Tony Blair’s accolade for human rights defies satire

BY Matthew Carr LAST UPDATED AT 00:00 ON Tue 13 Jan 2009

There are moments when even the most gifted satirist must admit that reality has become too absurd to encapsulate. Today, even Jonathan Swift or Joseph Heller would surely be reduced to awestruck silence at the extraordinary ceremony at the White House, when George W Bush is due to present Tony Blair with the presidential medal of freedom in recognition of his efforts to promote "democracy, human rights and peace abroad".

The ceremony takes place against the background of the barbaric Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, in which both men have been complicit.

Last week a phone call from the White House ordered Condoleezza Rice to abstain in the ceasefire vote at the UN Security Council, ­ a decision which emboldened Israel to prolong the killing and achieve its "goals".

In his Bush-appointed role as the Quartet's Middle East envoy, Blair has alternated between sonorous concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and an insistence that Hamas must stop smuggling weapons or money into the territory before any ceasefire can take place.

At no point has Blair ever suggested that something might be demanded from Israel as well, or that this crisis might be due to Israeli actions. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz shortly before the offensive, Blair was clearly aware of the "growing support in Israel for a military solution in Gaza".

Though he did not explicitly reject or approve this option, his attitude towards Hamas was evident in his dismissal of "nonsensical" comparisons between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Northern Ireland, saying that it was impossible to negotiate with an organisation that refused to accept the existence of Israel.

In fact, Hamas has declared on various occasions that it is willing to accept a two-state solution based on Israel's 1967 borders. Either Blair was unaware of these declarations, in which case he was merely ignorant, or else he was choosing, like the Israel government, to disregard them.

For Tony Blair, the only beliefs that have ever counted are those of the powerful

Given Blair's combination of intellectual shallowness and deviousness, both explanations are possible. It is more than eight years since his messianic speech to the Labour Party conference, with its grandiose promise to "re-order" the post-9/11 world "from the deserts of northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan".

Since then the War on Terror has carved a swathe of violence, war and chaos across the very regions Blair described.

In Iraq, a traumatised society has been temporarily subdued by war, death squads and ethnic cleansing. In Somalia, a US-backed Ethiopian invasion created a vortex of lawlessness and violence. In Afghanistan, Nato troops are mired in a doomed war which threatens to spread into Pakistan.

In addition to his presidential gong Blair is due to receive at some point a Congressional Gold Medal he was originally awarded in 2003, which bears the slogan 'Our real weapons are not our guns, but our beliefs'.

But for Blair the only beliefs that have ever counted are those of the powerful. Such deference explains why he never once visited the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip who he once declared to be "our cause".

As the bombs rain down on "the slums of Gaza" in the last act of the catastrophic Bush presidency and this grubby and disreputable double act prepares to make its exit from the historical stage talking of "values", "beliefs" and "peace", we might feel disgust or relief on contemplating Bush's lopsided smirk and Blair's faux-naif sincerity for the last time.

But in their blinkered arrogance, their smug assumption of moral superiority, their taste for violence and their indifference to its human consequences, we might also remember that both men are to some extent a reflection of the societies that produced them.

And the fact that neither of them has been held to account for the mayhem they have helped unleash should give us cause for wonder ­ and perhaps also for shame. · 

Comments

I totally agree with this article and at the time of Blair`s appointment I was amazed that he had anything at all to contribute to peace in the Middle East.Blair does not show his face in the UK where he is mostly reviled for what he has done in our name and against our beliefs and wishes.
He has made a packet of money since stepping down from the premiership and one wonders if this was in part his motivation for the foreign policy he has carried out in support of Bush.The two worst world leaders of all time in my opinion, I hope they rot in their smugness and moral shallowness.

I find it amazing that all the blame for the present conflict is only Israel's, in all the letters that blame Blair and anyone else who dares to critize Hamas, is a war monger, they regard years of constant rockets as a mere "PIN PRICK", and bcause so few have died makes it alright, can any country wait and wait while the enemy shoot larger and larger rockets. I can never understand why Israel should have any crossing with Gaza, they should have their crossing with Egypt withwhom they have a common border, let all they want come thru Egypt, so that Israel is free of this ongoing problem, Israel left Gaza 3 years ago, all that has happened has been kidnapping and rockets, Hamas killed hundreds of their rival Fatah, no UN statement, no EU condemnation, only the self defence of its people by Israel carries all threats, the world knows the tactics of Hamas and Hizbollah, stand and fire whilst surrounded by women and children, and when the response comes they cry murder of the civilians they hide amongst, they encourage these deaths it suits the infamous propaganda they then shout about.

I never understood how Blair managed the con trick, he struck me as a slippery, insincere, hypocritical liar from day one, but crowds of adoring fans seemed to think he was the risen christ, as he himself clearly did. I suppose too many people just need a leader, which makes people like Blair dangerous. How he got away with the lies so long is the shame of the British parliamentary system, and of all politicians who allowed him, with a few notable objectors, to embark on an adventure with the British armed forces. Every politicians who voted for that is guilty, no excuses for being conned by such an obvious liar will do. I wish I believed in karma and could look forward to Blair getting his.

You said it all, Matthew Carr. Two of the most despicable and despised world leaders are undoubtedly Bush and Blair. Their hypocrisy, and as you so aptly describe it 'smug moral superiority' is indeed sickening to behold. One of the biggest disappointments to me would be to see the administration of a President Obama go down the same road re the Palestinian Israeli conflict, with Israel always right and the Palestinians always wrong. I must say that after listening to Hillary Clinton's
comments at her senate hearing this morning, I am not optimistic for any positive change in that department at all. The language was too similar to Bush's.

Blair has all the sincerity of a used-car salesman; how he hoodwinked the UK electorate (and indeed his own Party) for so long speaks volumes for his ability as a con artist. The absolute insult is that he should be awarded ANY accolade for delivering Peace and Democracy. Both he and Bush have inflicted horrendous suffering and division on an innocent population in Iraq and both of these so-called Leaders have ravaged civil liberties in their own countries. Both should be arrested and taken to the Hague to face Nuremburg style war crimes trials

Blair is a madman - probably much madder than Bush (who is simply corrupt and stupid). Blair has his weird "Faith" which is, quite frankly, a danger to the world at large.

Unfortunately only the losers are ever tried for war crimes. Shame on them - shame on all of us.

Comments are now closed on this article