Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Letter to Blair
Topic Started: Apr 26 2004, 02:36 PM (355 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
This is the letter which has been sent by over 50 senior British diplomats to the Prime Minister. I think Blair should take this seriously and needs to address some of these concerns. They cannot simply be dismissed a 'left wingers' these are eminent and respected people with experience of the middle east. In my opinion Parliament must debate this matter in the national interest rather than the semi-secretative dicussion behind closed doors.

Quote:
 
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States.

Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "Road Map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds.

... But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence.

Britain and the other sponsors of the Road Map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.

Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement.

All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case.

To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.

Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region.

... The military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them.

It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders.

Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition.

... We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally.

We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency.

If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Well, they are...

First of all, it sounds a lot like they are saying, "This ain't gonna work. Let's give up and abandon Israel and Iraq."

Their descriptions of policies as "one-sided and illegal" are opinion, not based on fact.

Quote:
 
To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.


How would they describe it? These resistors ARE terrorists, Saddam loyalists (fanatics), Islamofascists (fanatics) and foreigners (from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan).

These diplomats are, plainly and simply, moral cowards.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
IMO, it would be foolish for anyone to give up on Israel. The prophetic writings are to my understanding quite clear on this. I am *very* happy that the U.S. is an ally of Israel, and vice-versa. [I can hear Kirk in the back of my mind saying, 'Never mind what the prophecy says!'--from Return of the Archons.]
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
You think we should base foreign policy based on religious dogma?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I don't accept that it is dogma, so I cannot provide an answer for you that would be acceptable. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
OK, let me rephrase it. You think we should make decisions about foreign policy based on an interpretation of the Bible?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I believe that it is extremely wise of the United States to retain Israel as our ally. That's all I'm going to say on that publically. (BTW, I had a response prepared for you in the 'Troop Shortage' thread, but I lost it! I will compose it again soon. :))
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I'll take that as a yes. Unfortunately, your position is a widely held one. Until we stop making decisions based on religion we'll never be able to be seen as a neutral authority in the world. That can only work against us, it's part of the problems were now facing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Until we stop making decisions based on religion we'll never be able to be seen as a neutral authority in the world.

This may be true. However, I base nearly all of the decisions in my life on my faith. It's what defines me. I guess you're happy I'm not the President, eh? ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Apr 26 2004, 06:26 PM
You think we should base foreign policy based on religious dogma?

Who said we do this, and do you have proof, or is this another anti-religion spiel?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^Actually Bill, he was responding to this statement by Fesarius

Quote:
 
IMO, it would be foolish for anyone to give up on Israel. The prophetic writings are to my understanding quite clear on this


So it was a fair question IMO.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Apr 26 2004, 06:46 PM
I'll take that as a yes. Unfortunately, your position is a widely held one.

Widely held by whom? Please don't say "The White House."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
ds9074,

What prompted this letter to the prime minister? I read this letter and I read something different from what the other posters are eluding to. This is just my opinion but I don't get the impression that they are saying, "Let's abandon Israel and Iraq". Not at all. It sounds to me as if they are expressing concern as to which direction this conflict is going. To express concern does not merit being called a moral coward. A moral coward is one who cowers to the overwhelming influence of one more powerful. A moral coward is one who follows blindly without conviction. In fact, maybe speaking up is characteristic of a brave people.

To me, it sounds like an expression of concern, not abandonment.

So what did Prime Minister Blair do with this letter? Sweep it under the rug and shrug it off to leftist politics? :D

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Intrepid2002
Apr 27 2004, 02:35 AM
ds9074,

What prompted this letter to the prime minister? I read this letter and I read something different from what the other posters are eluding to. This is just my opinion but I don't get the impression that they are saying, "Let's abandon Israel and Iraq". Not at all. It sounds to me as if they are expressing concern as to which direction this conflict is going. To express concern does not merit being called a moral coward. A moral coward is one who cowers to the overwhelming influence of one more powerful. A moral coward is one who follows blindly without conviction. In fact, maybe speaking up is characteristic of a brave people.

To me, it sounds like an expression of concern, not abandonment.

So what did Prime Minister Blair do with this letter? Sweep it under the rug and shrug it off to leftist politics? :D

Thank goodness there are some people out there who can actually read something without simply jumping to conclusion because it happens to challenge their opinion. These people are not saying we should abandon anyone, nor that we should not be allied to Israel, simply the current direction of things is wrong.

I think Blair will publically not take much action, but behind the scenes there will be concerns. Primarily the concern is that the currently people in the Foreign Office has very similar views to these retired diplomats.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I can read something without jumping to conclusion. I'm also pretty well versed in "diplo-speak". Terms like "all those wasted months" indicate, in diplo-speak, "let's dump this turkey because I have tennis with the Prime Minister of Kunzinkistan."

I stand by my accusations of moral cowardice (as in not having the guts to see something through, no matter how hard, because it IS the right thing to do) as well.

Sorry, I've met some of these people before. They always look for the easy way out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus