The Wardman Wire

A friend who is a Lay Reader in the Church of England pointed out that Tony Blair had a column about Faith in the Winter issue of Reader Magazine (the in house magazine for Readers, who used to be called “Lay Readers” - the Winter issue will not be on the website for some time), and asked me “where would you put Tony Blair”?

That started me thinking about the role that Mr Blair has tried to carve out for himself as a Middle East Peace Envoy.

What makes a Peace-Maker?

Peace-making, negotiation, conciliation and taking the role of a trusted intermendiary - particularly wearing a particular “faith” hat - depends on a long record, a consistency of character and reputation and the ability to build trusted partnerships with both sides; the mediator can even come from outside the situation provided both sides are willing to engage in a relationship of trust.

Therefore Terry Waite could do it, the Dalai Lama could do it, Nelson Mandela could do it, even some unexpected figures as General John de Chastelain in Northern Ireland or Paddy Ashdown in Bosnia can develop a role. They also have to conduct themselves with a modicum of humility and a recognition that they have feet of clay.

I don’t think that Tony Blair meets any of these criteria.

He puts himself forward as following a religion that depends theologically and doctrinally on the paradox of a figure - Christ - who is willing to take the blame for everyone else, while not being at fault himself. For followers, a core ritual is one of confession, repentance and restoration - which means nothing if it is not accompanied by a subsequent reformation in lifestyle.

Yet one thing that has defined Mr Blair’s political career has been an unwillingness to acknowledge that he has made mistakes, never mind what any of the specific mistakes were. Even in his final speech at Trimdon, he said:

“I may have been wrong. That’s your call. But believe one thing if
nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.”

The tragedy of not being able to recognise and inwardly digest that you make mistakes is that opportunities to grow in character are - by definition - choked off.

And where would you put Mr Blair?

In answer to the question “Where would you put Mr Blair”, my answer would be: on trial in the relevant international court - probably as a war criminal. The main cause would be for the foreign policy adventures - parts of which were very arguably, despite all the claims and all the debate, simply illegal.

A peacemaker also needs a record of upholding and defending the “little people”.

I think that Blair is responsible for major damage done to our framework of laws that used to protect the individual, and also damage to the political process itself - for example in the removal of “depth” and reflection from political engagement in favour of sofa government and sophisticated media management. In the arena of “peacemaking” I could point out the sudden ostentatious appearance of Mr Blair on the BBC carrying a copy of the Quran under his arm: regardless of whether it is used for private study or not the one thing that all of us can recognise - Muslims of all ideological varieties included - is cardboard cutout political gesture.

Under damage to the rights of the individual, I’d identify the long series of attempts to detain people without trial and the particular cases of the individuals whose mental health suffered as a result, making the power of arrest generic not specific, unfocussed “anti-terrorism” laws that have turned out to be used for heaven-knows-what, and a long, long list of other instances.

Documenting all of this will continue to be a huge job.

Wrapping Up

I’ll stop there, but I think it’s going to take perhaps a quarter of a century to repair the basic damage.