Why I back what Blair rejects

OneWorld UK

By Daniel Nelson

There are two types of nations similar to ours today, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a speech about the future of Britains armed forces on Friday.

His two types of nation were those who do war fighting and peacekeeping and those who have, effectively, except in the most exceptional circumstances, retreated to the peacekeeping alone.

In his speech aboard a Navy ship in Plymouth, he clearly backed the first of his two categories - unsurprisingly, as the leader of a country that traditionally is quick to resort to arms (Ireland, Oman, Falklands, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan)

And as is usual with politicians, he tried to tip the argument by selective use of language. Note that the choice he offered is not between two paths of equal value but between his favoured option (a war-fighting nation) and those who want to retreat (i.e. who are backing off, running away, dodging responsibility, perhaps even being cowardly).

Nevertheless, its time to speak up for the second option: peacekeeping, with war kept for exceptional circumstances.

That sounds like a perfectly good policy to me. It is a defensible policy which I, and probably many in Britain, would be happy to support. It certainly beats a trigger-happy approach (five Blair wars in six years, at least one of them on utterly spurious grounds).

Surely war only in exceptional policies is what we should be striving for. Indeed, politicians who favour war in anything other than exceptional circumstances must answer the charge of war-mongering. They must also face the charge of weighing the lives of their own soldiers too lightly and, given that modern wars tend to kill and injure far more civilians than soldiers, of undervaluing the value of civilian lives (especially foreign civilians).

Part of the problem is that Blair seems to believe that the Great in Britain derives from a willingness to fight, rather than from geographic consolidation.

Similarly, he seems to believe that it is of the utmost importance to stay one of the worlds top dogs, the clearest symbol of which is to retain a UN Security Council seat, which is why we cannot give up our nuclear arsenal (and which is why we dont want the nuclear club to grow).

I want to respect my country and, yes, to be proud of it. But I want to tell Blair that my respect and pride are not built on my countrys ability to wage war. I would rather be a Sweden or a Norway, not forcing my values on others at the end of a gun yet still playing a quiet and modest part in international affairs; helping keep the peace and going to war only in exceptional circumstances.

That may not be good enough for glory-seeking Blair, but its enough for me.

* Blair reflects on 21st century security