Faced with over one million on the streets of London, over 50,000 in Glasgow and hundreds of thousands protesting across the globe (including a demo in Antarctica) Blair reached new heights of hypocrisy. He raised the "moral case" for bombing Iraq.
When the state raises the question of "morality" you know that the games a bogey. But Blair's raising of this "case" is significant. As he himself implicitly admitted, this was the pretence of last resort, the transparently hypocritical position. He argued that he had failed to get his message across. The possibility that he had done so but that the British public are not idiots did not cross his mind. Indeed, the opposite. He insultingly stated that he does "honestly believe people should think carefully," as if those who disagreed with him did not (or could not) make their own minds up.
He is obviously judging the public by the example of his own government. The day after Blair made his far from moral "case" for war, justifying it in terms of removing the evil dictator Saddam and liberating the people of Iraq, Downing Street stated that, well, Saddam would remain in power if he disarmed. Opps. Bad luck Tony, maybe next time!
Ironically, a few days later Blair went back on himself. In spite of the "moral" case, he stressed that "regime change" was not government policy, showing yet again that his understanding of "morality" is shaky at best. The problem for Blair is that by demonising Saddam so much, he simply cannot retreat. The more pretences Blair generates the more desperate he seems and anti-war feelings grow. After all, if it is about human rights, why has it taken Blair so long to mention that this was the case? And, if, as Blair argues, Saddam is so evil that bombing the Iraqi people is the only "moral" solution then how can he let Saddam remain in power if the Iraqi regime did fully co-operate and disarm?
Significantly, Blair consistently refused to specify what sort of regime might follow Saddam's. He avoided committing to a democratic regime. While hoping to see democracy sometime in the future, he stated that this was "something that has to be discussed not just with allies but with the UN and with people inside Iraq." Why the allies (i.e. US and UK elites) or the UN should have a say in which system the Iraqi people will live under was left unspecified.
All of which is at odds with the notion that the bombing will "liberate" the Iraqis (bar life itself). Apparently the "future governance" of Iraq is not a decision for the Iraqi people who, apparently, like the UK population cannot be left to make such important decisions by themselves. This can be seen from his line that the "territorial integrity of Iraq" would remain, explicitly refusing to support Kurdish self-determination in what is now northern Iraq or Shi'ite self-determination in the south. He insisted that Iraq's territorial integrity was "absolute."
21st Century Imperialism
That this war is just good old fashioned imperialism given a 21st century "humanitarian" veneer can be seen to the response of Kurdish leaders within Iraq to America's post-Saddam occupation plans. They are enraged by its "undemocratic" nature, stating that the US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq based on a meeting with US officials in Ankara in early February and recent public US declarations.
The current American plan is to occupy Iraq but largely retain the state apparatus. In the words of Sami Abdul-Rahman, the deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration: "In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers." So, not so much a regime change than a personnel change, as has always been desired by the US ruling class. "Conquerors always call themselves liberators," he continued, exposing the rhetoric of Bush's statement that US troops were going to liberate Iraq to the harsh light of reality.
Which destroys the latest pretence by Bush and Blair that war is justified by the evil nature of the regime in Baghdad. While the Kurdish deputy PM may think this was "very disappointing," anarchists disagree. It is unsurprising, given that free elections would lead to radical change in Iraq. As such, it is consistent with US policy at the end of the last Gulf War. While wanting to get rid of President Saddam, it wanted to avoid a radical change and so it did not support the uprisings of Shia Muslims and Kurds.
And least we forget, when Blair or Bush talk about "liberating" Iraqi or "bringing democracy" to its people, remember who took it away from them in the first place. It was the CIA that installed the Ba'ath Party in Baghdad from which emerged Saddam Hussein. "That was my favourite coup," said the CIA man in charge.
So much for "liberating" the Iraqi people. As one veteran Kurdish leader put it: "If the US wants to impose its own government, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash." Can we look forward to a US client regime repressing "its" people? Will we see it sending troops against the Kurds after Bush has "liberated" the Iraqi oil, sorry, people?
But on a more positive note, at least Blair must be glad that Bush has managed to achieve one of his stated goals. He promised to "unite" people and he has -- the world is united in saying "No to Bush" and, of course, his poodle!
No Rush to Judgment!
Blair continued his attempts to convince us later in the week by asking us not to "look at the parody" of Bush but to "look at the reality." Specifically, that "after September 11th he didn't act in haste." In a sense he is right, the Bush Junta has waited. The plan to attack Iraq was developed long before September 11th:
"Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men - most involved in the oil business - created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding 'regime change' in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that 'we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.'
"The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department . . . They also included . . . Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan - where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory - and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for - you guessed it - Iraq." (Robert Fisk, This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads Or Human Rights: It's About Oil, The Independent, January 18, 2003)
Calling a spade a spade
Blair states that "some of the rhetoric that I hear used about America is actually more savage than rhetoric used about Saddam." Given that everyone (including those against the war) agrees that Saddam is an evil dictator, it is hard to know what to make of Blair's comments. Given that Saddam committed the horrific crimes he is now attacked for when he was supported by the US and UK, why should the rulers of these countries not be subjected to "savage" comments? It seems the moral thing to do.
So given the past US/UK support for Saddam's regime, it seems hypocritical for him to justify war by pointing to Iraqi exiles and stating that relatives were "tortured and killed - it's not something we are making up or propaganda." As this was happening in the 1980s, it is clear that his "moral case" is nothing but an excuse. And for all his comments that "there are two sides to this argument," he fails to quote those Iraqi exiles who don't want their relatives in Iraq murdered by the planned US bombing campaign.
Democracy in action!
It is obviously the case that the majority is not always right. Nor is it the case that ethics is decided by adding numbers. Anarchists are well aware of this. However, we are also aware of the vast difference in between an individual without power holding an opinion and one with power imposing it. This means, for example, that anarchists side with the workers if a boss opposes them forming a union. It also means that we seek to hold power accountable to those it claims to represent, urging the use of direct action and solidarity (occupations, blockades, strikes, etc.) to stop our rulers acting in unjust, exploitative and oppressive ways either at home or aboard. As well as being moral, it is also in our self-interest as unchecked power is a threat to us all.
So when Blair states "all I ask people to do is to listen to the other side of the argument. I do not have a monopoly of wisdom on this." He misses the point twice. Firstly, we have listened to government side. We are not convinced. Secondly, he may not have a monopoly of wisdom but he does (in theory at least) have a monopoly of power. He claims that monopoly because we live in a "democracy" and so, in theory, claims to represent the viewpoint of the majority. Clearly, he does not. But rather than do so he decides to ignore the wishes of the majority and press ahead regardless. Is that democratic?
Moreover, his position is praised as "good leadership." But what kind of leader has no one following them? As with the others in "New Europe," Blair is being praised for ignoring the wishes of the population. This gives a clear insight into the elitism of capitalist democracy. As Noam Chomsky put it in his pamphlet Media Control:
"One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs . . .An alternative conception . . . is that the public must be barred from managing their own affairs . . . That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception. In fact it has long been, not just in operation, but even in theory . . . [In this conception] we should not succumb to 'democratic dogmatisms' about men being the best judges of their own interests. Because they're not. We're [the elite] the best judges of the public interests."
The rhetoric used to justify this dismissal of the wishes of the majority is incredible. Indeed, they seem designed to prove anarchism right! Thus we have the argument that "democratic" leaders have to do what is right, not what is popular, and that it is up to those in power to determine what it is. Which is tyranny, not democracy. Perhaps the last US presidential elections can give us a taste of the logical conclusion of this position. Clearly the voters there had made a "popular" decision, it was just not considered the "right" one. And so the Bush Junta was hoisted into office against their wishes. Will Blair do the same next election? Will he explain to the people that, unfortunately, there are two sides to this issue, that the people are misinformed and that the "moral" thing to do is to ignore the election result?
So it not surprising Blair is unclear about whether there will be a democracy in post-Saddam Iraq. You cannot give someone something you don't have or don't want them to have.
Which, incidentally, shows the contradiction in representative democracy. If we are judged wise enough to pick our masters, those who know what the "right thing to do" actually is, then, surely, we are wise enough to question their judgement, oppose their decisions when they are wrong and, moreover, do without them by governing ourselves. That is why anarchists have stressed self-management within free association. In an anarchist society, if a delegate was ignoring the wishes and decisions of those who mandated them then they would be instantly recalled and replaced by someone else. Only this, decision making by those affected by a decision, decision making from the bottom-up, can ensure real freedom.
But then we would be talking about what Blair dismissed as "undemocratic anarchy" after the state repression of the Gothenburg demos. It appears that "moral" is not the only word the PM does not know the meaning of.