Malcolm Rifkind: Blair crumbles when Bush comes to shove
From a speech by the former Foreign Secretary to the London School of Economics
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Previous Prime Ministers have been quite prepared to fight it out with the Americans if necessary. Churchill did not hide his concern that Roosevelt was too trusting of Stalin. Wilson refused to send British troops to Vietnam. But Blair's support for George Bush seems unconditional and unqualified, particularly in regard to Iraq.
But what about his pressure for a UN second resolution? What about his support for UN involvement in Iraqi reconstruction? Surely these policies all began in London, and Blair can take credit for them? True, but with a fundamental qualification. Yes, the Foreign Office worked night and day with splendid British initiatives. And yes, some of them were taken up by the Americans. But the point is that whenever the Americans don't like them, Blair doesn't growl defiance.
If you think I am being unfair, just ponder on the events of the last few months. Blair tells us now that the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a great moral and ethical imperative. Well, if it was, why wasn't it for the first five years of his Prime Ministership? The truth is that Blair had not the slightest intention of advocating regime change in Iraq until Bush told him it had become US policy. Likewise, the British public were told that a UN second resolution was essential until it became obvious that it wasn't going to happen.
George Bush wasn't guilty of such evasion. He made it crystal clear from the beginning that the Americans would attack with or without international support. Blair started by insisting on the UN route, but when Bush came to shove he crumbled quickly.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments