Blair fans the flames of intolerance

Still smarting from an attempt at a citizen’s arrest earlier this month for war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair is now recycling noxious neo-con, pseudo-theories in telling us that modern wars are predominantly the result of religious conflicts.

Blair, who is thought to be worth around £45m, was given space in The Observer to provide us with some amazing new wisdoms. The ex-New Labour prime minister – now a Middle East “peace envoy” and head of the Faith Foundation – says:

  

"The battles of this century are less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology, like those of the 20th century – but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference."

Pointing to the many places around the planet where violence has erupted between people of different faiths, Blair notes that this is a growing phenomenon and that acts of terrorism are motivated by an “abuse of religion”.

So has Blair introduced any new insights into an understanding of the undoubtedly traumatic conflicts that are taking place around the globe?

Well, no.

He’s reprocessing discredited idea from the American right-wing, with whom he is so well connected. Leaving aside for one moment that religion IS actually a form of ideology, the notion of cultural or religious clash as the driving force behind conflict is in no way a brain wave conceived in the mind of the ex-PM.

The “theory” of cultural clash goes back to the hey-day of colonialism. It was revived in the 1990s by the conservative US magazine, Atlantic Monthly, whose owner David Bradley was "dead certain about the rightness" of invading Iraq.

Its best-known advocate was political scientist Samuel P. Huntingdon, who in 1992 proposed his “clash of civilisations” thesis, a year after the first Gulf War.

He wrote: “... the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. ... The clash of civilisations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines of the future.”

Huntingdon’s thesis was countered by many distinguished scholars, including Amartya Sen, Naom Chomsky and Paul Berman. The most incisive critic was the late Palestinian scholar, Edward Said. In The Clash of Ignorance, written in 2001 he argued that Huntingdon’s theory was an example of "the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims".

Blair does not mention Islam by name. But his references to sectarian and terror attacks are to areas where mainly Islamic-inspired groups have been at work. And by remaining silent about results of the post-Anglo-American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, he conveniently leaves out his own role in stoking the flames of conflict.

In Iraq, for example, while the Saddam regime undoubtedly suppressed the Shia population, sectarian violence was non-existent. Thanks to the “regime change” policies pursued after the invasion, inter-communal killings are a daily occurrence.

But getting back to Blair’s claim. Were the two main wars of the 20th century in which some 100 million soldiers and civilians died really caused by a clash of “political ideologies”? Of course not. In 1914, the world’s big imperialist powers went to war over a division of the world’s resources. And behind World War II were the clashing economic and political interests of the ruling classes of Europe, America and Asia.

Could Blair’s latest ignorant spouting be an attempt at resurrection in advance of the publication of the Chilcot inquiry into the run-up to the invasion of Iraq? He and many others are said to be nervous about its potential findings.

Finding scapegoats is the name of the game and not only for Blair. Bigotry of any kind – religious, nationalist or racist – is indeed on the rise, fanned by the reactionary policies of the mainstream parties. The reasons are not hard to fathom. Their purpose is to divert attention and energy from the inability of the system to satisfy the peoples of the world’s deepest needs and aspirations.

Corinna Lotz

A World to Win secretary

Leaving cloud cuckoo land

The International Monetary Fund is amongst the most influential institutions on the planet. It has a membership of 188 countries and employs 2,400 staff. Half of them are economists. If anyone should know about the state of the global  economy and its likely trajectory, you might think it was the IMF.

But you’d be wrong. The IMF has just had to “revise” its growth forecasts downwards, not for the first time. Fear not, Britain has its own forecasters. But they’re no better.

The Office for Budget Responsibility was created by the Coalition in 2010 to provide as its website proclaims “independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances. It is one of a growing number of official independent fiscal watchdogs around the world”.

It too got it’s forecast wrong. Badly. And now it’s own up time.

In its latest Forecast Evaluation Report, the OBR says: “Following the Coalition’s first Budget in June 2010 we forecast that the recovery would be slower than its predecessors, but nowhere near as slow as it has been. We forecast that GDP would rise by 5.7% from the first quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2012, but the latest data suggest it has grown by only 0.9%.”

Ask virtually anyone on the street whether the economy is going to improve and they’d give it the thumbs down. Nothing could be more obvious.

How is it that these highly paid experts got it so wrong?

Are they, perhaps, living in cloud cuckoo land, in “an unrealistically idealistic state where everything is perfect”? Are they perhaps unaware of reality or deranged in holding such an optimistic belief’?

The truth is the OBR, like the IMF, is collectively blinded to reality by the views held by all in common and expressed recently by an eminent political figure, who said: “21st-century politics is, in fact, increasingly post-ideological. The biggest challenges we face are similar in most countries: growing our economies in a way that creates opportunities for everyone, providing high-quality health and education services, ensuring safety and security.”  [my emphasis]

This was former New Labour prime minister Tony Blair in a collection of essays on  "Government for New Times”. The extract is from the first of five lessons Blair claims to have learnt from his period as PM. It’s not surprising that Blair remains wedded to the growth that has brought the planet’s ecological systems to the limits of their ability to support life.

But you might find his second lesson a bit of a shocker: "The second lesson is that you have to aim for systemic change. The pace of change in the modern world is incredible, with the emergence of new powers, such as China, India, and Brazil; new technologies in communications, energy, and medicine; and new global challenges like climate change and the financial crisis. Only systemic change, as opposed to incremental or piecemeal reform, will allow government to keep pace in a rapidly changing world.”

Has Blair suddenly become a revolutionary?

We might even agree with his third lesson that “the best systemic change and delivery begins with the right conceptual analysis”. But Blair, the IMF and the OBR share the same foundational concept held by the 1% – there is no alternative to the capitalist system of production.

And they’ll do anything to preserve it. Like destroying the productive infrastructure of Iraq, and causing the death of more than 1 million people in order to give contracts to the oil corporations for its reconstruction and exploitation.

Or driving down living standards, cutting public services and reducing real wages in Europe and North America to compete with emerging powers.

These are the kinds of things that Blair and his co-thinkers mean by “systemic change”.

Real system change requires new forms of democratic ownership and control, a switch from production for profit to sustainable production to meet socially-determined priorities and the removal of the political elites that act as proxies for corporate power. We need, therefore, an Agreement of the People, a constitution that puts the majority in charge. Please come to the assembly on November 17 to work on this very strategy.

Gerry Gold

Economics editor

Weapons of mass deception: that Bush-Blair transcript

A transcript of a crucial conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush just before the invasion of Iraq seems certain to be suppressed by the Coalition government, despite a ruling that it should be published.

But a leaked copy has made its way to our virtual office. Here’s is a transcript of the telephone conversation between the White House and Downing Street that took place on March 12, 2003, just a week before the invasion began:

GB: Hiya Tony. How’s it going with that pesky Parliament of yours? I thought you were a kinda president like me and didn’t have to do with all that democracy stuff. I hear some guys in your cabinet are even talking about something called international law when it comes to invading some other country like Iran, err Iraq.

TB: George, we’re nearly good to go. You know, we made our decision last year that Saddam had to go, come what may, no matter what the weapons inspectors reported, and I’m going to stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this one. Don’t worry about Parliament. The Tories love a good war and they’ll be voting with me. As for my cabinet, I’ve got it sorted.

GB: That French guy, what’s his name, Durac, BigMac, Chirac? I can’t remember.

TB: Jacques Chirac, Mr President.

GB: He’s sort of saying we need another resolution at the UN before we can go in and find them nukes and chemical weapons our boys say are out there somewhere in Iran. Then he says he’ll block it. So what the shit is he on about?

TB: George, don’t worry! We’ve had all the UN offices bugged for some time and he’s talking bullshit, err no offence George. Anyway, my legal team says we can do more or less what we want, you know, given the breaches of UN resolution Saddam is already guilty of. One guy was a bit iffy on the legality issue, but he’s since come round to my way of thinking and his advice is just what we wanted. Some in the cabinet questioned whether the weapons of mass destruction actually existed. So I got this guy in from intelligence to put the frighteners on them. So it’s sorted.

GB: That’s great Tone, Y’know, Don [Rumsfeld, defence secretary] was saying we didn’t need the Brits if push came to shove because all the firepower was ours. But I told him: “Don, I know that you think there are known knowns and there are known unknowns and that we don’t know what we don’t know. But these guys are our only allies. Let’s invite them to the show.”

TB: Great! Just one more thing, George.

GB: What’s that Tone?

TB: Can we leave Al Qaeda out of this one. I know you guys think that Saddam had a hand in 9.11 but not everyone is convinced. Why don’t we keep it to just WMDs?

GB: I can’t do that Tone. My people want justice for those who planned the attack on 9.11. They gotta be out there somewhere. We didn’t find them in Afghanistan so it seems like Iraq is the next place to look. W’dya think?

TB: If you say so, George.

GB: I gotta a great name for it: Operation Iraqi Freedom. Great, isn’t it?

TB: Wonderful, George.

GB: So when y’all ready?

TB: In a week, once I get it through Parliament we should just get on with it.

GB: What about a week today, March 19?

TB: That’s fine. History will show that when it mattered, we did the right thing.

GB: Too right, Tone. Too right. That’s it for now. Love to Cherie.

TB: Speak soon. Tell your boys I’m with them all the way.