Blair's Misson

John Gray's recent essay in the Independent offers an analysis of Tony Blair's premiership as Prime Minister. I've only recently been introduced to Gray's writing of which there is a substantial, recognised deal. The intro to the article welcomes Gray as 'Britain's leading philosopher', and within the essay itself, Gray defines Blair's career as "testimony to the power of neo-conservative ideas", referencing the Iraq War and Blair's unashamed belief in 'free markets' as evident of this. That Blair was and is a neo-con forms the bulk of Gray's analysis, within which Blair's key beliefs are identified; Gray cites the infamous 'Chicago speech" and Blair's theory of an ever-increasing interdependence between nations in an increasingly 'globalised' world.

While this is all well and true - Blair was undoubtedly a neo-conservative - it is Gray's historical perspective that warrants examination. Gray appears to relate Blair's politics to the principles of religion, asserting that both he and George Bush practised a "missionary style of politics", whose goal was "nothing less than the salvation of mankind". Essentially, Gray views Blair's neo-conservatism as one of Machiavellian principle, that is prepared to deceive, lie and cheat for the benefit of the greater good - the 'salvation' of man. Of course, Labour's deception in regards to the Iraq War and Blair's 'silence' and 'dismissal' regarding well-founded reports of American torture and the use of rendition upon British airports does to an extent vindicate this view. Gray continues to identify features of Blair's governance with that of the Soviet Union, suggesting that both relied upon the creation of a "pseudoreality", through which public perceptions could be harnessed for the benefit of the 'greater good', and ignorance of what exactly the government was doing. Further reading suggests this is rather typical of Gray; he has previously cited communism and libertarianism as essentially quasi-religious political doctrines, all of which have blindly promised the liberation of mankind at the cost of not only failure, but colossal death and human catastrophe.

There are at first glance, a number of practical inaccuracies with Gray's perspective; if, as Gray insists, Blairism did indeed preach human liberation from dictatorship in favour of "open internationalist democracy", why is that Blair perpetually turned a blind eye to tyrannical regimes upon an international basis? Of course, Blair willingly struck an infamous arms agreement with the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, which not only prohibited any form of demonstration as the 'Arab Spring' developed earlier this year, yet promptly invaded Bahrain, in order to protect King Hamad's brutal, racist repression of protesters. Grey himself, and perhaps other supporters of the Blair-Bush coalition would argue this to be a mere matter of realpolitik, in that circumstances render an 'intervention' simply impractical for variety of reasons. Blair himself for example, argued only last year that he would have "loved to get rid of Robert Mugabe" within his memoirs, yet Mugabe's support within the African region, according to Blair, rendered this impossible. Blair, through the political kaleidoscope of John Gray or proponents of 'humanitarian interventionism' at least, condemned the actions of Mugabe in line with the principles of his 'missionary politics', yet is unable, due to political circumstance, to act against him.

Unfortunately for the self-styled 'humanitarians', Blair's mere condemnation fails to scratch a whole host of dictators. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight in 2002, Blair was questioned repeatedly in regards to the Saudi dictatorship, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge the domestic atrocities committed by King Abdullah's regime. Having twice asserted that it be important to "work" with the Saudi dictatorship, it was pointed out to Blair that they "chop people's arms off" and "torture people", yet even then, Blair merely responded that "they have their culture, their way of life". A similar lack of guilt was apparent for Blair's support for the Bahrain, Egyptian, as we know all too well, Libyan dictatorships as well. To suggest now, that Blair espoused a form of "missionary politics" is surely absurd. Had Blair truly wished to emancipate humankind from dictatorial regimes, a firm condemnation of "all" dictatorial regimes in the first place is surely the least to be expected. Blair may perhaps maintain, as he did in the aforementioned interview, that holding a strong relationship with the Saudis was essential to maintaining 'peace' in the region, yet recent events suggest otherwise - this of course, in referencing to the Bahrain invasion. While the Saudis may to an extent have sided with the US against Islamic extremism, to claim they maintain peace in the Arab region is nothing short of nonsense; repression of free speech, democracy and the right to protest - pretty much everything Blair insists he stands for - not only in Saudi Arabia itself we must emphasise, pays testament to this. The curtain of hypocrisy surrounding this is drawn as we view Blair's rhetoric in regards to the Iraq war. Mention Iraq, and Blair is all to quickly referring to the "barbaric brutality" of Saddam's regime, affirming his opposition to the death penalty and narrowing his eyes in regards to the "tyranny" Saddam imposed on the Kurds.

Why does such hypocrisy exist, if indeed 'Blairism', as deciphered by John Gray, represents a form of "missionary politics?" We could analyse the extremes of realpolitik; the oil wealth held by the likes of Gaddafi and King Abdullah, and the colossal investments of British firms within these nations may have posed an economic danger to Britain, in the event of Blair turning his back on these particular dictatorships. British Petroleum signed a $900 billion, oil exploration and production agreement in Libya, in 2007 for example, while Shell, with the help of Blair himself, also acquired a well-drilling contract within Libya. Yet did Blair ever pursue a thorough search for renewable energy sources in order to devastate Britain's reliance on tyrannical regimes? Environmental campaign group 'Friends of the Earth' describe Blair's 'green record' as disappointing, while Blair's chief advisor in regards to the environment while in office, described Blair as naive. For the oppressed people of Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain, Blair's 'missionary' style was nowhere to be seen.