Blair at bay as the bombs fall on Lebanon
Blair at bay as the bombs fall on Lebanon
Christopher Adams
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: July 31 2006 19:29 | Last updated: July 31 2006 19:29
On a swing through California, Tony Blair has looked a picture of vigour and focus, fêted by American entrepreneurs and the political establishment. But back home the public mood has swung decisively against the British prime minister.
And it is the US – specifically Mr Blair’s closeness to President George W. Bush – that lies at the heart of that disenchantment. In the five days since he crossed the Atlantic, not only large numbers of legislators, many within the ruling Labour party, but even members of his own cabinet have criticised his handling of the latest Middle East crisis.
Had parliament not just risen for a long summer holiday, matters might be much worse for Mr Blair. Already bruised by domestic political troubles, the damage to his standing among voters – a MORI poll in the Financial Times showed his popularity at an all-time low – has sparked comparisons with the foreign policy pitfalls that helped unseat previous leaders including Lloyd George and Margaret (now Baroness) Thatcher.
Those comparisons could prove prescient. Pressure is already growing within the Labour party for the prime minister – who almost two years ago announced he would not contest the next election – to set out a timetable for his departure. If he continues to prevaricate, its annual conference next month could be fiery.
Normally deft on the international stage, in Washington and San Francisco at the weekend Mr Blair’s customary self-assurance for a moment deserted him. He looked uncertain and sounded muddled.
Initially, he stuck closely to the line advocated by Mr Bush and refused to back calls for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
However, when an Israeli bombing raid killed up to 56 civilians in the southern Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, many of them children, he shifted position. With some discomfort, and as his peace plan for an international stabilisation force threatened to unravel, he sought to straddle a widening gulf between the US and other members of the United Nations security council.
Earlier, in a BBC interview, Mr Blair was compelled to deny reports of a cabinet revolt. It was not a convincing performance.
Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons and former foreign secretary, spoke for several colleagues when he bluntly described Israel’s bombing campaign as “disproportionate” – undiplomatic language that Mr Blair has refused to use. Privately, at least one cabinet minister has accused Israel of “wanton destruction”. David Miliband, the environment secretary and a close ally of the prime minister, reportedly asked at the last meeting of cabinet: “Where is this all going to end?”
The prime minister is used to the controversy provoked by the doctrine of “liberal interventionism” that has defined his time in office. His decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 caused the biggest rebellion against any British administration by its own MPs and led to the resignation of two cabinet ministers.
Lebanon, though, is different. In one sense, the deep unease in government and among the public is surprising. Unlike Iraq, there is no question of Britain becoming directly involved in the conflict. Nor is the violence itself, while terrible and distressing, new to the Middle East. Moreover, decisions over the extent and duration of the Israeli offensive are going to be taken in Jerusalem, not by Mr Blair.
What the crisis has helped to throw into relief, however, is the extent to which the prime minister has lost authority over even his closest and most loyal colleagues. Three years on from Iraq, and in the endgame of his premiership, Mr Blair can no longer control his ministers.
They are speaking out for several reasons. Some feel a genuine moral repugnance at the government’s failure to call for an immediate ceasefire. Other ministers, including Mr Straw, reason that the longer the conflict continues, the greater the risk of tragedies like Qana that will only strengthen the hand of Hizbollah, the terrorist group Israel is trying to drive out of southern Lebanon.
Third – and here the crisis has parallels with Iraq – Mr Blair’s closeness to Mr Bush is being seen as a liability among voters.
In the past, most voters were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. That no longer appears to be the case. The most striking feature of the FT’s MORI poll was how strongly respondents have turned against Mr Blair personally. For a leader whose stunning electoral success has long been built on being more popular than the party he leads, it is an extraordinary reversal.
Finally, and just as important, is self-interest. Since Labour won a third term in May last year, ministers have had one eye on the succession. Although Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer, is thought almost certain to take over as prime minister no later than 2008, ambitious colleagues are jostling for the job of deputy leader, which gives the holder a permanent seat at the cabinet table. John Prescott, the scandal-dogged incumbent, is due to step aside when his boss does.
This behind-the-scenes battle – between Mr Straw, Peter Hain, Northern Ireland secretary, and Alan Johnson, education secretary – will intensify in the run-up to Labour’s annual conference. Emboldened by Mr Blair’s looming departure, and conscious of the need to appeal to a broad base of often-ignored party supporters, all of them may be prepared subtly to break with the government line.
How damaging is all this is for the prime minister? That will depend on two things: whether he can deliver the UN peace plan he has pledged – and crucially on Mr Brown himself. The chancellor has stayed resolutely out of the crisis. As long as he refrains from actively undermining the prime minister – whether by breathing a word of public dissent or empowering his allies to stir the pot – Mr Blair will probably survive another year. But the allegation that he has behaved like the president’s lapdog may prove harder to dispel.
Christopher Adams
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: July 31 2006 19:29 | Last updated: July 31 2006 19:29
On a swing through California, Tony Blair has looked a picture of vigour and focus, fêted by American entrepreneurs and the political establishment. But back home the public mood has swung decisively against the British prime minister.
And it is the US – specifically Mr Blair’s closeness to President George W. Bush – that lies at the heart of that disenchantment. In the five days since he crossed the Atlantic, not only large numbers of legislators, many within the ruling Labour party, but even members of his own cabinet have criticised his handling of the latest Middle East crisis.
Had parliament not just risen for a long summer holiday, matters might be much worse for Mr Blair. Already bruised by domestic political troubles, the damage to his standing among voters – a MORI poll in the Financial Times showed his popularity at an all-time low – has sparked comparisons with the foreign policy pitfalls that helped unseat previous leaders including Lloyd George and Margaret (now Baroness) Thatcher.
Those comparisons could prove prescient. Pressure is already growing within the Labour party for the prime minister – who almost two years ago announced he would not contest the next election – to set out a timetable for his departure. If he continues to prevaricate, its annual conference next month could be fiery.
Normally deft on the international stage, in Washington and San Francisco at the weekend Mr Blair’s customary self-assurance for a moment deserted him. He looked uncertain and sounded muddled.
Initially, he stuck closely to the line advocated by Mr Bush and refused to back calls for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
However, when an Israeli bombing raid killed up to 56 civilians in the southern Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, many of them children, he shifted position. With some discomfort, and as his peace plan for an international stabilisation force threatened to unravel, he sought to straddle a widening gulf between the US and other members of the United Nations security council.
Earlier, in a BBC interview, Mr Blair was compelled to deny reports of a cabinet revolt. It was not a convincing performance.
Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons and former foreign secretary, spoke for several colleagues when he bluntly described Israel’s bombing campaign as “disproportionate” – undiplomatic language that Mr Blair has refused to use. Privately, at least one cabinet minister has accused Israel of “wanton destruction”. David Miliband, the environment secretary and a close ally of the prime minister, reportedly asked at the last meeting of cabinet: “Where is this all going to end?”
The prime minister is used to the controversy provoked by the doctrine of “liberal interventionism” that has defined his time in office. His decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 caused the biggest rebellion against any British administration by its own MPs and led to the resignation of two cabinet ministers.
Lebanon, though, is different. In one sense, the deep unease in government and among the public is surprising. Unlike Iraq, there is no question of Britain becoming directly involved in the conflict. Nor is the violence itself, while terrible and distressing, new to the Middle East. Moreover, decisions over the extent and duration of the Israeli offensive are going to be taken in Jerusalem, not by Mr Blair.
What the crisis has helped to throw into relief, however, is the extent to which the prime minister has lost authority over even his closest and most loyal colleagues. Three years on from Iraq, and in the endgame of his premiership, Mr Blair can no longer control his ministers.
They are speaking out for several reasons. Some feel a genuine moral repugnance at the government’s failure to call for an immediate ceasefire. Other ministers, including Mr Straw, reason that the longer the conflict continues, the greater the risk of tragedies like Qana that will only strengthen the hand of Hizbollah, the terrorist group Israel is trying to drive out of southern Lebanon.
Third – and here the crisis has parallels with Iraq – Mr Blair’s closeness to Mr Bush is being seen as a liability among voters.
In the past, most voters were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. That no longer appears to be the case. The most striking feature of the FT’s MORI poll was how strongly respondents have turned against Mr Blair personally. For a leader whose stunning electoral success has long been built on being more popular than the party he leads, it is an extraordinary reversal.
Finally, and just as important, is self-interest. Since Labour won a third term in May last year, ministers have had one eye on the succession. Although Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer, is thought almost certain to take over as prime minister no later than 2008, ambitious colleagues are jostling for the job of deputy leader, which gives the holder a permanent seat at the cabinet table. John Prescott, the scandal-dogged incumbent, is due to step aside when his boss does.
This behind-the-scenes battle – between Mr Straw, Peter Hain, Northern Ireland secretary, and Alan Johnson, education secretary – will intensify in the run-up to Labour’s annual conference. Emboldened by Mr Blair’s looming departure, and conscious of the need to appeal to a broad base of often-ignored party supporters, all of them may be prepared subtly to break with the government line.
How damaging is all this is for the prime minister? That will depend on two things: whether he can deliver the UN peace plan he has pledged – and crucially on Mr Brown himself. The chancellor has stayed resolutely out of the crisis. As long as he refrains from actively undermining the prime minister – whether by breathing a word of public dissent or empowering his allies to stir the pot – Mr Blair will probably survive another year. But the allegation that he has behaved like the president’s lapdog may prove harder to dispel.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home