Terry Jones: Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please? | Special reports | The Observer

Skip to main content

Go to:   
Guardian Unlimited
Search:
Guardian Unlimited Web
The ObserverSpecial reports
Home UK news World news Politics Business & Media Comment & Leaders Focus 7 Days
Sport Review Travel Cash Observer Woman The Observer Magazine Food Music

Iraq: Observer special (story)
  Tools
Text-only version >
Send it to a friend
Save story >
  The Observer  
Front page
Story index

  The Guardian  
Front page
Story index



UP

Observer Comment Extra

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?



Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda.

Terry Jones
Sunday March 2, 2003
Observer.co.uk


It's heart-warming to hear Tony Blair's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have.

Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN.

But I'm a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I'm sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC - "The Project For The New American Century" - but has he looked at their website? (www.newamericancentury.org)



As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.

PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

They don't split hairs at the PNAC. George W. Bush and his advisers' stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might.

Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000"? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: "Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate."

So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East.

Does Tony Blair know that's what they mean?

In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush's advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf.

Does Tony Blair know that?

If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy.

On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn't he?

Go to your computer now, Mr. Blair. Look at the reality behind all this sanctimonious wringing of hands over the plight of the Iraqi people. Read what your American Republican friends are really intending. Please.




Special reports
Iraq crisis: Observer special
Special report: Iraq
Special report: the anti-war movement
Observer Worldview

Exclusive: UN dirty tricks
02.03.2003: Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
02.03.2003: Bugging plan: read the US memo
Talk: US dirty tricks

In Iraq
02.03.2003: Iraq destroys missiles in last-ditch bid to avoid war
02.03.2003: Kurds in fear of Turkish motives

The UN divided
02.03.2003: Focus: America the arm-twister
02.03.2003: Profile: Jacques the juggler
02.03.2003: The diplomatic gridlock
02.03.2003: Nick Taylor: Guinea's moment of fame
02.03.2003: Weekly briefing

High drama at Westminster
02.03.2003: Focus: Blair's high wire act
02.03.2003: Win or bust for Blair
Special report: Parliamentary debate in full
Guardian Unlimited Politics

After the vote
02.03.2003: Andrew Rawnsley: Journey into the unknown
02.03.2003: Michael Portillo: Labour won't forgive
02.03.2003: Roy Hattersley: The days of obedience are over
02.03.2003: Mary Warnock: Any war demands morality

Iraq crisis: Observer Comment
02.03.2003: Leader: Blair must win the argument
02.03.2003: Nick Cohen: The only way to peace
02.03.2003: Peter Preston: Balance will be the first casualty
02.03.2003: Terry Jones: Tony Blair and the hawks
02.03.2003: Rosemary Hollis: A diplomatic solution?
02.03.2003: Business focus: Attacking the state
02.03.2003: Bulent Yusuf: Global press week
Email your views to debate@observer.co.uk

The Business of War
02.03.2003: The first privatised war
02.03.2003: Firms with friends in high places
02.03.2003: OK, who forgot the toilet rolls?
02.02.2003: Vincent Cable: The economic consequences of war

Terror threat
02.03.2003: Top 9/11 suspect seized in Pakistan
02.03.2003: Saudi envoy in UK linked to 9/11
War on Terrorism: Observer special

Iraq after Saddam
23.02.2003: Val Percival: Lessons from Kosovo
16.02.2003: Iraqi opposition slams plan for military governor
16.02.2003: Kanan Makiya: Our hopes betrayed
Talk: Iraq's democrats betrayed?
09.02.2003: Focus: The Iraq Bush will build
09.02.2003: Robert L Barry: The next Yugoslavia?

Observer highlights: the broadest debate
19.01.2003: Leader: Why force may be needed
Talk: Where do you stand on Iraq?
16.02.2003: Andrew Rawnsley: It's do or die, Prime Minister
16.02.2003: Tony Blair: The price of my conviction
09.02.2003: Mary Riddell: With Bible and bombs
16.02.2003: Nick Cohen: The Left isn't listening
23.02.2003: William Shawcross: Why Saddam will never disarm
16.02.2003: Dan Plesch: Disarm Saddam without war
23.02.2003: Focus: Twilight of a tyrant
16.02.2003: Focus: Worlds apart on war
16.02.2003: Henry Porter: One rule for Israel, another for Saddam
26.01.2003: Charles Kennedy: We're being bulldozed into war
16.02.2003: Leader: We must not rule out war
09.02.2003: Leader: The dossier that shamed Britain
26.01.2003: Letters: What you say about our stand on Iraq
16.02.2003: Mary Riddell: The great unheard finally speak out
09.02.2003: Jason Burke: Powell doesn't know who he is up against
02.02.2003: David Aaronovitch: Why the Left is wrong on Saddam
16.02.2003: Anthony Sampson: Why Britain's war?
09.02.2003: Jason Burke: The missing link?
19.01.2003: Debate: What prominent Britons think
02.02.2003: Gil Loescher: The refugee crisis
26.01.2003: Mary Riddell: Don't disdain the doves
26.01.2003: Terry Jones: My neighbour trouble
05.01.2003: Nick Cohen: Saddam won't run
14.07.2002: John Pilger: The great charade
29.12.2002: Ken Nichols: Back to Iraq as a human shield
15.09.2002: Jason Burke: Return to Kurdistan
01.09.2002: Dilip Hiro: US blind eye to poison gas
11.08.2002: Nick Cohen: Who will save Iraq?
04.08.2002: Richard Harries: Not a just war
25.08.2002: Christopher Hitchens: With friends like these
22.09.2002: Terry Jones: The audacious courage of Mr Blair
22.09.2002: Rosemary Hollis: Hawks won't stop with Baghdad
11.08.2002: Mark Leonard: Could the left back war?
17.03.2002: John Lloyd: Anti-Americanism betrays the left
17.02.2002: Terry Jones: George's friendly bombs
02.12.2001: David Rose: The doves are wrong - again

Special reports
Iraq: Observer special
Observer Worldview
Afghanistan
Terrorism crisis
Islam and the West

More global commentary
More from Peter Beaumont
More from Jason Burke
More from Ed Vulliamy
More from Mark Leonard
More from Dan Plesch
Worldview highlights: debating American power

Useful links
UNSCOM
UN resolutions on Iraq
British Foreign Office: Relations with Iraq
US State Department Iraq Update
Arab.net - Iraq resources
Campaign against Sanctions on Iraq
Centre for non-proliferation studies




UP


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006