Sunday, April 06, 2003
8:28 pm
Understanding Blair (Revisited) - 6th April 2003, 20.27
Glenn Frankel at the Washington Post also recalled Blair's speech in Chicago and the vision of international security achieved through law and multilateral institutions that he set out. Frankel correctly identifies the separate roots of neoconservatism that motivate the Bush administration on the one hand and the Gladstonian moral sense of justice that motivates Blair. Perhaps they read my post from the 31st March. Who knows?
The radical steps that Blair has taken are not recognised. From his support for the United Nations in the past:
The world must deal forcefully, he declared, with tyrants like Iraqi President Saddam Hussein who oppress their own people and threaten other countries with weapons of mass destruction. But he couched his argument in terms of repairing the international community, and called for strengthening the United Nations as "its central pillar."
Yet, the actions against Kosovo and Sierra Leone, retrospectively ratified by the United Nations were precursors and indicators of Balir's current approach in the Iraqi crisis. Our Prime Minister recognises the usefulness of multilateral institutions in obtaining collective security but if they were unable to act, he did not feel bound by their constraints. His record clearly demonstrates that Blair would respect international law but that he did not consider it to be a higher authority than his own moral impulse.
Once the war in Iraq ends, that same battle may be fought over a series of post-conflict issues, starting with the role of the United Nations in governing and reconstructing Iraq. In each instance, analysts say, Blair is likely to wind up as the man in the middle, seeking to reconcile the demands and concerns of Washington with those of its antagonistic European allies, and working in the name of his vision of an international community. "Of course there will be stresses and strains," said an official close to the prime minister. "But he believes this is the only way to go."
Blair remains in contact with European leaders as they are too important to freeze out but it is doubtful that he will allow support for the United Nations to jeopardise his relationship with the United States. On the other hand, his moral impulse may demand that he seeks another resolution from the United Nations to legitimate the war in Iraq retrospectively and providing them with a grandstanding role in postwar administration.
Now that Britain has served its purpose as the 'loyal ally', Bush may decide to sideline this country in the aftermath of the war and ensure that Blair's influence on Iraq is securely channelled to less sensitive subjects like international development and away from security issues. However, given the rise in taxation and dissatisfaction with public services, Blair may find his attention wrested back to the domestic scene, especially as the economy has been run by chimpanzees for the last six years.
(from Conservative Observer)
Glenn Frankel at the Washington Post also recalled Blair's speech in Chicago and the vision of international security achieved through law and multilateral institutions that he set out. Frankel correctly identifies the separate roots of neoconservatism that motivate the Bush administration on the one hand and the Gladstonian moral sense of justice that motivates Blair. Perhaps they read my post from the 31st March. Who knows?
The radical steps that Blair has taken are not recognised. From his support for the United Nations in the past:
The world must deal forcefully, he declared, with tyrants like Iraqi President Saddam Hussein who oppress their own people and threaten other countries with weapons of mass destruction. But he couched his argument in terms of repairing the international community, and called for strengthening the United Nations as "its central pillar."
Yet, the actions against Kosovo and Sierra Leone, retrospectively ratified by the United Nations were precursors and indicators of Balir's current approach in the Iraqi crisis. Our Prime Minister recognises the usefulness of multilateral institutions in obtaining collective security but if they were unable to act, he did not feel bound by their constraints. His record clearly demonstrates that Blair would respect international law but that he did not consider it to be a higher authority than his own moral impulse.
Once the war in Iraq ends, that same battle may be fought over a series of post-conflict issues, starting with the role of the United Nations in governing and reconstructing Iraq. In each instance, analysts say, Blair is likely to wind up as the man in the middle, seeking to reconcile the demands and concerns of Washington with those of its antagonistic European allies, and working in the name of his vision of an international community. "Of course there will be stresses and strains," said an official close to the prime minister. "But he believes this is the only way to go."
Blair remains in contact with European leaders as they are too important to freeze out but it is doubtful that he will allow support for the United Nations to jeopardise his relationship with the United States. On the other hand, his moral impulse may demand that he seeks another resolution from the United Nations to legitimate the war in Iraq retrospectively and providing them with a grandstanding role in postwar administration.
Now that Britain has served its purpose as the 'loyal ally', Bush may decide to sideline this country in the aftermath of the war and ensure that Blair's influence on Iraq is securely channelled to less sensitive subjects like international development and away from security issues. However, given the rise in taxation and dissatisfaction with public services, Blair may find his attention wrested back to the domestic scene, especially as the economy has been run by chimpanzees for the last six years.
(from Conservative Observer)
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
April
(66)
- Diminished - 30th April 2003, 23.50 Sixty years a...
- The Plotter Thickens Matthew D'Ancona writes on C...
- Britain in Iraq - 27th April 2003, 18.20 Given th...
- Putting the puzzle together - 27th April 2003, 17....
- Let us have our say - 27th April 2003, 15.42 Paul...
- What happened in the Convention - 27th April 2003,...
- Paris-US rift - 24th April 2003, 23.00 To reitera...
- What future for the Common Foreign and Security Po...
- News from the Convention - 24th April 2003, 22.17 ...
- George the Dragon Tomorrow being St. George's day...
- A Succinct Precis of Franco-German Contradictions ...
- Wordsmithing - 21st April 2003, 20.32 Perhaps the...
- Biased Biased BBC? The Biased BBC blog has been g...
- The issue of Iraqi sanctions - 20th April 2003, 18...
- Zimwatch: Send for the Troops Alasdair Palmer wri...
- Staying on, and on According to the Telegraph: ...
- So Easy - 20th April 2003, 13.55 It is always a p...
- After Empire Theodore Dalrymple writes a depressi...
- Cheering Crowds One of the most facile of the pro...
- The world's most powerful Trots While talking abo...
- Why National Sovereignty trumps Human Rights Harr...
- Mandarins against the Special Relationship Prospe...
- Divisions on European Defence - 20th April 2003, 2...
- Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British R...
- Is it all just Wilsonian? John Ikenberry's articl...
- Clear as mud Well I think I know why generally le...
- Zimwatch: It can get worse, now the world's starti...
- EU asked for it So we have the formal acceptance ...
- The Fallen - 15th April 2003, 22.46 Some deaths i...
- Unriven There's too many sunny optimists out ther...
- Gabbing We have a new contributor. Dr Sean Gabb,...
- Irrational? 15th April 2003. Has anybody else ha...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Iraq: A spur to European integration - 14th April ...
- Missile Defence: Costs and Benefits to the UK - 14...
- Hungary votes yes - 13th April 2003, 22.22 On a l...
- Those cheering crowds, ctd The picture below come...
- Does the British Government support looting? This...
- The St Petersburg Trio - 12th April 2003, 16.48 C...
- ... or you're with the terrorists So Britain is n...
- Even Governments Lie The lack of weapons of mass ...
- What our rulers think One of those Things I Mean ...
- Damn - 10th April 2003, 22.07 One of the possible...
- The "Reckoning" - 10th April 2003, 21.35 Jack Str...
- Can we go home now? Now that Baghdad is under Ame...
- UNresolved? - 8th April 2003, 22.40 Tonight, Blai...
- Defining Quagmire So what's this worry about quag...
- Further developments in European Defence - 7th Mar...
- The Hungarian Referendum - 7th April 2003, 20.13 ...
- Zimwatch: Spot the difference In South Africa the...
- Understanding Blair (Revisited) - 6th April 2003, ...
- New Forum For those of you who want to have a gen...
- The penny drops: Links update - 6th April 2003, 15...
- Reclaim the Bases - 6th April 2003, 0.26 When doe...
- Was Private Eye the first blog? Discuss This is a...
- Blackwell's Charge - 5th April 2003, 23.27 Lord B...
- Anyone out there who can explain this Maybe my br...
- Losing friends over the war? Here's a way to make...
- Euforia - 4th April 2003, 23.25 Just as a follow ...
- The penny drops - 4th April 2003, 22.55 If you re...
- Zimwatch: Almost official Not much to report apa...
- Now I'm pro-war Welcome to all the Political Scie...
- Trapped by their publics - 1st April 2003, 22.40 ...
- Zimwatch: A deadline passes So the deadline has ...
- More of the same As if to show what's in store fo...
-
▼
April
(66)
0 comments:
Post a Comment