In a local newsagent’s I read on the front cover of the latest edition of The New Statesman: ‘Noam Chomsky – Obama’s war crimes’, and my heart jumped – and then it sank, as I read above: ‘Irwin Stelzer – Why the left should stop abusing Tony Blair’.
Chomsky says in ‘The NS Interview’ that the invasion of Afghanistan ‘was a crime’, as he has said of the invasion of Iraq many times. He is of course right on both counts. Irwin Stelzer writes that ‘democratic countries are to be able to defend the national interest with whatever measures seem necessary to them’, without apparently wondering whether it’s democratic to defend the so-called ‘national interest’ by ignoring millions of people in launching an illegal war for oil that ends up leading to the deaths of one million innocent people.
Stelzer refers to Blair’s ‘moral foreign policy’:
‘…The prime minister laid out the case for intervention in nations in which the leaders abuse their populations. That position came in for severe criticism from the left when it turned out that implementing a moral foreign policy might actually require the use of force in the ugly, real world in which politicians operate.’*
I’ll say it again: what is moral about starting an illegal war that ends up leading to the deaths of one million innocent people? Stelzer shows his true colours by mentioning ‘the national interest’. This is a nasty euphemism for the interests of the rich and powerful elite. It is totally maddening to hear realpolitik neo-cons berate ‘the left’ (i.e. people with an ounce of compassion) for not supporting ‘moral’ violence against people who have the misfortune to live on or near natural resources worth a lot of money. That is what Stelzer and Blair are about: money. They support money foreign policy; morality has nothing to do with it. Indeed, Stelzer is an economist and he writes that ‘Blair could have earned far more as a practising lawyer in the years he spent at No 10’. Money, money, money…
Stelzer writes that Blair is ‘a politician who cares enough about the future of Britain’, without going into detail about Blair’s constant flirting with big business and his steady dismantling of public services that so many people depend on. Stelzer thinks that the future of Britain ought to be secured by the destruction of other countries. He refers to ‘the ugly, real world’, which prompts the thought: ‘It’s ugly because of greedy, inhumane bastards like you and Blair!’
Finally, Stelzer asks: ‘Should we accept that we live in dangerous times, and that honest leaders make honest mistakes as they try to divine the national interest?
Blair as an honest leader? Stelzer doesn’t mention the ‘dodgy dossier’, the lies that were repeated over and over… How can Blair have made a ‘mistake’ in invading Iraq when he deliberately lied? Stelzer doesn’t see it, or rather, he doesn’t want to see it. Blair did what he had to do for the corporations and that’s all that matters. Honesty and morals are just words to Stelzer and Blair.
*http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/labour-party-blair-minister