Just saying ...
You know, for every photo of Tony Blair cuddling Colonel Gaddafi that's out there, there are five or six photos of Nelson Mandela doing the exact same thing. If I were the script editors of That Wasn't The Week That Was, I might have slipped one or two of those into the mix and done something actually shocking, rather than spending a whole hour yukking it up about BAe.
If I were the script editor of the Ten a clock show I'd try and smuggle the odd joke in.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I were the producer, I'd have David Mitchell stop making a mess of political interviews and maybe get him to sing a topical calypso.
ReplyDeleteAll true, but as a rule one should never miss an opportunity to dump on Tony Blair
ReplyDeleteExpanding on Paul's (accurate) comment, Nelson Mandela's role is to be considered a universally accepted benchmark of Goodness, to be respected by people of all races. If you ever meet someone who seriously dislikes Mandela, then you can be sure that they're a raging nutcase.
ReplyDeleteTony Blair's role, meanwhile, is much the same but with Being An Arse rather than Goodness, and 'seriously likes' rather than dislikes.
Both of these roles are entirely independent of any actions or behaviours that either man gets up to or has previously got up to in real life.
I have it on good authority that Mandela used to be a member of the WRP.
ReplyDeleteFor shame.For shame.
ReplyDeleteBring back Jerry Sadowitz. Or for contemporary( well, it was at the time) cutting edge comedy, there's always the South Park re-runs on Viva.
Both of these roles are entirely independent of any actions or behaviours that either man gets up to or has previously got up to in real life.
ReplyDeleteToo strong. Both roles are partly independent.
But I'd put things a bit differently anyhow. It's not a role that Blair is playing, in the same way that it wasn't a role that Albert Speer was playing when he was in Spandau. He was being punished. You can do good deeds while serving your time (or not) but a sentence is a sentence. While it does indeed take time to serve a sentence, the sentence itself follows from a decision point in time: i.e. the verdict. The continuation of a sentence isn't a matter of continual re-appraisal.
Eh? Has TB been doing some good deeds? I thought he was just wandering about being vaguely messianic and giving speeches for the highest bidder.
ReplyDeleteSince there's no actual example of Blair's behaviour diverging significantly from the dislikeable image he has earned, the only basis for saying that the image is indpendent of his bahaviour would seem to be some kind of counterfactual scenario. But I'd say that his ability to play the part of wrong'un detector is based pretty firmly on his character, hence dispositions, hence (on current evidence) counterfactual as well as actual behaviour.
But I don't see any basis for supposing that if he actually were to change his ways (i.e. in a counterfactual scenario in which the central governing stipulation is that he starts behaving in a way that is in fact likeable) people would not recognise that and cease using affection for him him as a useful diagnostic tool for dickheadedness.
Mandela is quite different, being much more a cypher as far as most people in the UK are concerned, however much they may recognise the gloriousness of his terrorism (excuse my criminal offence), and however much they may admire his Waite-ing for his time to come. His status as the anti-Hitler may well be rather arbitrary (Hitler's status as the Hitler figure, on the other hand, does of course seem to have been entirely merited).
Hitler was very kind to dogs, which is all the Daily Mail classes seem to care about.
ReplyDeleteExcept that:
ReplyDelete1) Mandela was mostly powerless, Blair was one of the most powerful persons on earth
2) What you call "cuddling" actually entailed a bit more than "standing in the same photo smiling at each other": see in case you forgot:
"Shortly after shaking hands with the Libyan leader on Feb. 24, Blair announced that the Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell had inked a deal for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast worth $550 million. It was later revealed that Blair had personally lobbied the Libyan leader for the deal, using a letter drafted for him by Shell".
3) The intended audience (being, presumably, british) cares more what the British prime minister did on his job than what an (albeit famous) foreigner did.
Ops, the link did not appear
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/22/a_regime_we_can_trust?page=0,1
Mandela was mostly powerless, Blair was one of the most powerful persons on earth
ReplyDeleteExcept for the bit where Mandela is president of South Africa, that's spot on.
He's always been quite open and ungrudging about it: Gaddafi supported the ANC, and in return the ANC supports Gaddafi, because the movement remembers its friends.
Ops, you are right: (some of?) the meetings happened while Mandela was president.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela#Lockerbie_trial
So, 1) should become "Blair was much, much, much more powerful than Mandela".
I'm not sure if it's morally preferable to support a brutal dictator out of deeply-held principle, rather than supporting him out of naked opportunism.
ReplyDeleteMandela and Blair were hand in glove in the project of "hey let's talk Qaddafi down from the edge". And to be honest, it wasn't actually a bad project - think how much worse this would all be if Qaddafi had an arsenal of nerve gas to fire at the protestors, or if we were talking about the descent into anarchy of a nuclear power. Destroying Blair's reputation on this basis is a bit like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
ReplyDelete(As well as the armed struggle thing, Mandela and Qaddafi were always going to have to be mates, simply because they are both regional superpowers on the same continent).
Destroying Blair's reputation on this basis is a bit like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
ReplyDeleteSo you thought Al got a bum rap?
Mandela and Qaddafi were always going to have to be mates, simply because they are both regional superpowers on the same continent
ReplyDeleteAnd if there's one thing we can learn from European history, it's that regional superpowers on the same continent always get on wonderfully.
politicalfootball: Well, tax evasion isn't such a terrible thing, and was in fact more or less necessary for Capone given his position as leader of a giant crime syndicate (he couldn't declare all his sources of income) -- which position, of course, was associated with much worse deeds. Pretty good analogy with TB, actually.
ReplyDeleteWhoops: my name's not Joanna, if anyone cares, though that's what I posted as. Computer was left logged in to someone else's account.
ReplyDeleteif there's one thing we can learn from European history, it's that regional superpowers on the same continent always get on wonderfully.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's usually better than the alternative.
(Whoops, for some reason I'm not Katia von Uberbitch...)
But seriously, it's not like the alternative to their being mates is some sort of war. Libya and South Africa are at opposite ends of the continent FFS.
ReplyDeleteNor is Libya really a regional superpower. The regional power in North Africa is Egypt. Libya's got a population of six million; the only reason it's got any influence at all is energy cash and Gaddafi's long-standing friendships with various other rulers.
And AFAIK Mandela's never even pretended that he's friends with Gaddafi for the sake of regional peace. As I say, he's been quite open about it: Gaddafi helped the ANC in the 70s and 80s, and so the ANC owes him its support and friendship, dictator or not.
That was certainly the gist of the 1999 speech that occasionally gets brought up. But there was also a more general attempt at the African Union to get some sort of NATO thing going on, with Libya, Nigeria and South Africa each taking responsibility for their back yard. Thus it was that Gadaffi was putting troops on the Sudan/Chad border a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteIn general, Qadaffi really *did* look like he was going all sane for a period and I still think that a lot of this "oh noes! hugger of madmen!" stuff is 20/20 hindsight.
general, Qadaffi really *did* look like he was going all sane for a period and I still think that a lot of this "oh noes! hugger of madmen!" stuff is 20/20 hindsight.
ReplyDeleteWhat he said. LBJ's tent comment comes to mind.
Hindsight is the only proper way to judge political leaders: if their actions turn out well, they are (rightly) acclaimed as great statists; if they end badly, they get a (well deserved) bad reputation.
ReplyDeleteAll other possible ways to judge them are worse.
In our case, the accord with Libya turned out to be a bad idea, and Blair gets blamed for it.
Nigeria and SA actually are legitimate regional powers, though. Nigeria has the biggest population in Africa and SA has the biggest economy and the most capable army. Libya is nowhere near either. And the whole Libya/Sudan/Chad relationship is distinctly complex and unsavoury.
ReplyDeleteTrue about the hindsight point though.
It's not so much that he looked sane - but that he looked at least as sane as other madmen around the world.
ReplyDeleteHindsight is the only proper way to judge political leaders
ReplyDeleteOh bollocks. A huge amount of luck goes into it. There are definitely things one can blame leaders for (including, sometimes, the gambles they took that paid off).
Iraq was a bad idea because it was unlikely to succeed, the actors (on the US side) had a long and very evil history, and the downsides were huge, while the upside was fairly minor.
In contrast, engagement with Libya cost very little, and a had a huge potential upside. Yes it didn't pan out, but so fucking what? What exactly is lost here?
Being lucky is 99% of the job.
ReplyDeleteIn practical circumstances, we often have to judge leaders before the result of their action becomes apparent: in those cases, it is right and proper to use substitute metrics, like past history, or risk-assessing, etc, in order to asses the possible outcomes, and, for that outcomes decide if the actin was wise or foolish.
In our case, we DO know the consequences of engagement with Libya, so we do not need the inferior metrics.
You (Cian) seem to claim that downside of the accord with Libya was minor: if that was the case, an ex-post examination of facts should show it, and TB gets no blame for it.
Since this is not the case, you are wrong.
Libya is nowhere near either
ReplyDeleteTrue, but if you're looking for a partner in that region of Africa, look at the potential alternatives. They're all either much smaller, in constant civil war themselves or more usually both.
Being lucky is 99% of the job.
ReplyDeleteMore like 97.5436533764%, +- 0.00000004%
in those cases, it is right and proper to use substitute metrics, like past history,
Says who? Even if those metrics are completely bogus, or tell you nothing? I agree its what people do, but people do all kinds of stupid things. So what?
In our case, we DO know the consequences of engagement with Libya, so we do not need the inferior metrics.
Which was what exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that if we hadn't engaged with Libya, he wouldn't be slaughtering his own people?
ReplyDeleteTrue, but if you're looking for a partner in that region of Africa, look at the potential alternatives. They're all either much smaller, in constant civil war themselves or more usually both.
Except for Egypt (far bigger, far larger economy, best army in the region by far). And Morocco - also larger in economic and population terms. And even Tunisia has more people than Libya. And none of them are headed by people of the same degree of homicidal lunacy as Gaddafi, as should by now be readily apparent.
Morocco isn't an African Union member state at all and Egypt only a very semi-detached one. They weren't at all interested in getting involved in African affairs, as Gaddafi also wasn't before finally alienating all his mates in the Arab League.
ReplyDeleteYes it didn't pan out
ReplyDeleteSee above: I actually have a lot of sympathy for Blair's argument that yes it did. Things could be a hell of a lot worse, and probably would be if we weren't coming off the bounce of a five year period of relative sanity and abstention from buying chemical weapons on the part of Gadaffi.
Just to be clear, you're really arguing that if you were looking for a country to be your partner in bringing peace and good fellowship to the Maghreb and the Sahel, your obvious best choice would be Libya?
ReplyDeletepoliticalfootball: Well, tax evasion isn't such a terrible thing, and was in fact more or less necessary for Capone given his position as leader of a giant crime syndicate (he couldn't declare all his sources of income) -- which position, of course, was associated with much worse deeds. Pretty good analogy with TB, actually.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't disputing the analogy - actually, my intent was to endorse it.
But that's because I view the central issue somewhat differently. With guys like Capone and Blair, you use whatever tool is handy. Procedural liberals like dsquared will object, but I've got no sympathy for the victims of this particular injustice.
I was going to use the Tony/Al analogy when Yates of the Yard seemed to be doing his Untouchables act (not those depicted in teh book of that name, mind). But IIRC, contrary to the depiction in the film, the tax agent who got Capone was just interested in getting people for tax evasion, and didn;t have any connection to Ness, Sean Connery etc.
ReplyDelete(+ To repeat from AWatch, wasn't the cosying up to Gaddafi bit mostly to do with trying to make it look like invading Iraq had worked, hence Gaddafi being persuaded to preemptively abondon the search for nukes? Also, getting him to take the national rap for Lockerbie, in lieu of an even slightly safe conviction to that end.)
Bringing Gaddafi in from the cold and ending his WMD programme, however garden-shed it was: good. Doing so in the context of grubby oil and arms mercantilism: bad. Blair's Amen chorus among the Decents appears incapable of distinguishing these two.
ReplyDeleteWhat the UK lost by pursuing the former is indeed not much. What it lost by pursuing the latter was yet more credibility as a country that systematically cares about development and democracy rather than one that intermittently does so unless it interferes with making another sale for BAE.
Procedural liberals like dsquared will object
ReplyDeleteI'm not a procedural liberal and I don't object - if this is what it takes to crucify Blair's reputation then cry havoc and let's go f-ing mental. But, in quiet moments and deep down in the comments of a no-longer-popular blog, we can at least be clear among ourselves.
What it lost by pursuing the latter was yet more credibility as a country that systematically cares about development and democracy rather than one that intermittently does so unless it interferes with making another sale for BAE.
ReplyDeleteLost? Credibility? We don't care about those things, and never have. And outside perhaps British liberals, I don't think anyone ever thought we did. Our foreign policy is grubby, and ineffectual because (unlike France) we like to pretend we're like noble and shit. That's all.
Our foreign policy is grubby, and ineffectual
ReplyDeleteGrubby it may well be, but it's simply wrong to look at recent British history and say "oh, what an ineffectual foreign policy".
All our neighbours are our allies, pretty much all the world's major powers are our allies, no one's mucking around with our shipping except for a handful of very skinny and largely irrelevant guys in fishing boats, our exports are extremely healthy, we're only involved in one fairly minor war a long way away.
In foreign policy terms, we are doing amazingly well. We are not, for example, in a ruinous arms race with Angela Merkel, or worrying about Medvedev's plans to overrun Western Europe, or involved in a continental war to ensure that Prince Andrew gets to sit on the Spanish throne.
Cian: UK aid is widely recognised (by the OECD among others) as of high quality, and DfID is regarded as one of the world's best development ministries. http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3746,en_2649_34603_45518819_1_1_1_1,00.html
ReplyDeleteThe UK has stuck to the aid commitments it made at Monterrey and Gleneagles, unlike most donors.
But see how the arms industry (along with migration and IPR policies) drag down the UK's overall score here: http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/
(BTW the trade measure on that index is highly misleading as EU states obviously share the same trade policy, and the UK is generally among the better member states WRT pushing for better developing country market access etc within the EU.)
So I think my characterisation of the UK's role fits pretty well.