Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Tony Blair v Desmond Tutu: who has more moral authority?

According to Tutu, Blair has forfeited his right to pose as an exemplar of leadership.

By Nelson Jones Published 03 September 2012 15:46

Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Photograph: Getty Images

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu refuses to share a conference platform with Tony Blair, this is seen as very bad news for the former prime minister. When Tutu goes on, in an article for the Observer, to suggest that "in a consistent world" Mr Blair would be on trial at the International Criminal Court in the Hague for his role in the Iraq War, it's guaranteed to get headlines. Jon Snow tweeted that Blair might, in future, have (like Henry Kissinger) to be careful about his travel plans. At the very least, thought Snow, Tutu had "holed Blair's comeback desires below the waterline".

As the response posted on Blair's official website noted, with some weariness, it's "the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say." Whatever his other achievements (winning three elections, peace in Northern Ireland, winning the Olympics) Blair will never shake off Iraq. These days, he can't even appear at the Leveson inquiry without without someone slipping past security to denounce him as a war criminal. Nevertheless, an attack from Desmond Tutu carries particular resonance.

The archbishop's moral authority stems, of course, for his work as an opponent of the Apartheid regime, which won him a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. But in recent years he has ranged more widely. As a sort of freelance international statesman he has been outspoken in support of everything from gay rights to climate change. In old age, Tutu possesses a particular kind of international clout, shared with very few others - Nelson Mandela certainly, the Dalai Lama probably, at a pinch Bob Geldof, but probably not the Pope - that enables him to call out world leaders on their political or moral failures and in the process cause them major embarrassment. It's a peculiar sort of soft power that owes little to any formal position and everything to personality, an image of "saintliness" and a high media profile. Tutu has never been afraid to use it.

As for Blair - he would love to have that kind of authority. There's little doubt that he still sees himself as a moral force in world affairs, through his work with his eponymous Faith Foundation, his role as a Middle East peace envoy and in his speeches, which often return to the theme of an international community united by common values which he seems to feel he is in a unique position to articulate. He aspires to be part of an international club of the great and the good, not just a former leader but a player in the same game of moral leadership as Tutu himself. His enthusiasm for moralistic language remains undiminished. But Tutu's status will forever elude him, partly because people remember what he was like as a politician, party because (unlike Tutu) he has never suffered, but mainly because of Iraq. A war that he remains utterly convinced was right in principle - indeed, an exercise in international morality.

That's his tragedy.

Tutu wasn't directly calling for Blair to be hauled off to the Hague. Nor does he have the authority to issue an international arrest warrant. Rather, the archbishop was complaining about the double standards of an international community that condemns Robert Mugabe while inviting Tony Blair to pontificate about "leadership". "Leadership and morality are indivisible," claimed Tutu. "Good leaders are the custodians of morality." By pursuing war based on "fabricated" claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and then offering no "acknowledgement or apology" when "found out", Blair had forfeited his right to pose as an exemplar of leadership. Tutu even asserted that "the question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred", but rather the morality of Bush and Blair in prosecuting the war.

Blair calls this suggestion "bizarre", and indeed it does seem to draw a wholly false moral equivalence between a murderous dictator and a democratic, if flawed, politician. But then Tutu was not being asked to speak alongside Saddam Hussein. His most cutting point was a personal one: he felt, he wrote, "an increasingly profound sense of discomfort" about sharing a platform with a man who had taken his country to war "on the basis of a lie", a war that had had catastrophic consequences for Iraq and the wider Middle East. That's got to hurt. What it means, after all, is that Tony Blair does not belong in his club.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

40 comments

Tue, 2012-10-09 05:36 — Bigboy23 (not verified)

The great thing about the weird little Tutu is that he managed to live a life of ease throughout all the regimes and accept money from known Hitlerites like Gadaffi. Tutu globalised the African witchdoctor.

Fri, 2012-09-07 11:07 — Nathaniel Myers (not verified)

Tutu's article was one of the most intellectually limp things I have read in a while. Criticising Blair for the legacy of the Iraq war, claiming that it was responsible for the imminent outbreak of civil was in Syria. I suppose it's better that the serfs living under a fascist dictatorial rule don't raise an objection to it?

And comparing Tony Blair to Robert Mugabe... I mean please. Is this guy existing in a parallel world? The question is absolutely how many people Saddam Hussein massacred, but the word 'bad' doesn't quite cut it when describing that 'man'.

Sun, 2012-09-09 20:12 — Rory Allen (not verified)

As former member of the British Army who has seen active service in the
Middle East and who has since initiated a major mine/UXO clearance project
in that region after researching in that context in three Arab countries wrecked by the cleverly planned so-called 'Arab Spring' chaos-creating campaign, a very
clear objective for establishing a 'cordon sanitaire' is glaringly evident, perhaps
in preparation for a so-called pre-emptive strike by the only country in the
region which has been comprehensively equipped with nuclear weaponry with
the means of instant delivery .

Blair's yelling about the so-called "Supergun" being supplied to Iraq in order to
whip up NATO support for operation "Desert Storm", the first war against
Iraq. Ten years later Blair's unfounded lies about Iraq's possession of "Weapons
of Mass Destruction" were used as the justification for the second invasion of
Iraq., with a second even more destructive blitzkrieg on the cities of Iraq,
using so-called 'Depleted Uranium' munitions which have left a legacy of
nuclear deformities of children in successive generations in Iraq, as well as
causing uranium -associated problems among American and British military
personnel over the ensuing years.
My own field work and research in the Middle East and Europe qualifies me to state categorically that those observations showed that there was never a
'supergun'. nor were there any WMDs in Libya, Iraq or Egypt . In fact, when
the NATO tanks rolled in for the second Iraqi War there were almost no A/T
mines encountered. Some old British war gases provided to Libya in WW II
were believed to be found , but this was supplied when Iraq was for so many
years a firm ally of Britain.
of Britain.

Blair was a leading advocate of those two criminal wars on Iraq.
And the present Prime Minister, Mr Cameron has obediently followed Blair's
example by destroying Libya and applying sanctions against Syria so that
exactly the kind of mass killing and destruction used against Iraq is now
being used against Syria, reducing its ancient structures and its modern cities to rubble.

The facts stand !. The proof is out there ! . While we know that 'justice' in
the Western 'Free market' carries a price tag, the UN cannot continue to permit
'western' war criminals to lightly dismiss any possibility of answering for their
crimes, including bloody the atrocities committed against Maomar Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein, witnessed on television across the World.

Thu, 2012-09-06 18:19 — Ted Schrey Montreal (not verified)

I always considered Desmond Tutu the specialist extraordinaire in platitudes.

This may be unfair His Reverend Cuteness, but it's just how I perceive him, detached from whatever subject matter he pontificates on.

Thu, 2012-09-06 22:59 — New New Man (not verified)

It was a good day to try and distort what was happening in South Africa with trial genocide.

One tribe the government.

The other the strikers.

Seems the poor old mine owners had nothing to do with it.

Was this the mine where near the dirty stones passed to a fayshoon model of 94 years of age, whom was dressed to please the old men at a conference where the first man to to apologise for his fund raising to help terrorism against those that shot blacks and went on long term island holiday on the taxpayers of SA, was attending. Then they said "Bluebeard Moondeliah is here so do the hush hush!"

I wonder why Mr Mandela is silent on the murders of the miners? Has he realised that the clock has come full circle and when you get a mob armed with weapons and clubs and there are thousands of them - any country shoots at them. (Except the UK where they are given Roses by David Cameron whom loves an Hoodie!)

Mon, 2012-09-10 02:43 — susan galea (not verified)

To be fair, Nelson Mandela is very very old now, and from some recent reports not totally compos mentis for part of the time. We really don't know if he is even aware of the miners' fate.

Wed, 2012-09-05 22:54 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Well I've come to the conclusion that moral authority, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think if it wasn't for his lovely voice, the sound of which I think is truly beautiful, I should say Mr.Tutu's position on this subject is stuck and well past it's sell-by date.

Perhaps Mr.Tutu should take up singing.

Wed, 2012-09-05 22:00 — Ayaan (not verified)

I agree with Tutu. A decision as big as attacking a country sacrificing the lives of potentially millions based on a lie that you fabricated to oust a dictator because he was now not aligned with your philosophy or plans is appalling. He should face trial at Hague, there is no doubt in that. He will never get the moral authority he aspires to and he will never be able to make a come back thank God!

Tue, 2012-09-04 14:08 — SOUTH AFRICAN WARRIOR (not verified)

U are the real man Bishop Desmond Tutu, very few left in this world!

Tue, 2012-09-04 14:07 — SOUTH AFRICAN WARRIOR (not verified)

U are the real man Bishop Desmond Tutu, very few left in this world!

Tue, 2012-09-04 09:12 — hugh markey (not verified)

Tutu's logic is impeccable. But there were extenuating circumstances. Tone is gullible, yes. But the Tories were baying at the the Labour government - 'let's see how hard you are?' Talk about Tory war hysteria! Did the Tories vote to loose the dogs of war? Oh, WMDs! This Tory party with a conduit to the military top brass and the MI5/6 lot never, NEVER, uttered, in parliament or out, a monkey's about being misled.
It's no use focusing all the blame on Tony. At the time, did the South African government condemn the West for invading Afghanistan or Iraq? Or did any individual South African protest? Was it the usual 'lapdog' reaction expected of Western acolytes.
And where is all that compassion shown to Afrikaner types who still rule South Africa - the multi-ethnic police state.
Nary a word about the NeoCons! Just a soft target. Just like Hussein's Iraq or the Teleban's Afghanistan. Except these targets were and are very tough nuts indeedie. Had the West triumphed with Israeli type victories of the past then it would be a different story. Parades, the Royal Family taking the salute - they never take political positions, you know, Desmond.
The Nobel Prizes have always been political - look at the Kissinger award. And as for Obama, do you want him to lose the Presidency by appearing so unwarlike that the Republicans are a shoo-in.
The pool of shame and disgust has not stopped spreading and WMDs is no handy excuse for the warlike and the silent to hide behind.

Deaf 'Un

Tue, 2012-09-04 05:29 — Mark Harewood (not verified)

Who cares ? Who has the authority to drag Blair and Bush to the Hague ? it will never happen and the topic is not worth the publicity its getting . We all know Iraq was a mistake and one could argue the case, that war crimes were commited . But Blair will continue making millions on his on his 'around the world in 80 day' lectures and Bush is probably sitting on the porch of his Texas ranch , smoking a fat cuban cigar ! That's the unfair reality of life and politics in the U.S. and U.K. sorry to break it to you Desmond !!

Tue, 2012-09-04 03:16 — Jamb Buttey (not verified)

So Desmona Tutu is going quiet on the Horn of Africa where millions are starving and Islam is fighting and bombing Christian villages -- and Tutsi sides with the Muslims killed in Iraq.

A fvcking comic tragedy situation - will he be the next Imam of Africa?

Wonder whom is blackmailing him for off alter activities?

Tue, 2012-09-04 02:48 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Tutu won a Nobel Peace Prize

So did Obama and was selected for it two weeks before he won the presidency.

Blair represented those whom told him there were WMD.

Bush suspected that too.

Obama continues the killing.

Seems Tutu has forgotten his name.

Oh African again!

Tue, 2012-09-04 12:33 — jankaas (not verified)

Posh, can you pls post all your drivel in a single post so that i don't have to actively ignore 3 of them in a row?
thanks.

Thu, 2012-09-06 13:34 — Tosh Posh (not verified)

YankaSS: No!

Suffer over your breakfast at 13:33 before ya go down the road for your Giro.

Thu, 2012-09-06 14:47 — jankaas (not verified)

fine, be like that Tits Piss

Thu, 2012-09-06 22:44 — New New Man (not verified)

Showing you class and breeding now little boi!

Tue, 2012-09-04 02:38 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

He was silent and Rwanda too!

Millions killed!

Tue, 2012-09-04 02:36 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Seems he thought the African Black on Black mine shooting was irrelevant, as was Blacks Shooting Blacks.

HJe hates White people doing the same and is a total racist.

He was mouthing off as Presidents son whom owns the mines was protecting his son.

He fvcked up in morality on this one - how many dirty stones did he het to fill his coffers to deflect African murder off the agenda.

His God must be Satan!

I do not like smarmy Blair, neither doi I like this dress-crosser!

Mon, 2012-09-03 22:30 — Mbrecker (not verified)

Frankly, how could you even ask the question? Having said that, how come Blair hasn't been arrested and tried?

Because he's rich and powerful. If someone did try to arrest Blair on UK soil and deport him, the govt. would instantly kill it. The soundbite would basically be, this isn't in the "national interests" of the UK.

A war criminal makes millions all over the world. Corporations and the MSM stumble over themselves to be the first to book him to speak or appear. Much of his portfolio is in offshore tax shelters. Yet, while Cameron has a go at comedians for not paying their "fair shre"of tax, does the same apply to Blair?

No, it doesn't. Why? Because Cameron's terrified of Blair's power.

Cameron will deport Assange (a "terrorist who deserves to be killed", according to various US politicians) to Sweden. Yet, will he deport Blair to the Hague to to be tried? Not a chance. To him, the ICC is a bloody joke that should be disbanded. Unless of course he can score political points from mentioning it in some way.

Tue, 2012-09-04 12:37 — jankaas (not verified)

"Cameron will deport Assange (a "terrorist who deserves to be killed", according to various US politicians) to Sweden. Yet, will he deport Blair to the Hague to to be tried?"

perhaps the difference is that for one of them there is an actual arrest warrant? much as i'd like to see Blair rot in jail for the rest of his life, it's too much of stretch to personally blame Cameron.

Mon, 2012-09-03 21:15 — myouz (not verified)

The idea that Blair has some future role to play in UK politics shows how out of touch Blair is. Bliar is damageed goods and no amount of whitewashing can extermianet this view. The man is a war criminal. If Bliar has nothing to fear, he should indeed make his case along with Alistiar Campbell and Jack Straw. Bliar has no shame, no morals and should be hounded at every opportunity. On a scale of mass killing, Bliar by far outweighs any wrong doing on the part of Mugabe. Mugabe refuses to bow down to the west and that is why he has been hounded and riduculed. BLIAR SHOULD AND NEVER WILL BE ALLOWED TO PLAY ANY ROLE IN UK POLITICS. TAKE NOTE MILIBAND.

Mon, 2012-09-03 20:07 — rshiehyan (not verified)

Blair is no more than a political corpse. To their credit, the British tried their best to stop his criminal enterprise with million strong demonstrations. He is a disgrace to the good people of his country.

Mon, 2012-09-03 19:09 — Mike Hall (not verified)

Unfortunately, Archbishop Desmond Tutu holds no real international clout beyond that people will listen to him then ignore him, especially the United States of America and those it protects (e.g. Tony Blair). The Americans outright refuse to hand over any American to the ICC and I suspect that we British agree in principle to hand over British war criminals, unless they actually ask us to do so!

Unless the United Nations Security Council agrees to abandon it's veto, I doubt anything will change and Tony Blair will continue to be a Middle East diplomat despite being hated by everyone save Israel in the region...

Mon, 2012-09-03 19:09 — Mike Hall (not verified)

Mon, 2012-09-03 19:08 — London CB (not verified)

Is he not better placed to lecture on Zimbabwe? Is that not a more relevant problem. (among many, but it is his continent). Should African politicians - those with some, any, morality - have stood up to or intervened in some way on behalf of the Zimbabwean people that have suffered under this long drawn out farce of an effective dictator?
Tutu: sadly gandstanding for headlines. Moral-less

Tue, 2012-09-04 15:17 — Ngwenya (not verified)

Oh, give me strength! Right, if that's the way you think, kindly keep your politicians and pundits out of the faces of people in China and South America and Africa and.... Stick to your own bloody turf, willya!
Tutu has made his views very clear on innumerable issues, including Syria, Zimbabwe and many more. He is that rare thing, a man with genuine moral principles and genuine concern for the poor, oppressed and vulnerable. He has NOTHING to gain by stating his views. He is a good man - and that comment, by the way, comes from an agnostic, so it really means something!

Tue, 2012-09-04 00:53 — Sundiata (not verified)

Between Mugabe and Blair, the world is better without the latter. Incidentally, it was this BLIAR who caused the Zimbabwe crisis by breaking the independence agreement with Britain on land reform, a fact most white commentators conveniently ignore. Your real enemy is BLIAR, not Mugabe.

Tue, 2012-09-04 03:04 — Jamb Buttey (not verified)

F*cking moron!

It was those that deposed Ian Smith and made a black Nazi society!

You know the farm worker murderrs and the like - spent sperm!

Tue, 2012-09-04 11:12 — mike cobley (not verified)

Troll: do not feed.

Tue, 2012-09-04 00:51 — zain (not verified)

Tutu has always been consistent in his criticism of Mugabe. Obviously you know very little about the man.He has never shied away from criticizing injustices committed by any leader or government of any country.For goodness sake this man has become a thorn in the side of his own country's ANC government.
Go and do your own research,if you don't believe this.

Mon, 2012-09-03 19:04 — Hu Ru (not verified)

......I'd put Desmond Dekker above Blair.......shyster pretended he was a socialist, and shafted the workers for his new mates on Wall St, The City, and the Military/Industrial Complex.
Goofy Tw@t

Mon, 2012-09-03 18:20 — Fred Garviin (not verified)

Clergy have a useless job in developed societies; only tribes should be ruled or guided by witch doctors.

Mon, 2012-09-03 17:26 — Joe E (not verified)

Who has more moral authority than Blair? Fred West for a start.

Mon, 2012-09-03 17:06 — Kosimba (not verified)

Amen.

Mon, 2012-09-03 16:39 — Yewtree (not verified)

Quote: "In old age, Tutu possesses a particular kind of international clout, shared with very few others - Nelson Mandela certainly, the Dalai Lama probably, at a pinch Bob Geldof, but probably not the Pope"

What do you mean, *probably not* the Pope? The Pope has spent ages covering up child abuse in the Catholic Church, so he *definitely* doesn't get to be in the club with the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, andtheir ilk.

Tue, 2012-09-04 03:01 — Jamb Buttey (not verified)

Oh yes a churchman in Africa and no abuse f*ck off with your nonesense.

Also the fact he went along with WinniedaPoo Mandelia necklacing and burning opposition.

Cretin are you!

Mon, 2012-09-03 19:41 — Barrie J (not verified)

.......and it goes full circle, the Catholic Church welcomed their new convert; Mr A Blair with as much zeal as they were complicit in aiding the escape of Nazi war criminals to South America.

Tue, 2012-09-04 00:56 — Sundiata (not verified)

As in sheltering and hiding Jews from prosecution also ..., another fact conveniently ignored in our post-modernist, anti-religion fantasies!