1 - 7 November 2001
Issue No.558
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 1 - 7 November 2001 Issue No.558 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Blair's new war
Brandishing the Bible in one hand and the Qur'an in the other Tony Blair makes believe he is waging a humanist kind of warfare, writes Gavin Bowd from London
So they're back. After more than a century, British troops are back in Afghanistan. In a week that saw the anniversary of Henry V's triumph over the French at Agincourt, British Defence Minister Adam Ingrams announced that 200 Royal Marines were available for the ground phase of the "War Against Terrorism." But this war has none of the simplicities of past battles, and victory is far from assured.
Blair's war since 11 September has laid bare many of the downsides of New Labour. The party's cynical use of news management reached new depths with spin doctor Jo Moore's instruction to colleagues to use the New York attack to "bury" bad news. Control freakery led the Chief Whip to give a brutal dressing-down to back-bench rebel Paul Marsden. And New Labour's penchant for authoritarian, media-led measures was shown in Home Secretary David Blunkett's imposition of seven-year sentences for anthrax hoaxers -- rushed in before Parliament could scrutinise and approve it.
Have we seen, as Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy put it, "the best of Blair and the worst of Blairism." Certainly, Blair himself has managed to appear distant from some of the recent excesses. His policy of standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with President Bush has not harmed his immense popularity ratings. He has been an eloquent spokesman for the cause, upstaging -- in almost Gaullist fashion -- other European leaders, including French President Jacques Chirac.
Blair flies across the world with a copy of the Qur'an in his briefcase, and has reassuring words for Muslim leaders from the powder-kegs of the UK's ethnic minorities. Since 1997, the British prime minister's press officer Alastair Campbell has expressed a burning desire to "get Blair in khaki." The bombardments of Iraq and Kosovo were rather too brief for that. This time round, with head of the British armed forces Sir Michael Boyce speaking of a "long war" -- perhaps lasting until the next general election -- Blair has the chance of becoming a new Winston Churchill or Duke of Wellington.
And there has already been a "war dividend." Last week saw the eighth anniversary of the Shankhill Road bombing in Belfast, where the Provisional IRA took out a Protestant fish shop, killing several people including an unborn child. On that day, Gerry Adams called on his armed wing to begin decommissioning. Two days later this unimaginable process began, and the power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland was saved. The arrest of IRA men in Colombia, then the American backlash against terrorism had put the Republican leadership under unexpected pressure. A peace process which many feared dead was resurrected.
But these events do not quell doubts about Blair's foreign policy. As army installations were dismantled in South Armagh, Southern Ireland, troops were being committed to Afghanistan. The Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid announced amnesties for Republican terrorists on the run. At the same time, the UK government approved the CIA's vow to assassinate Osama Bin Laden.
"Terrorism" and "civilised values" are slippery terms, even (or perhaps especially) for Tony Blair and New Labour. So far, opposition to the war has been limited to usual suspects on the Labour backbenches. Many of those who opposed the Gulf War are now passionate supporters of bombing Kabul and Kandahar. Development Minister Clare Short, for one, is adamant that a pause in the bombing would prevent agencies getting aid to the 7.5 million Afghans on the edge of starvation. As for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, under new leader Iain Duncan Smith, it would probably put its hands up for nuking Baghdad.
There is a discreet silence over one unsettling fact: the absence, so far, of any threat to the UK. Anthrax hoaxes may have angered David Blunkett, but they have hurt no-one. A British soldier was nearly killed last weekend -- by Loyalist gunmen. All terrorist attacks have been directed against the USA alone. Which must be humiliating for a British prime minister who appears, if anything, to be acting as honorary vice-president of the US. Yet the promised British contingent in the "War Against Terror" is puny, and can only operate from aircraft carriers: the Omani authorities will not allow their protector to use her bases on their soil.
These are not the days of the Raj -- England's cricketers are frightened of touring India this winter -- but even at the zenith of imperial power, British forces were repulsed thrice by the fearsome Pashtuns. And this long war against what Sir Boyce describes as an "intangible" enemy carries many risks. If winter brings mass starvation and military stagnation, people may begin to wonder why Britain latched itself so quickly and unquestioningly to what is increasingly perceived as an American struggle against, to use Bush's words, "the evil ones." The streets of Oldham and Bradford may re-erupt, and the Far Right may make hay with the mayhem.
Interviewed recently, a former Soviet commander in Afghanistan said that if the Politburo had read Friedrich Engels' essay on that benighted country, they would never have ordered the Red Army invasion. But it is unlikely that Engels will be read in London -- especially by New Labour.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page