BBC and Times take anti-US cue from The Guardian

When I first heard it last Thursday, I thought it was some typical Today Programme anti-US, anti-Blair hype .

They were running a report on Tony Blair's meeting with President Bush in Washington. It was being presented as if Blair was trying to play down the meeting as much as possible, and to distance himself from Bush

They offered as proof the fact that Tony Blair still hasn't collected the Congressional Gold Medal he was awarded in 2003 in recognition of his support of the US following 9/11. They suggested that he wanted to avoid any further public highlighting of his very high profile support for US policies on Iraq and the war against terrorism.

Then I read this article in Thursday's Times. It was basically running the same line about how significant this non-collection of the medal thing was.

This is no mere oversight. Although the US Administration publicly insists that the medal is still at the design stage, senior Washington sources now acknowledge that Downing Street is deliberately dragging its feet over receiving the honour.

Aides working for Senator Elizabeth Dole, who was one of the sponsors of Mr Blair’s award, have told The Times that the problem is at the British end. It certainly does not take more than a thousand days to mint a medal: Nelson Mandela received his award in 56 days.

Mrs Dole’s spokesman said that although No 10 had approved long ago the image of Mr Blair that will appear on the front side of the medal, it was blocking agreement over the design for the obverse, which usually includes an emblem and some form of quotation.

The dispute is an appropriate symbol of the two entirely distinct images of the Prime Minister’s relationship with America since the terrorist attacks of 2001. In the US he is still seen as a clear-eyed braveheart who swiftly recognised 9/11 as an historical turning point that had profoundly affected the American psyche, and then — better than anyone, including Mr Bush — articulated the case for war.

In Britain, however, he is more often regarded these days as a naive and vainglorious fool, the poodle who loyally followed the President and has, consequently, tainted his own premiership with alleged falsehoods and failure.

It is this second image, the reverse side of the same coin, that lies behind his reluctance to be photographed receiving his medal from Mr Bush and why, according to friends, he is unlikely to pick up the award until after he has left office.

When I came to the bit about Blair as a naive and vainglorious fool and a lame duck afraid to be photographed with the President of the USA, I realised that this was just the latest of the "Blair is finished" stories that have been running since... oh, not long after the start of the Iraq war.

The most ardently press-hyped of them were running immediately after Labour won an unprecedented third election victory last May.

The story didn't make sense, anyway. Tony Blair was clearly going to meet publicly with Bush. Was he going to avoid photographs being taken? Would it make any difference at all to his standing with the British public whether or not he received a medal at their meeting? Was he really the reluctant ally and would be critic that this comment from the Times report suggested?

The Prime Minister has said, however, that those wanting him to do a Hugh Grant impression and provide a “Love Actually moment” by taking on the American President in public will be disappointed. It is too late to start picking a fight with Mr Bush.

Instead, his speech is intended to correct what he regards as a misleading impression of him both in the US and at home

So where had this story come from?

As far as I can see, it all originated in a Guardian story on Saturday 20th May. It was one of a series where they chase up forgotten news stories. The story had also suggested that from the time the medal was awarded, Blair was anxious about being associated with the Iraq war and the special relationship with the US:

Rumours began - which have never since disappeared - that the real reason for the delay is the ongoing homegrown concern over the Iraq war and the special relationship with America. There was plenty of substance behind the prime minister's self-deprecating joke to Congress that its warm welcome was "more than I deserve, and more than I'm used to".

The previous "Blair is finished" story ran at the time of the March 2006 House of Commons vote on the Education Bill, when the Labour government had to depend on Tory votes to prevent it from being defeated by the left wing rebels in the Labour Party.

It seems a strange coincidence that the Today Programme and Times re-running of the dug-up Guardian story ran on the same day that the Education Bill went through its final vote in the House of Commons, again backed by Tory support, and with the predicted meltdown of Tony Blair's support from his own side all but forgotten.

The next day, the reports of the Bush-Blair meeting showed them photographed warmly shaking hands. Their shared press conference showed Blair being consistently strong on supporting the Iraqi and Afghani governments and the shared project of spreading democracy through intervention against tyrannies and dictatorships. At Georgetown University Blair then made one of his most upbeat speeches ever on Iraq and the war on terror.

It is three years since Saddam fell.  It has been three years of strife and bloodshed.  But it has also seen something remarkable.  Despite it all, despite terror, sectarian violence, kidnapping and the exhibition of every ugly aspect of human nature, a democratic political process has grown.  Last week, a new Government was formed.  This Monday I visited it in Baghdad, I sat and talked with the leaders, chosen by the people, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, non-aligned, and heard from them not the jarring messages of warring factions but one simple, clear and united discourse.  They want Iraq to be democratic.  They want its people to be free.  They want to tolerate difference and celebrate diversity.  They want the rule of law not violence to determine their fate.

They were quite different from the Interim Government of 2004 or the Iraqi Transitional Government after the elections of January 2005.

This is a child of democracy struggling to be born.  They and we, the international community, are the midwives.

You may not agree with original decision.

You may believe mistakes have been made.

You may even think how can it be worth the sacrifice.

But surely we must all accept this is a genuine attempt to run the race of liberty.

These are not stooges.  Or placemen.

They believe in their country.

They believe in its capacity to be democratic.

They are fighting a struggle against the odds but they are fighting it.

And in their struggle is a symbol of a wider struggle.

Listen to what the new Prime Minister says and the new Government's programme.

Tell me where their vision differs from ours except that ours is based in experience and theirs in hope.

I came back from Iraq not less daunted by the responsibility on our shoulders to help them succeed.  But I did come back inspired by their determination that they do indeed succeed.

This should be a moment of reconciliation not only in Iraq but in the international community.  The war split the world.  The struggle of Iraqis for democracy should unite it.

There was a moving moment when I was talking to the new Prime Minister in his office in Baghdad that he told me, with a smile, used to be the dining room of one of Saddam's sons.  We were on our own with the interpreter.  He leant across to me and said:  "if we can change Iraq we can change this region and the world".

The terrorism that afflicts them is the same that afflicts us.  Its roots are out there in the Middle East, in the brutal combination of secular dictatorship and religious extremism.  Yet in every country of the region there are people, probably the majority, who are desperate for change.  In Kuwait, as I boarded the plane for Iraq, they told me how they were planning elections for the first time with women voting.  Across the Gulf states, in the Lebanon, in the steps, however difficult, Egypt is taking, in signs of change in nations as different as Jordan or Algeria, there are possibilities for progress.

These are the true voices of Muslim and Arab people, or more true than the voices of hate, with their poisonous propaganda that seeks to divide.

They need our support.  In Iraq, of course, people want to gain full control of their own destiny.  The MNF should leave as soon as the Government wishes us.  As the Prime Minister said we need an objective timetable.  By that he means one that is conditions-based ie as Iraqi capability is built up.  But don't be in any doubt.  No-one, but no-one I spoke to, from whatever quarter, wanted us to leave precipitately.  An arbitrary timetable ie without conditions being right, would be seen for what it would be:  weakness.

Here is where we have to change radically our mindset.  At present, when we are shown pictures of carnage in Iraq, much of our own opinion sees that as a failure, as a reason for leaving.  Surely it is a reason for persevering and succeeding.  What is the purpose of the terrorism in Iraq?  It is to destroy the prospect of democratic progress.  In doing so, they hope to deal us a mortal blow.  They know victory for them in Iraq is defeat not just for Iraqi democracy but for democratic values everywhere.

So they kill our soldiers even though our forces - with incredible heroism and dedication - are and have been in Iraq for three years with full United Nations support and are there now with the free consent of Iraq's first ever fully democratic Government.  They kill ordinary Iraqis for wanting to join the police or build the country or just for being of one religious persuasion not another.  Theirs is a strategy drenched in the blood of the innocent.

Should their determination to do evil eclipse our desire to do good?  By all means debate the tactics and strategy of how we succeed.  But I ask:  how can we possibly, in the face of such a struggle, so critical to our own values, not see it through and do so with renewed vigour and confidence?  If Iraqis can show their faith in democracy by voting for it, shouldn't we show ours by supporting them in it?

By "we" I don't mean the countries of the MNF, I mean the entire international community.

Doing so would signal a dramatic step of reconciliation.

There are two "ifs".

"If" the international community could see the struggle for security in Iraq as part of the wider global struggle against terrorism.  And "if", we would commit the same energy, engagement and raw political emotion to the rest of the agenda which preoccupies the world at large.

Throughout the past years, ever since I saw 9/11 change the world, I have believed that the greatest danger is that global politics divides into "hard" and "soft".  The "hard" get after the terrorists.  The "soft" campaign against poverty.  The divide is dangerous because interdependence makes all these issues just that:  interdependent.

The answer to terrorism is the universal application of global values.  The answer to poverty is the same.  Without progress - in democracy and in prosperity - security is at risk.  Without security, progress falters.

That is why the struggle for global values has to be applied not selectively, but to a global agenda

Naive and vainglorious fool? Embattled leader, desperate to distance himself from Bush and Iraq? I don't think so.

I still think Tony Blair is the best Prime Minister the UK has had in the last fifty years.

Norm still seems quite supportive, too.

Comments

[Antipholus Papps]

"Tell me where their vision differs from ours except that ours is based in experience and theirs in hope."

The sheer arrogance of this statement had me spitting cornflakes. I think Blair is the biggest threat this country has faced since Hitler. I also remember that the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland were sold as humanitarian interventions to domestic audiences.

[Stephen]

Oh, I agree. In fact Blair is much worse than Hitler. Much, much worse. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, as you say, with the best of intentions, and at least he didn't try to force self-rule on them. Oh no. At least he had the decency to stay in charge and continue to guide them (well, for as long as those meddling Yanks would let him), whereas Tony is leaving the poor Iraqis to their own devices, politically. Doesn't he know that his foolish Western ideas of democracy have no place in the Middle East?

[Gordon Shifman]

If I may paraphrase Winston Churchill. my attitude to Guardian reports and to Guardian "Comment is Free" blogs in particular is" Never, in the field of human dialong, has so much verbal diarrhea, been spurted, by so few.

[The Vole Strangler]

Clearly Blair wants to go and get his medal of thanks once the job has been done in Iraq or when he has left office. The latter will be the first to happen. It would look stupid and be a PR failure for him to accept it until then, especially as the media have increased their publicity on the descent into disorder that is Iraq and on the body count of US and British soldiers.