Final stop
INDONESIA : It's Thursday, so it must be Jakarta - the last stop of this BlairAir tour. This morning in Auckland Tony Blair promised to strive to save the planet from climate change. This evening he embarks on a mission to save civilisation from Islamic extremism. No-one can say this boy lacks ambition.
Lest you think I'm sneering, allow me to point out that I'm merely quoting from the prime minister's recent speeches on terrorism - in particular one delivered in London a week ago which he believes was woefully under-reported. He may have a point.
It reveals that the next stage of Tony Blair's "war on terror" is not to be another military campaign but an ideological one designed to defeat the ideas of "Islamic extremism". To do this he wants to help create a "moderate Muslim" resistance to them.
If you sense an echo of the Cold War in this, you're not the only one. One senior government figure (and that's not code for the PM himself) has told me that all the tools of the state will have to be deployed to defeat the ideas of "Islamic extremists" much as they were in the battle with Communism.
The West desperately needs allies in this new battle of ideas. The PM has come to Jakarta because, we're told, it's "the right place, the right people, the right politics and the right time". In other words he wants to build strong links with the world's largest Muslim country now that's it's run by a directly elected president and not a dictator. He wants to add its leader to those of Pakistan and Turkey as members of a moderate Muslim coalition lined up against the "Islamic extremists".
Why you may wonder have I placed inverted commas around the words "Islamic extremist"?
I've done it to highlight a phrase the prime minister says he was advised to avoid since it might give offence to many ordinary Muslims. They believe that it focuses attention on the religion of the instigators of 9/11, Bali, 7/7 and all the rest rather than on their criminality. This advice, claimed Tony Blair, was part of the same thinking that argued that Muslims were bound to be react violently to the invasion of a Muslim country. It was, he said, all part of "a posture of weakness, defeatism and, most of all was deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom". Strong words.
He went on : "This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted head-on, in their essence, at their core... This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction".
That tells you why we're in Jakarta.
I'm 
Comments
You can always tell what Tony Blair is thinking,all you have to do is to listen to what George Bush is saying.
The final quote you give from Mr Blair smacks of the Liberal-Democratic ideology which is the essence of his 'civilisation'.
It seems a confused statement in isolation, he doesn't really define 'civilisation' or 'progress'. I would suggest he means forms of liberal democracy.
It just feels like his rhetoric was a bit weak here.
Education, Health, Terrorism, Asylum, ID cards, African Poverty, the Environment, Islamic Fundamentalism... Is there no end to his talents? What is he going to sort out next year?
If Tony Blair wants to make any strides towards a moderate Islam, he needs to firstly apologise for the fact that he blindly followed George W, into an illegal war, where tens of thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed......for Oil.
Then stand down, and hope God has been watching FOX News over the last few years.
It is of paramount importance that we defeat terrorism through a war of ideas in which we prove freedom and democracy to be the best approach. For once, I agree with Tony!
However, in what way is he winning the war of ideas and promoting freedom by introducing ID Cards, banning unauthorised demonstrations outside parliament, locking people up for 28 days without sufficient evidence to charge and restricting free speech?
This is very hypocritical, very costly and it all targets the innocent populace rather than terrorists. We can't protect freedom by sacrificing it. Why not spend all the money from ID Cards etc on police and security services to track down real terrorists and prosecute them?
Mark Wallace,
Campaign Manager,
The Freedom Association
www.tfa.net
I guess this is the modern "white man's burden" -- to save Muslims from Islam by imposing Western solutions to our problems, by force if necessary.
Freedom and democracy cannot be imposed, they have to emerge through the political and social evolution of societies. But the natural evolution of Muslim societies is constantly interrupted and disrupted by Western intervention designed not to help us but the ensure that rulers in our countries support Western agendas and interests. The best that the West can do is leave us alone - yes, things will be messy but we will learn more from our own mistakes than from Western lecturing, Western invasion and occupation, or Western-supported dictators.
Interesting to note, I think, that the most democratic country in the Middle East, and the one with the most vibrant political movements, is Iran, from which Western influence was expelled in 1979. Since then, enjoying genuine independence, it has pursued indigenous political solutions, learnt from its own experiences and achieved more democatization that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States etc. all put together.
Pity, therefore, that it is the one country that the US and its allies -- UK to the forefront -- is determined to attack. Coincidence?
Abid Hussain may be right.
If the battle is indeed now to be an idealogical and cultural one, it needs to be voiced by a leader we can trust.
It was Tony Benn who sorted politicians into "weather vanes" (who blow with the wind) and "signposts" (who steadfastly point in the same direction).
Tony Blair may think he is the latter, but the New Labour project as a whole is a dramatic example of the former. Our "pragmatic" Prime Minister seems to be a man of trends and perception management, whose adherence to moral absolutes, such as the truth is predicated on his agreeing with it at the time.
He is on a leaky raft of ideas, driven and tossed by the wind, and that is a flimsy platform for dialogue of any kind, let alone the most important idealogical issue of this era.
Whilst a numbers game is always dangerous, those people clamouring for the Prime Minister to repent over the Iraq war as a price for making strides towards ending Islamic extremism would do well to remember that Saddam Hussein and the Fascist regime he led killed a very much greater number of innocent Muslims and denied the right of free worship to Shias for many years. They would also do well to recall that British lives were lost protecting the lives and well-being of Bosnian Muslims during the Balkans conflict. To suggest that it is the British government that needs to take the first step in extending an olive branch to the extremists in Al Queda and the insurgent groups in Iraq is absurd. To do so would be to accept that flying hijacked airliners into buildings, blowing up embassies and murdering hostages are ligitimate tactics. The problem of Islamic extremist predates the Iraq war, it was not started by it. Some people might not like to hear this, it might be inconvenient and uncomfotable for them, but the fact remains.
As for the tired old mantras about "illegal wars" and "the war being all about oil" - rubbish. Look back at the transcripts of the UN sessions and read the background to the 1441 resolution. You might not have agreed with the war, but it was not illegal. Next consider the parlous state of the Iraqi oil industry and the tens of billions of (as it most likely will turn out to be, Western) investment that will be required to bring it up to full production capacity (investment denied it for years by the Baathist regime - and before people finger UN sanctions as being to blame, remember that oil-for-food was allowed and during the period of sanctions, the Iraqi army never seemed to go short). Thirdly, ask yourself if the charges of self interest on the part of the PM stand up to scrutiny - the war has cost billions (something the anti-war lobby never tire of pointing out) and UK and US military personel have lost their lives to say nothing of those Iraqi citizens tragically killed (another fact rightly pointed out by the anti-war Left although the figures are often inflated for political effect). Less importantly (for what could be more important than people dying) the government has lost a large chunk of its support (possibly for ever) and Tony Blair himself has been permanently tarnished in many people's eyes. Much of this could have been predicted before the military action was launched. In view of these, do you really, honestly believe that the PM went into this for personal politic gain? Do you really, honestly believe that he values George Bush's good opinion so much?
Finally, it's time that some people grew up and stopped acting like trendy Sixth Formers who think that knee-jerk anti-Americanism makes them look "cool". Their blind hatred of the US and its president forces them closer to governments and groups who it would be advisable to avoid. For too long the governments of rogue Middle East states and their apologists in the West have blamed the US and its allies for the appaling state of their own countries in order to divert attention away from the true reasons for their situation - inept, belicose and corrupt governments such as that which oppressed the Iraqi people for decades.
I for one am glad that the PM is going on the front foot on this issue. The anti-war movenment has been allowed to hold onto the moral high ground for too long, and has been asked too few questions about the morality of inactivity in the face of a murderous dictator which they advocate. Whilst it is true that "yeee haaa" is not a foreign policy, neither is encouraging everyone to link hands and join in a chorus of "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing".
I do wish our politicians would read these comments, because to my mind there are some very interesting points being made here. I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Wallace and Iqbal Siddiqui - there is far too much emphasis by this government in general and Tony Blair in particular along the lines of: 'Whatever you're doing, stop it' because it might conceivably be remotely connected to the chance of a terrorist threat.
Also I would go further than Chris Wills' comment - never mind what Tony Blair is going to solve next year - what is he going to solve next WEEK..??
So long as Blair, Bush and the West in general continues to offer unequivocal support to a state that is in breach of more UN resolutions than any other, it is hard to see how they can ever expect support from the Arab world, and by association, many Muslims.
I refer of course to Israel.
"This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction".
No it`s not,it is the age-old battle between you have something that we want,this time it`s about OIL.Tomorrow it could well be about food or land.If what Bush/Blair are saying is right why don`t we have troops in other parts of the world where people need help?i.e.Somalia they don`t have something we want (yet) thats why.Of course all these pretences make people feel better about what we are doing.All we are is modern day robber barons,simple as that.
Iqbal Siddiqui is right about leaving the Muslim world to develop by itself. Moderate Islam will emerge when Muslims have are free to choose between different voices within Islam. Then moderate, modern, progressive Islam will get stronger, and extremist and backward versions will be isolated and become irrelevant. This is what will happen if Muslims are left alone follow their natural evolution - only Muslims can destroy extremist Islam but they must be free to do it.
Iran is the only place this has happened because it is the only independent state in ME. That is why it is the most democratic state in ME, and also it is constantly attacked by the West. But is seems that the only freedom Bush and Blair like for Muslims is freedom to support them?
Important point: Iran is also very moderate and modern compared to other Islamists. It has a modern, democratic interpretation of political Islam, women are encouraged to go to university and enter careers, and the Islamic law there is not rigid, it is flexible and interpreted according to the needs of modern society. Same is true of opposition Islamic groups like Hamas and Ikhwan al-Muslimeen. It is very far from the medievalist conservatism of Taliban or Saudi Arabia.
But because it is independent, Iran takes unpopular positions like condemning zionism and wanting a nuclear deterrent against agressive states like the US.
West has to choose - if it wants Moderate Islam in independent countries, which might be hard to deal with because they protect their interests and support Muslim causes, or pro-western regimes in countries where Extremist Islam grows because it is opposed to West?
I do wish that Tony would come home and get on with the job of governing Britain, which is what we pay him and all his cronies for, rather than wittering about on the world stage where he is rightly regarded as a joke. Until he has sorted out the domestic issues - education, health, transport public services, pensions, all the day to day stuff he clearly now finds boring and beneath him - he should fight very shy of telling others how to live their lives or govern their countries.
BlairAir should be grounded for a while.
I think Blair should have also met the fundamentalist groups while he was in Jakarta and not the moderate groups only. It is important to understand their point of view as well and win their mind if possible. There is no point talking only with the moderate while ignoring the radicals. The reason I believe this is because the change is maybe not only needed from the radicals point of view and approaches but from the western people and governments as well.
Blair and other westeners should also think about minorities in a country like Indonesia. We have been victimised by both radicals and westerners. Our life is more difficult from time to time, not only on religions but also in employment, education, economy, etc. Thousands of churches have been bombed, closed, burned in past few years, what is the westerns have in mind about all of this? We are facing at the moment a growing grassroots and political movement both at local and national level to imposed syariah laws which put our future life in danger.
The problem here is the minorities trapped in the middle. The radicals see us as enemy and friends of the westerns but, unfortunately, the westerns just ignoring our presence.
What would you do about it Mr. Blair?
What I find worrying is the way Tony Blair, along with George Bush and so many other western politicians, sees it as a battle of values while assuming his values are universal (and good).
He has said the battle of values is about promoting democracy, the rule of law, justice, diversity, tolerance and modernity.
But he's defining these concepts by his own values and declaring war on those who not only have different values, but also have different definitions of the values he so loudly proclaims.
Tony Blair has said his values are not Western or American or Anglo-Saxon but universal, an incredibly arrogant stance and very reminiscent of religious dogma of all shades through the millennia.
While not Muslim, I come from a very mixed family that has experienced sectarianism for generations (including state executions, murders, excommunications, house burnings, pogroms, exile and more).
When anyone starts proclaiming their values are universal and must be defended against those who do not believe, then I find myself thinking "here we go again".
And as for Tony Blair's insistence that he's targeting extremists, not all Muslims, isn't that what's always said? Good Jew, bad Jew; good Catholic, bad Catholic; good Lutheran, bad Lutheran. First divide them up, then get rid of the bad ones; then divide them up some more and again get rid of the bad ones; and so it goes on...
In Auckland Tony Blair described "climate change" as a menace.
I wonder if his next step is to give it an ASBO.
When were new labour first elected?, are we sure it wasn't 1984.
Iqbal, finally someone talking sense! The vast majority (if not all) of democracies globally evolved at the behest of the domestic population, who sought representation and justice for all. It is left to them to decide the nature of their democracy and even whether they desire such a system in the first place.
The imposition of a political system, regardless of its nature, is destined to fail because it is not the political system of the people it is supposed to represent. It should also not be assumed that there is a heirarchy of government structures, with those who perceive themselves to be at the summit adopting a global right to create government in their image.
My middle east policy would be one of passive friendship. The people that live there have more of a right to decide their own fate than we do to impose our will upon them. Winston Churchill said that a fanatic was, "someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." The only way to win is to ignore them and ignore their subject.
Unusually sensitive and thoughtful, these recent comments on terrorism from our Prime Minister.
But 'defeating the ideas of Islamic extemism' through an intellectual response, as good as it sounds, misses the point in one crucial way.
"Islamic extremists" are clearly inspired by religious ideas - notably the notion of 'jihad' on unbelievers -and they use such ideas to legitimize the atrocities they carry out all over the world.
Yet it does not seem that such ideas are the root cause or motivation for such atrocities. It is essentially 'political grievances' - the West's interference in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq in particular - that inspire terrorist attacks, rather than fundamentalist ideology. How often, for example, do we see terrorist attacks upon Buddhists in China? Surely we would see such attacks if fundamentalist ideology, which advocates society based entirely upon Islamic law, were the sole cause of terrorist attacks?
If Mr Blair is really serious about defeating terrorism in some sort of grand battle, he needs to address the political grievances which lie at its heart; grievances which he himself has helped intensify.
I'm sorry, but I want to know what Blair's definitions of Civilisation, Progress, Extremism, Moderate and Reaction may be. I don't think we have a particularly clear understanding of this.
Of course this is all a bit esoteric, but maybe you could get him to enlighten us all, Nick?
Then at least we could see if he measures up to his own definitions and 'Pretty Straight' standards.
"They believe that it focuses attention on the religion of the instigators of 9/11, Bali, 7/7 and all the rest rather than on their criminality"
The instigators of 9/11, Bali, 7/7 and other attacks are the ones focusing attention on religion. How many times have we heard them say "Allah Ackbar" or "Jihad"? How many times have they used passages from the Koran as justification for their actions? How many times have they said they will be rewarded by Allah for their attacks? The answer is every single time.
And if those who have posted comments already were so concerned about "innocent Muslims" they would have protested the following:
(a) Bosnia/Kosovo
(b) Iran/Iraq war
(c) Iraqi attack on Kuwait
(d) India/Pakistan wars
(e) Arab attacks on Israel
(f) any attack launched by Bill Clinton on Arab countries
But they did not. The real reason they protest now is because they hate Bush/Blair/Right wingers.
I forgot to mention the biggest one of them all: the treatment of people in the Middle East by dictatorial regimes such as Saddam gassing Kurds or people being tortured for opposing said regimes
There is a battle going on, and it is both a clash between cultures and a clash about culture.
The problem with the prime ministerial argument is that while many in the West - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - view the 'clash' as being between the civilisation of the secular West and the civilisation of the Islamic world(and by that I mean those parts of the world with majority Muslim populations), many in the Islamic world see it as a battle between Islam and the infidel.
There is evidence of this in the appalling treatment of Abdul Rahman, who faced execution for having converted to Christianity. He has had to leave his homeland, and has been granted asylum in Italy. It would be inconceivable for anyone in a Western democracy to face execution for religious belief - we got that out of our system in the seventeenth century. Yet, there is a movement to advance the use of Sharia law, which prescribes the death penalty in numerous circumstances. Furthermore, the religious liberty that people enjoy in the West is not reciprocated in Muslim countries. Try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia - or a Jew, for that matter.
We are not playing on a level playing field. Until we realise that each side is coming to the argument from a completely different angle, we will get nowhere. That is why we can use the phrase 'Islamic terrorists', because reprehensible as it may be, they feel themselves to be inspired by their religion.
Furthermore, papering over the cracks in typical Blairite fashion will not help anyone!
Fridays Daily Telegraph says that Tony Blairs 'friends' predict he will be gone by christmas.Are you picking up anything to lend credence to this revelation Nick?
Can we expect Blair to start wearing his underwear over his tights anytime soon?
While I appreciate Mr. Blair's anti-terror credentials, his going green all of a sudden is nothing but tosh!. He's reacting to David Cameron, plain and simple.
I am always been a fan of u, nick. enjoyed ur analysis - totally on board with that
i have a question: how far do you think that Blair will go for the reform of House of Lords if he is willing to leave that as part of his legacy.cheers
Blair obviously still has some interesting things to say, and the energy to say them - but given he is so discredited at home and abroad, the message seems to be lost. I wonder if this is just about being in power for too long? Thatcher was so hated by the time she left office. Is this about corruption of power, a perception of it, or just us wanting someone new? I'm not sure which one it is, but the answer may well help Gordon Brown to decide well in advance when to depart from power.
Tony Blair plans to stay PM till may 2010 the very day of the next election according to close friends of him.He will hand over the party leadership to Gordon Brown next year but will continue as PM for 2 or 3 years after that,.So do you welcome the news that Blair is to be our leader for 4 more years or does it fill you with dismay?
One of the major causes of erosion to power is time. Long story short, if Tony Blair's power is weak now (and it must be if we keep talking about the leadership of the Labour party), how would it be at the dates suggested by Mr. Smith above?
Keeping Blair until 2010 would probably mean Gordon Brown is taking over as Leader of Her Majesties Opposition rather than as Prime Minister. At best, Prime Minister Brown would be working with a very slim majority. The math is hard to predict well in advance but in my opinion it could be a very close run election. I think the sooner Brown takes over and gets to work on a fresh agenda the better Labour's chances will be in the next election.