...a "complete renaissance" on foreign policy to combat "Reactionary Islam"

JoeM

Imperator
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,612
Location
Centre of the maritime world
Source

Excerpts:

On changing strategy
we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us. There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other.

On Reactionary Islam
In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan, in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were occurring...these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this take-over, whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and all its works.

On the creation of conflict with the West
Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims - being as decent and fair-minded as anyone else - would choose to reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim versus Muslim. They realised they had to create a completely different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

On bleeding-heart liberals ;)

...it is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault.
...It is also rubbish to suggest that it is the product of poverty. It is true it will use the cause of poverty. But its fanatics are hardly the champions of economic development.

On the aims of Reactionary Islam
Its purpose is explicitly to prevent those countries becoming democracies and not "Western style" democracies, any sort of democracy. It is to prevent Palestine living side by side with Israel

On the current situation, and pointing the finger at Syria and Iran:

Hizbollah gets their weapons from Iran. Iran are now also financing militant elements in Hamas. Iran's President has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". And he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just to complete the picture, Israel's main neighbour along its eastern flank is Syria who support Hizbollah and house the hardline leaders of Hamas.

It's not exactly a situation conducive to a feeling of security is it?


I found the speech to be quite good myself, a little to much with slogans, but that's politics for you. Some criticism was that it was too wordy, but I prefer that to the 'Folksy' approach used by some that cannot address the complexity of these issues.
 
...it is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault.
Is he really saying that he thinks that the country that ruled the region for decades has no responsability / blame in how it turns out? Maddness.

Could he say the same about Zimbabwe? India?
 
Blair's speeches are, IMHO, usually very good. Hitting the right notes and saying the right things. It's just that those things aren't followed up on. Remember the Churchillian speeches he came out with after 9/11? What has he done since then? Invaded two countries and not alot else.

The time I was impressed with his speeches, or believed that he had the ability or inclination to act on them has long gone.
 
JoeM said:
I found the speech to be quite good myself, a little to much with slogans, but that's politics for you. Some criticism was that it was too wordy, but I prefer that to the 'Folksy' approach used by some that cannot address the complexity of these issues.
Yes, I too am, you know, very much against the more, err, how shall I say it, colloquial speeches he makes. Good one for posting it.

On changing strategy:
Big change on rhetoric, small change on details of this new strategy.

On Reactionary Islam:
This is pretty true, but what of the context of those anti-western views rising up? Iran's, for example?

On the creation of conflict with the West:
I think that the (trans-atlantic) West has helped to bring about this reality. The fact that we see a front in this conflict in Afghanistan is telling. The Cold War and The British Empire both tried to operate here, the USA has inherited that. And the new distinction in the conflict that Blair perceives and mentions, is the new rhetorical framework that both sides are using, but for the same, old world order.

On bleeding-heart liberals ;):
The way he plays with words here really hurts my feelings. :cry: ;)

On the aims of Reactionary Islam:
He speaks of this "alliance of moderation" on the one hand, then he points a finger at the extremists. I thought the whole idea was to encourage those seemingly fractures yet plentiful voices of moderation? Again, no change here in this paragraph. Neither in rhetoric, nor action.

On the current situation, and pointing the finger at Syria and Iran:
He tells us but one side of the story.
 
Is he really saying that he thinks that the country that ruled the region for decades has no responsability / blame in how it turns out? Maddness.

Your comment displays the precise misconception he has tried to ellucidate for you

It seems imperative to me that it is made clear the difference between the motivations of radical Islam and other issues.

@Ram '...small change on details'
Of course, but it's a strategic change, and it's aimed at US foreign policy. If you read into it he's basically said look where isolationism gets you, look where belligerence on immigration and globalisation get you.


The point that needs to be clear is that radical Islam does not care about US foreign policy apart from the spread of Democracy; it's everyone else who cares about trade, immigration, environment and so on.
 
JoeM said:
Your comment displays the precise misconception he has tried to ellucidate for you

It seems imperative to me that it is made clear the difference between the motivations of radical Islam and other issues.
I am not quite sure what you are saying. He says "it is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault." which to me means that "the emergence of this global terrorism is in no way our fault". I think that statement is wrong. Is this what you are dissagreeing with?
 
Samson said:
..."the emergence of this global terrorism is in no way our fault". I think that statement is wrong. Is this what you are dissagreeing with?

Yes. And so does our Prime Minister.

If you read the speech, you'll see why he holds that opinion (which I've tried, and it appears failed, to summarise here).
 
JoeM said:
Yes. And so does our Prime Minister.

If you read the speech, you'll see why he holds that opinion (which I've tried, and it appears failed, to summarise here).
I have read your posts in this thread, and I do not see how any contradict the obvious fact that our handling of the middle east has contributed to the instability. Some reasons, from my very limited knowledge of the history of the region;

The setting up of monarchys / dictatorships (Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq)
The Giving of palastinian land to Israel
The supporting of vicious regiems (Saddam Hussain)
The demonisation of Islamic democracies (Iran)
The division of land along lines of convinence rather than ethnic boundaries.

Please note that I am not saying we bear full responsability, but just that we have some responsability. To deny this publicaly seem the hight of folly.
 
Samson said:
I have read your posts in this thread, and I do not see how any contradict the obvious fact that our handling of the middle east has contributed to the instability. Some reasons, from my very limited knowledge of the history of the region;

The setting up of monarchys / dictatorships (Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq)
The Giving of palastinian land to Israel
The supporting of vicious regiems (Saddam Hussain)
The demonisation of Islamic democracies (Iran)
The division of land along lines of convinence rather than ethnic boundaries.

Please note that I am not saying we bear full responsability, but just that we have some responsability. To deny this publicaly seem the hight of folly.

Ah and that is because you are ignoring the real motivations of reactionary Islam - you assume they are fighting for any of the reasons you have mentioned, when that is not true.

That is not to say that the other issues do not need to be dealt with.
 
I pretty much stopped reading after this part of the speech:

The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values. We said we didn't want another Taleban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in my view, we realised that you can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.

I don't see how you can interpret the mention of Saddam here in any other way than as yet another attempt to tie in the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror. Surely Prime Minister Blair knows better than to suggest Saddam was like the Islamic fundamentalists, even if his audience may not.

The idea that the current situation in Iraq has anything to do with Western 'values' just makes me want to cry. If Blair and the guy holding his leash really wanted to spread freedom and democracy in Iraq, they would have sent a proper number of troops to keep the peace there and treated Iraqi reconstruction as something other than an opportunity for American businesses to get rich off no-bid contracts with no actual performance requirements.
 
JoeM said:
Ah and that is because you are ignoring the real motivations of reactionary Islam - you assume they are fighting for any of the reasons you have mentioned, when that is not true.
Sorry to jump in, but this is the crux of the matter right here. I think the important areas to look to here are:

a) the timing of these views rising in countries such as Iran and Syria ('reactionary' in reaction to what?)
b) what those reactionary leaders are saying their motives are, not what TB is saying they are (it's clear that he lies about this all the time)
 
JoeM said:
Ah and that is because you are ignoring the real motivations of reactionary Islam - you assume they are fighting for any of the reasons you have mentioned, when that is not true.

That is not to say that the other issues do not need to be dealt with.
I am not arguing that they are "fighting for" any of these things, but I belive they are fighting BECAUSE OF these things.

To task the extreme view, just FAOD, if we had depopualted the middle east and see up a "home counties in the sun" this would not be happening now. The fact that we set up all (?) of these countries means we share in the responsability of how they have turned out. The fact that they are fighting about something else does not change this at all.
 
jameson said:
I don't see how you can interpret the mention of Saddam here in any other way than as yet another attempt to tie in the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror. Surely Prime Minister Blair knows better than to suggest Saddam was like the Islamic fundamentalists, even if his audience may not.

I disagree wholeheartedly; and you're interpretation is incorrect. The rise of a democratic Iraq will improve the chances of a democratic region where moderation can prosper. No-one in Britain links Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

I think that in the long term this is the correct approach.
 
Rambuchan said:
Sorry to jump in, but this is the crux of the matter right here. I think the important areas to look to here are:

a) the timing of these views rising in countries such as Iran and Syria ('reactionary' in reaction to what?)
b) what those reactionary leaders are saying their motives are, not what TB is saying they are (it's clear that he lies about this all the time)

You're going to have to be more specific about that. It may be clear to you, but not to me.
 
Samson said:
...The fact that we set up all (?) of these countries means we share in the responsability of how they have turned out. The fact that they are fighting about something else does not change this at all.

But we're talking about the motivation of reactionary Islam, which is based on faith alone.

I agree that the State systems there were set up and supported by European and Americans. The way to address that is through democratization and fair trade.

However, and this is fundamental, a free and fair middle east will not address reactionary Islam.
 
JoeM said:
You're going to have to be more specific about that. It may be clear to you, but not to me.
TB says they are "reactionary". That's for sure. But my point is ~ "in reaction to what"?

Blair is calling them "reactionary" on the one hand, then on the other he is denying that they are reacting to western foreign policies in their lands.

Maybe I've misread him, but that seems a bit weak and contradictory to me.
 
Top Bottom