Tony Blair and The Chicago Doctrine….Ad Hoc yet Targeted?
September 1, 2010 | 4 Comments
Tonight (September 1st, 2010), BBC Two aired an interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair marking the release of his memoir entitled A Journey. Andrew Marr gave Blair quite a run for his money during the interview asking hard questions about everything from social, economic and domestic issues to the Chicago doctrine to the invasion of Iraq and the possibility of military intervention in Iran. All of this, of course, with respect to the decisions that Blair’s (and Brown’s) New Labour government had taken during their time in power. The interviewee was vintage Tony Blair, self righteous to the end, almost arrogant in his beliefs in actions undertaken during the ‘Blair years’. A few things popped up during this interview that I would like to engage with here at The Commons. The overarching issue in contention would be that of military interventions and what Marr called the Chicago doctrine; in reference to a speech that Blair had given in Chicago in 1999 positing the United Kingdom in a specific direction regarding the type of military role it would follow post Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Marr asked Blair about military intervention and Blair unequivocally defended his belief in going into Iraq. This is fine, and I am not writing this piece in order to get into whether or not the invasion was legal or illegal. Blair obviously thought it was legal and the debate can go on and on. Blair said something strange, he said that military interventions against violent dictators should be sanctioned by the United Nations in very specific circumstances. He went on to state that military intervention would have had to be used against someone like Saddam Hussein, but not in the case of someone like Robert Mugabe. I feel that Blair should have qualified this answer as it leaves us all a little muddied as to what he means – outside of the debate on WMDs. Here’s my take on it.
The question of whether or not Iraq should have been invaded is one that is the focal point of vigorous and vehement debate in political science circles all over the globe. The fact that the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ went in without approval from the United Nations signalled something more profound than the legality of the invasion. It signalled a heightened sense of security as predetermined by those in specific defence oriented circles (think of the numerous government funded military think tanks and military oriented politicians defining the new role of the world’s military industrial complex post-USSR as well as its private sector counter part; namely the increasing importance of private security firms like the infamous Blackwater group…an issue that I will write about in the coming weeks). Moreover, despite the fact that this sense of security has become geographically determined, delineated and demarcated as mainly coming from ‘harmful’ ideologies that exist mainly in parts of the Middle East, or the Muslim world to be more specific – it has also become intertwined with the notion of politically, socially, and economically unstable forms of mediated messages and their very intense infrastructures. If the USA is the world’s leader in mediated cultural messages (such as music videos, films and other aspects of the cultural industries) the Middle East is the world’s leader when it comes to (un)mediated religious ones.
It is not an easy job to develop an effective religious infrastructure that can belt out messages at the level of intensity like specific groups in the Middle East have. It takes many things: time (as in ages), populations that are fully engaged, and political regimes that further their part of their message through nodes of networks, and most importantly an assemblage of civic duty underpinned as well as explicitly based and moulded around the message in a global type of way. Specific organisations in the Middle East span the different religious denominations or sects (because let’s not forget, Islam is not one religion…but many). As an example Islam includes: Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Kharijites, Quranists, Ahmadiyya, Wahabbis and a host of minor sects as well as religious groups that are ‘affiliated’ with Islam but may not be practiced in the same way. Many organisations exist in order to ensure the development and subsequent welfare of Islamic states and their people. Groups such as SESRIC, and the Executive Bureau of the Islamic Solidarity Fund, Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Islamic Ship Owners Association and so on, all exist in order to facilitate Pan-Islamism; and that’s the key. Pan-Islamism on a global scale defines a global message of Islam, allowing this to be hijacked by those on the fringe becomes a security concern; this especially after September 11th but actually since the years of Reagan and Thatcher and the first ‘war on terror’. As an aside this is where I think people such as Tarek Fatah have it completely wrong. Fatah states that global messages revolving around Islam do not have an effect on Muslims who are geographically removed from those regions regarding terrorist activities (as in would – be terrorists being affected by internet radicalization). If that’s the case then why do thousands of Muslims from the Western world embark upon the Hadj once a year, the Holy pilgrimage to Mecca? The peninsula matters I’m afraid.
The important thing to note is that within this spectrum of faith there are players and actors. These players and actors perpetuate their knowledge of and message aligned with their version of Islam. This infrastructure is highly developed and for the most part healthy, vibrant, international in scope, inclusive, tolerant and entrenched (See for example the Aga Khan Foundation). The problem lies within what we already know, the messages that are not any of these aforementioned things but violent, intolerant and extreme. This would not have been a problem but for the level of religious infrastructure existent in the wider Middle East stretching all the way from the valleys of Lebanon to the Caucasus Mountains on the border of Eastern Europe, from the deltas of Egypt all the way to the coasts of Somalia, the dunes of Chad and Niger and the Sahel of Mali and the Sudan. What we are talking about is not only a religion, but a religious infrastructure engrained in the cultures and peoples of the Global South. The Middle East is the epicentre of this activity, this infrastructure, funded by oil barons and tycoons, as well as oil-oriented state political structures in the form of Kingdoms and Sultanates such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq. If this infrastructure of belief were to be negatively affected by the extreme fringe aspects of Islam, then what we have is a powerful propaganda machine spewing out messages about Jihad. This would be a nightmare scenario, and this is why – with regards to military interventions – Saddam was a priority and Mugabe is not, it is why the destabilisation of Pakistan matters, it is why groups such as Al Shabab, Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, matter and why Mugabe’s ZANU PF does not – militarily speaking of course.
Thus, I believe, the Chicago doctrine delineated a specific type of military intervention for ‘A’ coalition of the willing; willing to bypass the UN and fulfilling aspects of collective security, or at least collective conscience (as in the case of Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Although Saddam was far from a religious extremist in our new understanding of the term, the fact that he was geographically located in the Middle East, that he continually defied UN security resolutions, and was a tyrant all mattered, but I somehow think the geographic location played more of a part then we give it credit for. Sadly, Zimbabwe just doesn’t register. The Chicago doctrine, in my view, simply stated that military force is required to remove tyrants on an ad hoc and specifically mandated basis. Anyhow I look forward to picking up Blair’s memoir and knit picking it for issues, trying hard not to be blindly convinced by Blair’s passion for the written (and spoken) word.
Tags: A Journey > Pan Islamism > Robert Mugabe > Saddam Hussein > security > terrorism > Tony Blair
Comments
4 Responses to “Tony Blair and The Chicago Doctrine….Ad Hoc yet Targeted?”
Leave a Reply
September 2nd, 2010 @ 1:17 am
[...] Read more… [...]
September 2nd, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Quick question as I ponder this more: it seems that geography is definitely part of the calculus for deciding when to use force to remove a tyrant. Pertaining to the binary example of why Iraq and why not Zimbabwe, is it necessarily the geography of Iraq that is the prominent feature, or is it the geography of Zimbabwe? Put another way, if all other criteria for action are satisfied, is it that geography rules in Iraq, or that it rules out Zimbabwe?
Second quick thought: is there a rhetorical element at play here? We all hear abuot “peace in the middle east” (or “middle east peace” or “…process”, “…plan”, or whatever). I’m not sure there’s nearly as much sloganeering about peace in Africa. This would still play into the question of geography, but in a different way.
[Reply]
September 6th, 2010 @ 7:02 am
it felt safer when tony was our PM. He has got it right on iran, we need to stop them before they nuke someone.. cant imagine what all you protesters would be saying if they nuked another country! as for our soldiers , its a shame when they die, but soldiers know the risks.. thats why they sign up
[Reply]
Adnan Gilani Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@Jack please clarify how you felt safer with Tony at the helm? Did he get it right on Iraq? Was he a victim of U.S. insistence to join the mighty coalition? Did he get it right, when he expressed remorse for his actions during the latter part of his tenure, then altering his perceptions after his political career? Tony’s foreign policy directives were a simple reflection of U.S. ambitions for the Middle East, the only safe thing Tony did was to ensure his wallet was secure.
[Reply]