Tony Blair and a battle for global values

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." - Isaiah 1:15

As I was reading through the current (Jan/Feb 2007) Foreign Affairs journal, I came upon an essay written by Tony Blair entitled "A Battle for Global Values." He essentially declares that the battle against "global extremism" cannot be won in any sort of conventional way; rather, this battle will be won as the Good Guys demonstrate that their values are far superior to the values of the Bad Guys, thus converting the moderate population at large to the side of the Good Guys. Who are these Good Guys? He goes out of his way to say that they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. who all "believe in religious tolerance, in openness to others, in democracy, in liberty, and in human rights administered in secular courts." I have to wonder if Tony Blair ever looked across the pond at his ally and wondered just how much any of these traits truly apply to him or those who still adore him.

In the article's introduction, Blair declares, "We will never get real support for the tough actions
that may well be essential to safeguarding our way of life unless we also attack global poverty, environmental degradation, and injustice with equal valor." I only wish that Bush were on the same page as Blair when it comes to the global war on terror, but this essay just cemented my opinion that the Blair and Bush alliance is one of necessity. Blair sees his own goals clearly, but he is entirely incapable of working toward those goals without finding a larger ally moving in roughly the same direction.

Of course Blair is right when he says that the credibility and Values capital of "The Coalition of the Willing," hinges on the unrelenting demonstration of religious tolerance, openness to others, democracy, liberty, and human rights administered in secular courts. Every Abu Ghraib; every introduction of religious extremism into the courts of Iraq, Afghanistan, or the United States; every time the United States embraces the hubris of "go it alone" statecraft; every time Newt Gingrich makes headlines talking about the need for limiting free speech in the name of security the war on Values is lost to a few thousand more of those moderates around the world who are watching the Coalition of the Willing so closely. And he rightly recognizes that the War on Terror is doomed to fail unless we attack global poverty, environmental degradation, and injustice with equal valor.

Blair's essay made me sad that the War on Terror looks absolutely nothing like the one he describes.

“Power without oversight” or “What I learned from the frogs”

"Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night... So teach us to number our days, that we might apply our hearts unto wisdom." - Psalm 90

Yesterday (Thurs. Jan 11th) evening, I watched President Bush blatantly ignore the will of 80% of the voting public, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and a number of his own generals (many of whom have found themselves promptly reassigned) as he escalated American involvement in the Iraqi civil war. His wildly delusional assessment of the situation in Iraq and his subsequent bull-headed decision to add over 20,000 troops to the forces in Baghdad is disheartening.
This type of reckless decision-making is to be expected from the President, and I'm not sure why I was holding out hope that he'd take note of those around him who are far more qualified to be making these decisions than he is. I'm not sure why I continued to hope that he'd take note of an overwhelming majority of American citizens, those who he theoretically serves.

I taught in France for one year, and I never thought I'd miss that which I am longing for now: the ability of the people to check an official gone amok. I witnessed multiple general strikes and an active citizenry bring a Prime Minister to his knees. They didn't have to wait until the next election to check their leader.
Despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and gaining office only through a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision, President Bush ran wild as if he'd won in a landslide of public support. Despite the most embarrassingly failure-ridden and corrupt administration in recent memory, the President did not hold a single relevant official accountable during his first six years of office (until the American people pummeled the Republicans in 2006 and Rumsfeld was justly fired the next day). Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the President continued to insist the war in Iraq was being won until only weeks ago as the region teeters on the brink of unrestrained civil war. And yet, thanks to 52% of the voting public in 2004, we must endure two more years with absolutely no say in Bush's erroneous policies.
I can't say that I necessarily enjoyed the immediate effects of the combined student protests, limited strikes, and general strikes. The demonstrations around government buildings were fun, but I was rather annoyed by having to walk everywhere and wake up every day wondering whether it was time to go back to work again or just strap on my walking shoes and see where the demonstrations were that day. In spite of the inconveniences, I can now look back with longing at the power the French people reserve as a right; the power to check their elected leaders immediately for direct results.
Lacking any such power in the United States, I can only pray. I pray that this Iraqi nightmare is soon past my country. And I pray that the future leaders of the United States will be people who apply their hearts unto wisdom.