An open letter to Tony Blair
Dear Mr Blair,
On 2nd April you were faxed an "open
letter" (with copies also being sent to the Ministry of Defence,
and selected MPs) from Mr Dennis Revell concerning your involving
this country in the present war on Iraq.
I write to you with reference to the foregoing letter because
a) It is clearly described as being an open letter, and therefore is not subject to the constraints that apply to private communications, and
b) Its content addresses matters that are of intense interest and concern to many people in this country, as has been proven by massive past and ongoing demonstrations and public protests against the war.
I wonder therefore if you can assure me that the letter in question has already been brought to your attention, and that you have actually read it?
Given that your time must obviously be much occupied I accept that
it is unlikely that you will have responded to Mr Revell's letter
point by point. But it will at least be of some comfort to the concerned
citizens of this country to know that you are fully aware of the many
considerations that Mr Revell has courageously sought to bring to
your attention.
And if you have not yet seen the letter in question, or have only been provided with a summary thereof by your advisers, may I respectfully urge you to read it in its entirety at the earliest opportunity.
I say this for I, along with many others, still completely fail to
understand how, as an honourable man, you can have committed our country
to this grossly unjust, immoral, and arguably illegal war against
Iraq.
I find it difficult to reconcile the image of sincerity that you so
admirably convey with the fact that the arguments for war have been
so surrounded by duplicity, distortions, misrepresentations, and blatant
falsehoods as to have become offensive to any sense at all of morality
or justice.
The only conclusion I can draw is that you have been ill-served by your advisers, who clearly must also have failed to draw your attention to the fact that so many of the electorate remain unconvinced by the arguments that have been put forward as "justification" for the war.
Nor be misled by the recent apparent decline in public opposition to the war, for this is nothing other than evidence that the public at large recognise the futility of continuing to express their disapproval in such manner. On the ground, antiwar sentiments are still as strongly felt as ever, and are now in process of being refocussed on the issues and policies that have brought the world to this sorry state. And even now new strategies are being devised to convey to you the disapproval of a very large percentage of the community in a manner that may have more impact than has been achieved so far.
That you may be unaware of this would imply that, alas, you have become completely out of touch with the proverbial "man in the street" — itself a cause of concern were it so — but even more worrying is the possibility that you may have fallen victim to the distorted and unbalanced prowar arguments that have been promulgated by the mainstream media.
If, on the other hand, you were already cognisant of the many points that Mr Revell raised in his letter and are aware that huge numbers of the public remain unpersuaded by your arguments, then I am indeed curious to know how you can continue to maintain that this dishonourable war is justified without offering some explanation that is rather more convincing than that which has been presented so far.
That the vindication of your position is now entirely dependent upon some fortuitous circumstance that has yet to occur (such as the "discovery" of carefully planted weapons of mass destruction for example?) demonstrates only too clearly how unsound your original arguments were.
Thus, the arguments you have used to date, and the manner in which
you have imposed this war upon our country, makes me ashamed of the
present Government, and despairing of the depths to which you have
dragged this nation of ours.
Had there been sufficient legitimate reason for this war to have been
waged, in accordance with the principles established by the UN charter,
then surely a simple, straightforward, and honest presentation of
the facts would have been adequate to make your case.
Or was it that the bare unvarnished truth was simply too innocuous
(or too revealing of the West's own complicity in Saddam Hussein's
past misdeeds) to have made the case?
Having to resort to the massive disinformation and — let's face it — PR campaign that has hall-marked the selling of this war to the public at large tells us what? That you have no confidence in the ability of the public to perceive genuine threats to peace and security?
It has to be observed that this ability, in which you appear to have such little confidence, has been sufficiently well exercised in discerning the true threat to world peace and security represented by the antics of the present US administration.
On a more profound level it also has to be observed that your support
of those antics casts doubt upon the sincerity with which you adhere
to your professed Christian beliefs. The tactics that have been employed
to promote this war are more reminiscent of the "Christianity" of
the Crusades and the Inquisition than of the original message of Jesus.
The actions that you and President Bush have participated in or sanctioned
remind me uncomfortably of Noam Chomsky's discussion of the concept
of "rogue states" ("Rogue States" by Noam Chomsky, pub. Pluto Press,
London, 2000) and it is not now unreasonable to regard our own
country, along with the US, as such rogue states.
Moreover, if those actions are to be perceived as a precedent or standard by which we should all conduct our affairs then you have initiated the sliding of this country into a state of anarchy, for it must be presumed that such cherished notions as the rule of law can now be cast aside. This of course makes a mockery of the whole business of government — what need is there for the public at large to recognise the legislative authority of a government which itself has such blatant disregard for the rule of law?
And as for principles of democracy, well, clearly we need only observe these henceforth when they work in our favour, else we can disregard them as "unreasonable" — that you can have used such a term to describe the exercise of the democratic process within the UN beggars belief.
The world you are shaping for us is not one of peace, security, international
co-operation, and humanitarianism.
Rather, it is a world where might equals right, where truth and principle
become first victims to cupidity and mendaciousness, where coercion
becomes the accepted means to secure agreements.
That world will exacerbate the conditions that cause such things as
"terrorism" to flourish — and in that world, "might" may have
to be redefined. For clearly, the vast military might of the US was
completely unable to prevent the terrible tragedy of the Twin Towers
— a terrorist outrage that relied for its success not upon some
sophisticated weapon of mass destruction, but upon conventional objects
employed in unconventional ways.
Are you fully aware, I wonder, of the veritable Pandora's Box that
may be opened by subscribing to President Bush's vision of a new world
order?
I look forward to your reply with interest.
Yours sincerely,
