Blair to Haaretz: Global terror is one battle, one struggle
Iraq may have ended his premiership, but the Quartet's Mideast envoy has no regrets. In an interview with Haaretz, he explains the nature of the battle against world jihad, and how peace with the Palestinians is possible.
By Adar Primor Tags: Afghanistan Israel news Tony Blair IraqWithout a doubt, it was Iraq that ended his career at 10 Downing Street. The campaign against Saddam Hussein continues to dog him. It was Iraq that largely prevented him from becoming "the first president of the European Union." Nevertheless, Tony Blair does not apologize, does not express regrets and does not attempt to justify himself.
"It's really important to understand that Saddam was actually a threat to the region," he resolutely says in an interview with Haaretz, during his most recent visit to Israel as the Quartet's special envoy. "And quite apart from anything else you may remember, he used to pay the families of [the Palestinian] suicide bombers."
When asked whether the wave of global terror, with its roots in countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen, proves it was a mistake to focus on a single dictator, he replies: "Personally I think we will defeat this terrorism when we understand it is one battle, one struggle. This is a global movement with an ideology."
Soon, Blair will appear as the primary witness before a government commission of inquiry, set up in London, in response to public pressure, in order to answer the critical question: How was Britain dragged into a war in 2003 despite having evidence that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction? Why was this information concealed, and moreover, who is responsible for the fact that the public was given a distorted, even specious account, according to which Iraq had the capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes?
These questions are tearing apart the Labor Party, and some members and supporters fear that Blair's testimony - whose presumed gist may be discerned in this interview - will quash the party's hopes of maintaining its hold on power when elections are held this spring.
"People sometimes say to me, no, it's not really Iraq, it's Afghanistan," Blair says. "Someone else will say, no it's Pakistan, and someone else will say it's Iraq, and someone else will say it's Yemen. But actually it's all of these because in different ways, they represent different challenges that are unified by one single movement with a single ideology. And this is going to be resolved, in my view, over a long period of time. But what is important is that wherever it is fighting us, we're prepared to fight back. And actually if you take the situation, for example, in Iraq, what began as a fight to remove Saddam was over in two months but then what occupied us for the next six years was fighting external elements - Al-Qaida on one hand, Iranian-backed militias on the other, which are the same elements we're fighting everywhere. Now, ultimately we've got to understand that, unfortunately, we can't say: 'Look, let's concentrate it here, but not here, and here, and here,' because that's not the way this thing's working."
Blair's equation doesn't end there. "Actually there is a unifying theme, in my view, between what's happened in countries like our own country with terrorist activity, and what's happening in places like Yemen or Afghanistan or Somalia or, I'm afraid, other countries. The key to understanding this is [that] this is a global movement with a global ideology and it is one struggle. It's one struggle with many different arenas."
Blair rejects accusations that Britain is not showing the same resolve as France, which is leading the international struggle against Iran's procurement of nuclear arms. He praises the "clear determination" of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other Europeans in the face of the regime of the ayatollahs. And while Defense Minister Ehud Barak openly criticized the West last week, saying that it "is not lending sufficient support" to dissident demonstrators in Iran, Blair offers a complex, cautious response.
"People are trying to feel their way toward supporting people who are trying to stand up for freedom and democracy and the right to speak their mind, and to do that in such a way that it doesn't give the regime even more excuses to start cracking down on people."
Peace from the ground
For the past two and a half years, Blair has been the Quartet's Middle East envoy. During this same period, he has repeated the mantra that peace has to be built from the ground up, from the foundations. First you have to build Palestinian civil society and the institutions of state, and only then can you discuss the core issues and disputes over refugees, right of return and Jerusalem.
But when Blair is asked about Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman - who met with Blair this week, and declared that an American draft peace proposal, reported in the press but not formally presented, was unrealistic ("It will not be possible to reach an arrangement on final borders within nine months, nor a complete final status arrangement within two years") - Blair says, "I've learned over time that you can listen to these statements but in a sense just put them to one side and carry on working for peace."
The concept of economic peace and "bottom-up" activity is important, but it is not enough, Blair admits. At the end of the day, politics is key. Economic and political peace complement one another. One cannot exist without the other.
In reference to Lieberman, Blair says, "I understand what he's saying. If he's saying we're not going to get peace tomorrow, no, of course we're not. But I think there is a serious prospect of getting a negotiation back together. If that happens, that's a big plus, a big positive, and the work that we're doing specifically can help improve that."
In this context, he cites his own contribution to the removal of dozens of checkpoints in the territories. "If you just go back two years, people said to me, you know, the Israelis will never lift any of these checkpoints; they will never give you permission for any of this economic stuff; the Palestinians don't want to do it, it's hopeless. Two years on, when I drive around in Jenin and Ramallah - I'll be going to Jericho tomorrow and I've been recently in Nablus and elsewhere, Hebron - yes there are still major challenges, of course there are, but you can also see economic activity happening. And all I'm saying to people is: 'Never lose hope.'"
Blair is determined not to stop at this. "Now we've got to take it to a whole further level," he says.
"When in another 100 years they write a book about the history of the Middle East, Blair's name will proudly appear in it," says a high-ranking Israeli Foreign Ministry official who has tracked the activities of the Quartet emissary. "He had humble objectives," says the official. "He chose to deal with the micro, in areas that no one could imagine an international superstar of his caliber choosing to address. But he carried out all his missions. He took over projects that were going nowhere for years, accumulating dust [the sewage system in Gaza, tourism in Bethlehem, establishment of a second Palestinian cell-phone operator, among other things], and resuscitated them."
Yet not everyone shares that opinion. Catherine Ashton, for example, the new European foreign affairs chief, whom Blair once appointed as an EU commissioner, came out against her former patron. In her premiere appearance in the European parliament two weeks ago, Ashton denounced continued settlement activity, house evictions in East Jerusalem and the separation fence. "The Quartet must demonstrate that it is worth the money, that it is capable of being reinvigorated," she declared, in a statement widely perceived as an attack.
Blair chose to interpret Ashton's words as frustration over the stalled political process. The criticism, he said, was not directed at him, but at the Quartet, and the United States at its head; at the fact that the international body "has not had significant impact" in the region. At the "politics" and not at the "economy."
"I think that what she's saying is she would like the Quartet to have a bigger role, which I totally agree with," he said.
Asked specifically about disappointment in Europe over the Obama administration and its activity in the region, he praises the work of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, envoy George Mitchell (with whom Blair worked to achieve a peace accord in Northern Ireland), and National Security Advisor James Jones. As for Barack Obama and the peace process, he says, "All I say to people on President Obama is he's just a year into his administration, so let's give the guy a chance. Let's hope that over this next period of weeks we can get this thing [the peace process] together."
When asked if he sincerely believes the declarations by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including his readiness to advance an American peace plan, Blair answers, "My view has always been that the prime minister is prepared to make peace, provided it's on terms that guarantee Israel's security and is fair for Israelis. What I always say to people on the outside when I'm trying to explain this whole issue to them is, first of all, look at a map, you know, look at a map of the region, and then see what a small bit of land it is, Israel and the Palestinian territory. So if you can't deal with the on-the-ground worry of the Israelis about security, you can't make peace."
Is the continued blockade of Gaza the way to achieve this secure peace, and is this even feasible without including Hamas, with which Israel is in any case holding indirect talks?
No and yes, he replies. Blair believes the blockade is boomeranging, in that it encourages an illegal economy as well as goods and weapons imports through the underground tunnels. However, he opposes including Hamas. Unlike the IRA in Northern Ireland, Hamas refuses to abandon its violent ways, he says. Therefore, we have to make do with the indirect talks through the Egyptians.
And aren't we taking a risk, given the increasing radicalization of Gaza, including the growing Al-Qaida influence?
"There is always that fear, but on the other hand the best way of defeating that possibility is not necessarily to kneel to their demands, I'm afraid," says Blair.
Given the dead end, we are hearing more and more people talking about "three states for two peoples." What do you think about that?
"I just don't think that would work," says Blair. "You know, I talk to people in Gaza a lot of the time. There are large numbers of people in Gaza who disagree with Hamas. I had a video conference this morning with the Gazan business community. They don't support the idea of Gaza being run by Hamas, and they don't support the idea of Gaza being separated from the West Bank. So I don't think that is ever going to be a realistic solution."
Blair prefers not to comment on the Goldstone Report ("I've got enough on my plate to worry about, trying to do my own things"), yet when asked to explain why British public opinion is now considered the most anti-Israel in all of Europe, Blair falls back on the terrorism equation.
"Look, there's criticism everywhere, I think, but that's partly because people don't understand how difficult this situation is when you come under attack, your civilians come under attack, and you're a democratic government and you're expected to respond. I mean, we face this continually. We face it now, actually, in places like Afghanistan."
He praises the British political leadership, which condemned the arrest warrant issued last month against Tzipi Livni, and adds: "I think the best way of resolving all that criticism is to move on to the positive agenda for the future" - the political and economic peace process.
"Labor fears Blair will be a liability," screamed a headline of the London Times this week, regarding Blair's expected testimony on the Iraq war. History will judge - as the Israeli Foreign Ministry official said - if Blair's name will be inscribed in the region's history book; if he will go down as one of the greatest leaders of Britain in the modern era (his wife Cherie was recently quoted as saying that he would go down in history, "up there with Churchill"); or if he will be remembered, conversely, as "George Bush's poodle," who led his country into a destructive dead-end war.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Tony Blair's perceived friends are humiliating him again. Tony is helping Israel circumvent its responsibility as conveyed by the Geneva Convention, UN resolutions, Human Rights laws and the World Court. European foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton sees Tony undermining the rule of law.
The problem will not be solve if we do not change our policies. The policies of the West have been creating these violent groups. We can not occupy, bomb, torture and kill people without radicalizing others. And continuing in these policies will just worsening the situation.I believe our modern life is a dehumanizing process and like Alan Hart say "the prime task of each and everyone of us is to claim back our humanity."
You reference "As for suicide bombings, the UN General Assembly confirmed in 1970 that peoples who are fighting for their freedom can use whatever methods and weapons they can lay their hands on. I reiterate this right." What does the UN General assembly have to say about peoples who are fighting for their freedom defending their country and themselves against anuone who attacks them under the false rubric of fighting for his/her freedom?
Tony Blair is right, when he says terrorism is a global movement. What he overlooks however... is the fact that only Moslems can stop Muslim terrorism. They're the ones that must do the heavy-lifting required. The failure to name this problem squarely where it lies, impedes finding realistic solutions. If the west continues to take the lead, the rhetoric becomes... infidel vs the oppressed and us vs them. What we need to see... is Muslim society taking back it's morality. Where Muslims by the millions pour into the streets and denounce global terrorism. If Muslim terrorists are the main threat to international security. It's Moslems themselves who pay the price with their lives. This can not be just words or clerics issuing Fatwas condemning terrorism.
When a book is written 100 years from now, it will detail how the US/Britain lost all influence in the Middle East and how Iran emerged as a world power and the Hegemon in the area...what a catastrophy the last decade has been for the United States. The entire world is moving on...
it is not arabia that was the biggest blood bath for the last 1400 yrs but westren europe....and you should know that being a part of it, and no part of arabia
Tony Blair is right, when he says terrorism is a global movement. What he overlooks however... is the fact that only Moslems can stop Muslim terrorism. They're the ones that must do the heavy-lifting required. The failure to name this problem squarely where it lies, impedes finding realistic solutions. If the west continues to take the lead, the rhetoric becomes... infidel vs the oppressed and us vs them. What we need to see... is Muslim society taking back it's morality. Where Muslims by the millions pour into the streets and denounce global terrorism. If Muslim terrorists are the main threat to international security. It's Moslems themselves who pay the price with their lives. This can not be just words or moderate clerics issuing Fatwas condemning terrorism.
Durson on causation. The Marxist fixation with economic determinism misses the point. It?s not about "decades of Western exploitation." If you do not understand what is right in front of you, how can you deal with it?
Saddam Hussein?s 1988 Sarin poison gas attack against the Kurds of Halabja prove that Hussein and his 2 psychotic sons had access to WMD. Better for the world that they are gone from it.
"Global terror is one battle, one struggle which has been caused by decades of western exploitation of the mideast." [Durson] I will allow a few "decades of western exploitation", if you can give me the reason for the other 1400 years of bloodbath in the mideast under Muhammad's so-called Religion of Peace.
Global terror is one battle, one struggle which has been caused by decades of western exploitation of the mideast.
If you look closer, that is NO difference between terror and war. Terror and war have MANY reasons and they are all DIFFERENT. War is not better. See drones etc, Blackwater, the Gaza war. It is not even more successful. To speak of terror is plain arrogance. Lets fight this arrogance. Maybe this fight is indeed one war and arrogance is only self-defending in the person of Blair, the most rificulous former politician in Europe now, btw.
it is perfectly correct that terrorism is for the west "one battle, one struggle." those who do not understand this very simple concept, will be surprised that al qaeda in yemen is operational. they will fail to know and understand that there is only one sunni terror organisation, namely al queda, and it has many branches in the muslim world. those who do not understand this, will fail to understand that israel is surrounded by just such islamic terrorists and it matters not what name they assume since their collective aim is to destroy the state of israel.
...between current and former politicians is significant.
Together with his friend Berlusconi and Bibi, What do they have in common, beside the first initial of their name? Blair: Saddam Hussein has WMD which can be launched in 45 minutes: BBC was given the "heel" order; constant lies; Berlusconi; Arab culture is second rate compared to us: Control of the media; constant lies; BIBI:The Arabs are terrorists; we are the chosen people, "Heel" order to Barak Obama.
Tony Blair, one of the two men who lied to justify the attempted conquests of Iraq, is responsible for murdering more people for political gain than Osama bin Laden. This does not excuse bin Laden, but rather shows how monsters are able to not only commit mass murder, but gain from it. Mr. Blair is a terrorist. He is every bit as monstrous as bin Laden, yet lacks bin Laden's conviction. Bin Laden is a genuine psychotic murderer. Blair is simply a man willing to commit cold blooded murder for profit.
Blair is right about one struggle on many arenas however calling it terror is really a misnomer. Radical Islam cannot tolerate any deviance from their archaic and bigoted world views. They believe they are entitled to use great acts of violence as retribution for relatively minor or "perceived" injustices. It is a war between those that subscribe to that faith and the rest of the world.
How noble of Sir Blair to provide a sewage system for the Gazans. I wonder who is paying for it? Not the Israeli taxpayer, heavens no. The IDF invaded Gaza a year ago and destroyed 8000 dwellings. Tony Blair's role in life is to convince U.S. and Europen taxpayers to pay for the reconstruction the Israelis create. Tony, pay for it yourself.
Very predictably, Tony Blair, the liar par excellence in international politics, has accomplished nothing in the Middle East in his role as the special envoy of the Quartet. Why on earth is Haaret'z spending time on religious lunatics like this man?
so many people had put their trust on him. in the end he revealed himself to be the greatest disappointment.
what else?
The UN General Assembly confirmed in 1970 that peoples who are fighting for their freedom can use whatever methods and weapons they can lay their hands on
In 100 years a book will be written about the end of American/British influence in the Middle East and the emergence of Iran as a world power and the hegemon of the Middle East.
Of course Mr. Blair is right. The problem here is that adherents to this fervent, fanatical Islamic movement BELIEVE that to be truly fulfilled in their faith everyone must believe as they do or die. They want to either convert you or kill you. To these nuts there's no middle-ground. Go argue with that mindset.
They both share one goal "OIL". That what made them both the same in the Holy Alliance of our time !
Apparently Blair and his entourage spend time in a floor of the expensive American Colony Hotel. Nobody sees them much and very little has come out of his role. Time to go home Tony...
... " those who are against us" ?! I wonder what Blair was talking about with his many visits to Bush ?!
Rebuild the Palestinian civil society??? adding insult to injury, the would be churchil in a 100 years doesn't know that you can't build a society under occupation !!!!???
Just read his outing speech as Labour leader and Prime Minister given at the British Parliament to understand his wisdom, integrity as a politician and positive global efforts in resolving conflicts. As I've reiterated before, Blair is no " Bush's poodle" - he's more of a Sheppard collie of Scottish origin I believe, which is the smartest breed apparently, if we're using the canine analogy. Must return to my daily obligations, otherwise would love to continue conversation.
Terror kills poor because poor states does not function effectively. If they did they were already rich... Americans are trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function (with not much success). They succeeded in West Germany and Japan. But again, South Korea did it without any foreign help, so it seems to be up to self organizing skills (and traditions) of a nation, mostly. So the first step should be to make a state function effectively but here we apparently have a conflict of interests. Some rulers do not want their state to be run properly but according to their own will. They are stealing years and decades and centuries of life from their subjects (can't call them citizens), pushing them into poverty, or flee to Europe, America, Australia.
Did 8 years of Tony Blair and Bush make the world safer? You're criticizing Obama for taking an opposite direction of them on world affairs. Bush and Blair made Israel temporarily safer, that is for sure. But all those orphans from Irak and Afghanistan, what will happen to them? In 15 years they will be fully grown, American and British bred terrorists, coming back for revenge. US and Britain won't be in Irak/Afghanistan anymore so guess who they'll target? It's quite an irony that Obama, the man Israelis hate so much, is actually making Israel much safer in the long run than his predecessor by cutting with stupid and inefficient policies. Of course, the characteristic of the uneducated mass is to be unable to think more than a few days in advance.
Should read the greatest criminal leader of Britain in the modern era Blair should be facing trial at the Hague, if lying to start a war is not a crime then I dont know what is
but are resented by others. It has always been so, and probably always will be. The neo Leftist seem to believe that all violence in the world is traceable to the tiny state of Israel. There was no world violence before 1948. Such buffoons flock to these boards. I think Tony Blair is the best that GB has produced since Winston Churchill.
"Blair to Haaretz: We will defeat terror when we understand it is global". Terror was not born with Bin Laden. Terror was there long time before. The West didn't became aware of the existence of terror until it came to their people's homes !
and that is a bigger problem.
Incidents such as the 11 September bombings are rare because Western Security is working overtime to prevent them and because, it seems, deals may also have been cut with the terrorists. When al-Qaeda wanted Spain out of Iraq in an attempt to fragment the allies there, it perpetrated the 2004 Madrid train bombings in order terrorise the Spanish people into voting for the party that promised to withdraw Spanish troops. It worked.
As long as Tzipi Livni or any Israeli military is in danger of being arrested in Britain, British people who have ordered, planned or committed far worse things in Iraq and/or Afghanistan should be arrested in Israel. Either all or none, but not Jews only.
Why?
Never mind the history books. G-d will judge his actions, And it is good that the British want answers. So they had proof and they went again it. Just another colonial adventure as with the quartet griping About not having enough influence. Bush is the one who Brought in the terrorist elements as a direct result of the war. Saddam was chafing under the sanctions and wanted to rebuild Iraq after the war with Iran. The saudis let him down, and now everyone wants a nuclear weapon, even the saudis.
He had plenty of faults and I personally never voted for him but he was no fool. He is also more experienced in the ways of the world than Obama could ever hope to be and Blair is not an idealist he has learned to be a realist. Obama prefers to turn a blind eye to terror and instead puts all his efforts into making speeches. Blair at least understood that diplomacy sometimes was not the answer and will not deliver results. Obama could learn alot from Blair
"All talk but no action" (at least when it comes to the ME conflict) will definitely not help defeating Islamic terrorism. Only the readiness to call ALL the countries in this world to account, that don't behave well, will..... ....but unfortunately the political leaders in the West (including Tony Blair) have never done so.
Blair has made no positive contribution to peace in the Middle East. He is shallow and evasive. A true politician who's in it for the glory and the money. He will go down as Bush's poodle. He just loves the limelight but will not give a straight answer. A true friend of Israel. They love his mendacious tendencies.
where ever there is oppression - there will be resistance - y treat the symtom - treat the cause -
We, people who aspire for Just Peace, knew that Blair was never an Honest Broker. Blair was the "Instrument" which we never needed! As history shows, Tony provided criminal services to the WAR MONGER G W BUSH.
We learnt over time what to do with B-liar statements,,, "just put them to one side and carry on working for peace" - without Tony.
Apart from extremely rare circumstances such as 9/11 and London bombings, the terror is confined to the poor countries. So the phrase "terror is global" is completely wrong. In Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Afghanistan there is continuous terror acivity that claim the lives of the citizens of these countries ON DAILY BASIS. There is not a single rich country whose citizens are being killed by terror on daily basis. The only exception is a short time period during the second intifada in Israel. Terror kills the poor, us. So Blair's words are complete nonsense.
So hilarious! Come to the UK and see what he did to this country, if that doesn't help go see Iraq and Afghanistan.
'"When in another 100 years they write a book about the history of the Middle East, Blair's name will proudly appear in it," says a high-ranking Israeli Foreign Ministry official' That says it all: Blair is an uncritical supporter of Israel who is now carrying out Israeli policy - Palestine as an economically slightly more viable colony of Israel. He beats on and on about renouncing violence and then refuses to criticise Israel for the war crimes committed in Gaza by such as Livni. It's good that Lady Ashton isn't pulling punches over the Quartet's minimal role in the area and Blair's pathetic contributions. What the region needs is an Israeli withdrawal from Palestine, not a few food stamps.
These are the empty words of a faded political figure. This envoy role is his reward for being a good boy during George Bush's reign. He has no credibility and nowhere left to go politically, beyond parroting the same banal rhetoric that kept him in GW's good grace.
the same empty shallow rhetoric! these guys are either so ignorant, or perhaps they think people are so ignorant!
Yes, Blair is right. It is a global ideological movement. It is called democracy. Indigenous peoples world wide are fighting to escape western neo-colonialism. As for suicide bombings, the UN General Assembly confirmed in 1970 that peoples who are fighting for their freedom can use whatever methods and weapons they can lay their hands on. I reiterate this right.
"All talk but no action" (at least when it comes to the ME conflict) will surely not help defeating worldwide terrorism. Only if ALL countries, who aren't behaving well, will be called to account in the future, there will be a chance to dry out the swamp of Islamic Jihadism. No way that will ever happen in absence of that....
It would be fitting, he seems more at home in a country keen to go to war than a country dubious of killing willy-nilly. Saddam was annoying yes but he was not the greatest threat the region. Iran may well have been the biggest threat but frankly they have benfitted most from removal of Iraqi power in the region. Cause and consequences eh?