The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Demented Tony Blair Recites the Saudis' Creed in His Latest Speech
The former prime minister's intervention on radical Islam was aimed at all the wrong targets
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of the core group of al-Qa’ida, may well chortle in disbelief if he reads a translation of Tony Blair’s latest speech on the Middle East delivered last week. If Blair’s thoughts are used as a guide to action, then the main beneficiaries will be al-Qa’ida-type jihadist movements. Overall, his speech is so bizarre in its assertions that it should forever rule him out as a serious commentator on the Middle East. Reading it, I was reminded of a diplomat in Joseph Conrad’s Secret Agent called Mr Vladimir who fancies himself an expert on revolutionaries: “He confounded causes with effects; the most distinguished propagandists with impulsive bomb throwers; assumed organisation where in the nature of things it could not exist.”

The speech, entitled “Why the Middle East matters”, is about the threat from radical Islam, what it consists of and how it should be countered. Mr Blair says that “there is a titanic struggle going on within the region between those who want the region to embrace the modern world and those who, instead, want to create a politics of religious difference and exclusivity.” On one side stand those who want “pluralistic societies and open economies”, on the other those who want to impose an exclusive Islamic ideology.

Here the reader might suppose that Blair is building up towards some sharp criticism of Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist Wahhabi creed. What could be more opposed to pluralism in politics and religion than a theocratic absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia which is so notoriously intolerant of other versions of Islam, such as Shi’ism, as well as Christianity and Judaism, and is, moreover, the only place in the world where women are not allowed to drive? Here is the home country of 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers and of the then leader of al-Qa’ida, Osama bin Laden, whose religious views are rooted in mainstream Wahhabism.

Blair denounces those who espouse an Islamist ideology in which the ultimate goal “is not a society which someone else can change after winning an election”. Surely he should be thinking here about King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, his namesake in Jordan and the Gulf royals who inherited their thrones. But Blair goes on to make the astonishing claim that the guilty party in fostering extreme jihadist Islam is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood which stood for and won an election in Egypt before it was overthrown by the military.

It is worth quoting Blair again to get the flavour of his thoughts about what happened in Egypt last year. “The Muslim Brotherhood was not simply a bad government,” he says. “It was systematically taking over the traditions and institutions of the country. The revolt of 30 June was not an ordinary protest. It was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation.”

This is demented stuff. If the Muslim Brotherhood had indeed been taking over Egyptian institutions such as the army, police and judiciary, they would not have been so easily overthrown by the army on 3 July. And what great Egyptian traditions were being eliminated by the Brotherhood other than that of rule by unelected military governments? Blair mentions the number of soldiers and police who died but not the 1,400 protesters killed between July last year and January, according to a report by Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch says that the Egyptian authorities now show “zero tolerance for any form of dissent, arresting and prosecuting journalists, demonstrators and academics, for peacefully expressing their views”. In reality, events in Egypt can only encourage recruitment by jihadi al-Qa’ida-type movements which will argue that the fate of the Brotherhood, which tried to take power democratically, shows that elections are a charade and the only way forward is through violence.

On Syria, Blair is a little more ambivalent about the future though he has no doubts what we should have done. He says that “in Syria, we call for the regime to change, we encourage the opposition to rise up, but when Iran activates Hezbollah on the side of Assad, we refrain even from air intervention to give the opposition a chance.” Presumably, by “air intervention” he means a Libya-style change of regime to put the opposition in power. But in Syria the armed opposition is dominated by the very jihadists – Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qa’ida affiliate and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formerly al-Qa’ida in Iraq – against whom Blair is warning the world. They now control an area the size of Britain in north and east Syria and north and west Iraq and can operate anywhere between Basra and the Mediterranean coast of Syria.

Blair has noticed that there is a difficulty here because of “so many fissures and problems around elements within the opposition” and that it might be better if Assad stays on for now. But if agreement cannot be reached we should impose a no-fly zone to help the opposition, while extremist groups – dominant within the rebel military forces – should “receive no support from any of the surrounding nations”.

Overall, Blair has swallowed whole and is now regurgitating the official line of Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, though he never mentions any of the Gulf monarchies by name. Contrary to all the evidence, the Brotherhood is portrayed as a terrorist organisation. Shia movements such as Hezbollah are supposedly the obedient creatures of Iran. Blair appears to agree with the Sunni conspiracy theory whereby Shia movements in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Lebanon and Yemen are delegitimised by referring to them as “safavids” who act as pawns of Iran and have no communal interests of their own to defend.

ORDER IT NOW

As I read Blair’s speech I could not quite believe he was going to conclude by proposing the absolute monarchies of the Gulf, some of the most authoritarian and corrupt countries on earth, as suitable models for the rest of the Islamic world. But that is exactly what he does do, advising the West to stick by our allies “whether in Jordan or the Gulf where they’re promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule-based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be assisting them”.

It is a curious fate for the man who claims to have tried as prime minister to modernise Britain and the Labour Party that he should end up lauding these ultra-reactionary states. In the past few months Saudi Arabia has criminalised almost all forms of dissent, the Sunni monarchy of Bahrain is crushing democratic protests by the Shia majority and Qatar last year sentenced a man to 15 years in jail for writing a poem critical of the emir.

As for combating jihadi Islam: nothing is more likely to encourage its spread than the policy supported by Blair of persecuting moderate Islamists, who did stand for election, while giving full backing to autocratic kings and generals.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Islam, Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tenor says:

    “WAR IS PEACE”. Blair “modernized” the Labour Party by delivering it into the complete control if the Plutocratic Oligarchic Billionaires of the UK.

  2. KA says: • Website

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/01/uk.labourconference2

    Tony Blair was bought by Israel before.
    Who would be the next buyer?
    Dear Leader from NK or someone from CAR or someone closer to home – from Ukraine Nazi?

  3. The language has all taken such an overtly Orwellian turn, but basically summed up by, our oligarchs good, anyone resisting them, bad. In such a way a despot is said to be a democrat and democratically elected leaders tyrants, depending solely on whether or not said personages are “our S.O.B.s”

  4. Fabian socialist like Tony Blair have always had a thing for orderly totalitarian societies.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    the ultimate goal “is not a society which someone else can change after winning an election”

    And therein lies the rub. This is what he and his fellow criminals inflicted on the UK. No matter who we elect, nothing changes.
    Blair is a devil. The sooner he is silenced, preferably by being locked up and the key thrown away, the better.
    And then we can send Murdoch, Bush, Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama, et al, to keep him company.

  6. Tony Blair is himself the subject of a monarchy. Should he then have been expected to bash one?

  7. […] genuinely lunatic barrage at some point, but I find that Patrick Cockburn, as you might expect, has covered it well in a new piece, quoted below. The idiocy and irrationality of Blair’s speech are obvious, but they bear […]

  8. Most people have not noticed-especially Sunni Muslims–but Israel and Saudi Arabia have a quiet, under the sofa understanding, going back to at least the later 60’s.

    More recently, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Baath Party, for example, were threats to both, as indeed are the Palestinians.

    Nowadays some Israelis are trying to parlay the same shtick into Israel becoming the GREAT PROTECTOR of the Sunni Arabs against the Iranians.

    But this just scratches the surface.

  9. Joe says:

    Politicians like Blair always end up where the money is. Or where the money tells them to go. Which of course is why its absurd to call them ‘socialists’. But which is why its also entirely predictable that they’ll end up in the pocket of a Saudi prince. Because, if you have no moral principles to uphold, and if you always go where the money tells you to go, then of course you end up in the pocket of a Saudi oil sheik.

  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What a confused politician he is.
    If he defend the democracy; whats wrong with Muslim Brotherhoods winning the election?
    But Tony did not like this,crashing Muslim Brotherhoods was a good idea he says,
    Is he defend the totalitarian regimes? Well,he says as long as in the Muslim world it’s fine.
    He can be all the things they say he is but ruling him out as a middle east commentator.
    Divide and rule of British foreign policy culture has changed to;we don’t know what we are doing policy.

    Why people still listening to him is beats me.

  11. Stogumber says:

    “It is a curious fate for the man who claims to have tried as prime minister to modernise Britain and the Labour Party that he should end up lauding these ultra-reactionary states.”

    I don’t see an inconsistency. Our future is high capitalism (aka “open economy”) protected by ruthless totalitarianism. That’s the most “modern” political idea I know.

  12. Merely by the way the British monarch is also head of the Anglican Church, which is still formally the state religion.

    The British Classic Liberals were quite cunning when they revolutionized and capitalized Britain, including leaving a remnant of the monarchy as a useful figurehead in many more ways than one.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr