SPECIATOR
The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WCIN 2LL Telephone: 020-7405 1706; Fax 020-7242 0603
TONY AND THE TERRORISTS
The allocation of offices at Westminster and the granting of large monetary allowances to four Sinn Fein MPs who have no intention ever of taking their seats on behalf of their constituents is a victory for terrorists and terrorism everywhere. At a single cowardly stroke, Mr Blair, by countenancing this outrage, has more than undone his reputation as an enemy of terrorism. He has proved that, in certain circumstances at least, terrorism can achieve ends beyond its wildest dreams. Mr Blair has given heart and succour to every terrorist and would-be terrorist in the world.
Such abject surrender to violence and intimidation was not a requirement of any agreement. The peace process, which offers a possible though by no means certain way out of the endless cycle of violence in Northern Ireland, could have continued without the payment of £107,000 a year each to Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, whose hitherto insensate hatred of Britain must now — quite justifiably — be mixed with contempt for its kitten-like weakness.
The episode has exposed as mere rodomontade the anti-terrorist rhetoric that the Prime Minister has employed during his evangelical voyages to various parts of the world. Mr Blair's firmness is always in inverse proportion to the proximity to Britain of the problem with which he deals. This is indicative of his profound lack of genuine moral courage, for it is always easier to deal with distant problems than dilemmas at home. His lack of courage arises from a lack of convictions other than that of his own rectitude. Other men were born with Original Sin; Mr Blair was born with Original Virtue.
This is not to say that his support for the Americans in Afghanistan was wrong; far from it. But the Americans, who are understandably grateful to him for his unwavering assistance, mistake the sources of his support, which has made him something of a hero in America, certainly by comparison with other European leaders, The Americans think he stands shoulder to shoulder with them. But, as Mr Blair has amply demonstrated these last days, he is not the principled and intransigent opponent of terrorism wherever it raises its ugly head. If it threatens him personally, he gives in to it at once, with an almost indecent alacrity. He has supported the Americans because only by doing so could he play a part on the world stage. Otherwise, he would have had to fix his attention on such boring matters as why our trains don't run on time or in some instances at all.
It so happens that, in the case of Afghanistan. Britain's national interest coincided with Mr Blair's personal and political interests. It was important to bring about the end of a regime that not only harboured, but was to a large extent dependent for its continuation upon, ruthless anti-Western terrorists. Many countries might now think twice before allow
ing an Osama bin Laden to operate from its territory. But Mr Blair's extraordinary scale of values was very clearly exhibited during his recent visit to Afghanistan, when he dilated at length on the tragic death of Gordon Brown's baby. Here, obviously, was a man who couldn't tell the difference between a moral imperative and a photo opportunity.
It is, of course, the common lot of practising politicians not to be entirely consistent in either their policies or their principles. But if a politician's precept and practice diverge too widely, as they do when Mr Blair treats of terrorism, he is likely to reap justified mockery and contempt. To bomb Afghanistan while conferring limousines and other perquisites on the very people who attempted to kill an entire British Cabinet is a contradiction too far; unless, of course, Mr Blair considers that the Conservative party is or was a legitimate military target.
Those who compromise their principles would be well-advised not to preach or even to adopt a tone of self-righteousness. The danger of high-sounding rhetoric in the mouths of people such as Mr Blair is not that it will persuade others (there seems very little danger of that) but that they will come to believe in it themselves. Thus Mr Blair may actually now believe that it is his mission to create a kind of Denmark in Central Asia, a mission that will assuredly endanger the British troops sent as midwives to this chimera. As usual, it is others who will have to pay the price for Mr Blair's simulacrum of a moral vision.
For the moment, Mr Blair has been lucky; as has Britain. The needs of foreign policy and of the satisfaction of his personal vanity have not so far been incompatible. But it would be foolish to imagine that this compatibility will last for ever, or that nemesis will never follow hubris. As events at Westminster this week have demonstrated, Mr Blair has a backbone of tissue, and this does not bode well for the time when he has to act on his own, and not as a very junior partner of the Americans_ Mr Blair has proved that he is decidedly not a man to go into the jungle with; and he has resuscitated that Maoist creature: the paper tiger.
Previous page
