War on Terror: Tony Blair - The PM seems to have adopted a vision for which Robin Cook was once derided

Compare this: "Britain will once again be a force for good in the world. Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other people for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves."

With this: "The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they, too, are our cause. This is a moment to seize . . . let us reorder this world around us."

The first was lampooned for its hubris. The second was hailed as his finest hour. The first belonged to Robin Cook, May 1997; the second was Tony Blair, October 2001.

Blair showed little interest in foreign affairs when he was in opposition. As soon as he entered Downing Street, his closest aides persuaded him that Cook's approach was a non-starter. Each initiative on curbing arms exports was watered down or quashed, amid considerable private and not-so-private derision from the Prime Minister's office.

Gradually, foreign policy under this government reverted to type. Human rights abuses were brought up with other leaders only when it was in Britain's interests to do so. Even before the 1997 election, Blair and Gordon Brown had watered down Labour's pledge to bring spending on international development up to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product - the equivalent of a couple of botched PFI hospital projects. Until now, Blair has not seen anything immoral in wealth disparities abroad and at home (pace his Newsnight interview during this year's general election campaign). More important for him is equal access to wealth creation.

The paucity of that vision has come back to haunt us. Blair himself has accepted that, while the 11 September attacks were specific to Bin Laden and his movement, the broader grievances that stem from poverty and a perception of powerlessness have to be tackled. The only question is: why has it taken him so long to realise that?

Blair has so far conducted this crisis with considerable courage and calm, so it seems right to give his grand promises the benefit of the doubt. But the new ethical dimension (in all but name) is riddled with holes. What does he mean when he promises the Afghan people that "we will not walk away, as the outside world has done so many times before"? Shall we, every time we intervene militarily, stay to create a more acceptable regime? When do we intervene? This question has been posed so many times, but has yet to be answered coherently.

And when it comes to reordering the world, which order are we talking of? Geo-strategic allegiances change as priorities change. Blair has long held the view that friendship with Vladimir Putin is more important than the fate of Chechnya. A similar trade-off applies to China. As for the Middle East, this government, like its predecessors, suffers from selective amnesia. Saudi Arabia's help in the Gulf war and neutrality in this conflict are of greater importance to us than human rights concerns. Shunned after carrying out his military coup, Pakistan's General Musharraf is now seen as our friend.

Blair's balance-sheet diplomacy may not be ignoble. But there is nothing new in it. It is an updated version of an old theme of ethical compromise. The deceit lies in suggesting it is anything else - unless Blair has really had a change of heart. Eventually, he will have to show how, apart from a tougher approach to terrorism, the new order differs from the old. He might even use the word ethical.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website