history of shameful defeat/agression? wtf does this have to do with whats going on now? The germany had too "shameful defeats" and the last country to invade us (almost a thousand years ago) were the French. So I don't see you're point, we hae fought more wars with/against the french and germans then we have with or against you, it makes no difference to the situation now.

The EU is becoming a super-state as much as the US is becoming an empire. We are closer to the European countries then we ever have been to the US even now, this is just one instance.



I know I didn't convince you of anything here, cut. I just want to suggest to you that the EU is and shall ever be run by France and Germany (the new entrants not withstanding), and that those countries have many different goals and interests than your country does. And while the US and UK also have differences, they are less important than those between the UK and its continental neighbors; but if that should change, the informal nature of your alliance with us would allow you to take another side. That wouldn't be possible if your foreign policy were dictated to you by a bunch of Belgian civil servants, would it?

The UK has just as much say in the EU parliament as Germany does dispite the difference in population size. Our goals are not that of the USA's. The reason why we have not given up more of our sovereighty is because we don't need to and we don't want to until changes happen, Belgian civil servants will never dictate our foreign policy the point at which they might, we will consider ourselfs European and so will they, I'd be chuffed it someone like Haiw (southern dutch, close enough) on this board was doing our foreign policy, we completely agree, and I'm a British patriot! I think you have seriously underestimated the bond between the UK and the rest of Europe, we holiday there every year, we know them. The bond between the UK and the US is far weaker. Particularly because we hate having our foreign policy dictate by the US, because we have to put on a show of unity, we are now seen as supporting Sharon's plan, we've always hated Sharon as much as we hate Arafat, why should we be made to change.