布莱尔是个有为青年
八月 7, 2006 – 7:41 am |Text: UK PM Tony Blair’s
historic LA speech defining war on
"Reactionary Islam"
Speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs
Council by UK PM Tony Blair
1 August 2006
www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9948.asp
[IMRA: PM Blair’s otherwise brilliant
presentation does reveal cognitive
dissonance:
"Israel…a country surrounded by a lot of
people who basically want to deny
your right to exist"
but
" The Palestinian State must …not
threaten Israel’s safety. This is what
the majority of …Palestinians want. " ]
================
Full text:
Overnight, the news came through that as
well as continuing conflict in the
Lebanon, Britain’s Armed Forces suffered
losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It
brings home yet again the extraordinary
courage and commitment of our armed
forces who risk their lives and in some
cases tragically lose them,
defending our country’s security and that of
the wider world. These are
people of whom we should be very proud.
I know the US has suffered heavy losses
too in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We
should never forget how much we owe these
people, how great their bravery,
and their sacrifice.
I planned the basis of this speech
several weeks ago. The crisis in the
Lebanon has not changed its thesis. It has
brought it into sharp relief.
The purpose of the provocation that began
the conflict was clear. It was to
create chaos, division and bloodshed, to
provoke retaliation by Israel that
would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being
inflamed, not against those who
started the aggression but against those who
responded to it.
It is still possible even now to come out
of this crisis with a better
long-term prospect for the cause of
moderation in the Middle East
succeeding. But it would be absurd not to
face up to the immediate damage to
that cause which has been done.
We will continue to do all we can to halt
the hostilities. But once that has
happened, we must commit ourselves to a
complete renaissance of our strategy
to defeat those that threaten us. There is
an arc of extremism now
stretching across the Middle East and
touching, with increasing definition,
countries far outside that region. To defeat
it will need an alliance of
moderation, that paints a different future
in which Muslim, Jew and
Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and
developing nations can make
progress in peace and harmony with each
other. My argument to you today is
this: we will not win the battle against
this global extremism unless we win
it at the level of values as much as force,
unless we show we are
even-handed, fair and just in our
application of those values to the world.
The point is this. This is war, but of a
completely unconventional kind.
9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in
Madrid, the countless terrorist
attacks in countries as disparate as
Indonesia or Algeria, what is now
happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia,
the continuing conflict in
Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the
same thing. What are the values
that govern the future of the world? Are
they those of tolerance, freedom,
respect for difference and diversity or
those of reaction, division and
hatred? My point is that this war can’t be
won in a conventional way. It can
only be won by showing that our values are
stronger, better and more just,
more fair than the alternative. Doing this,
however, requires us to change
dramatically the focus of our policy.
Unless we re-appraise our strategy,
unless we revitalise the broader global
agenda on poverty, climate change, trade,
and in respect of the Middle East,
bend every sinew of our will to making peace
between Israel and Palestine,
we will not win. And this is a battle we
must win.
What is happening today out in the Middle
East, in Afghanistan and beyond is
an elemental struggle about the values that
will shape our future.
It is in part a struggle between what I
will call Reactionary Islam and
Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its
implications go far wider. We are
fighting a war, but not just against
terrorism but about how the world
should govern itself in the early 21st
century, about global values.
The root causes of the current crisis are
supremely indicative of this. Ever
since September 11th, the US has embarked on
a policy of intervention in
order to protect its and our future
security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq.
Hence the broader Middle East initiative in
support of moves towards
democracy in the Arab world.
The point about these interventions,
however, military and otherwise, is
that they were not just about changing
regimes but changing the values
systems governing the nations concerned. The
banner was not actually "regime
change" it was "values change".
What we have done therefore in
intervening in this way, is far more
momentous than possibly we appreciated at
the time.
Of course the fanatics, attached to a
completely wrong and reactionary view
of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for
years before September 11th. In
Chechnya, in India and Pakistan, in Algeria,
in many other Muslim countries,
atrocities were occurring. But we did not
feel the impact directly. So we
were not bending our eye or our will to it
as we should have. We had barely
heard of the Taleban. We rather inclined to
the view that where there was
terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault
of the governments of the
countries concerned.
We were in error. In fact, these acts of
terrorism were not isolated
incidents. They were part of a growing
movement. A
movement that believed Muslims had departed
from their proper faith, were
being taken over by Western culture, were
being governed treacherously by
Muslims complicit in this take-over, whereas
the true way to recover not
just the true faith, but Muslim confidence
and self esteem, was to take on
the West and all its works.
Sometimes political strategy comes
deliberatively, sometimes by instinct.
For this movement, it was probably by
instinct. It has an ideology, a
world-view, it has deep convictions and the
determination of the fanatic. It
resembles in many ways early revolutionary
Communism. It doesn’t always need
structures and command centres or even
explicit communication. It knows what
it thinks.
Its strategy in the late 1990s became
clear. If they were merely fighting
with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow
Muslims - being as decent and
fair-minded as anyone else - would choose to
reject their fanaticism. A
battle about Islam was just Muslim versus
Muslim. They realised they had to
create a completely different battle in
Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.
This is what September 11th did. Still
now, I am amazed at how many people
will say, in effect, there is increased
terrorism today because we invaded
Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget
entirely that September 11th
predated either. The West didn’t attack this
movement. We were attacked.
Until then we had largely ignored it.
The reason I say our response was even
more momentous than it seemed at the
time, is this. We could have chosen security
as the battleground. But we didn’t. We chose
values. We said we didn’t want
another Taleban or a different Saddam.
Rightly, in my view, we realised that
you can’t defeat a fanatical ideology just
by imprisoning or killing its
leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.
There is a host of analysis written about
mistakes made in Iraq or
Afghanistan, much of it with hindsight but
some of it with justification.
But it all misses one vital point. The
moment we decided not to change
regime but to change the value system, we
made both Iraq and Afghanistan
into existential battles for Reactionary
Islam. We posed a threat not to
their activities simply: but to their
values, to the roots of their
existence.
We committed ourselves to supporting
Moderate, Mainstream Islam. In almost
pristine form, the battles in Iraq or
Afghanistan became battles between the
majority of Muslims in either country who
wanted democracy and the minority
who realise that this rings the death-knell
of their ideology.
What is more, in doing this, we widened
the definition of Reactionary Islam.
It is not just Al-Qaeda who felt threatened
by the prospect of two brutal
dictatorships - one secular, one religious -
becoming tolerant democracies.
Any other country who could see that change
in those countries might result
in change in theirs, immediately also felt
under threat. Syria and Iran, for
example. No matter that previously, in what
was effectively another
political age, many of those under threat
hated each other.
Suddenly new alliances became formed
under the impulsion of the common
threat.
So in Iraq, Syria allowed Al-Qaeda
operatives to cross the border. Iran has
supported extremist Shia there. The purpose
of the terrorism in Iraq is
absolutely simple: carnage, causing
sectarian hatred, leading to civil war.
However, there was one cause which, the
world over, unites Islam, one issue
that even the most westernised Muslims find
unjust and, perhaps worse,
humiliating: Palestine. Here a moderate
leadership was squeezed between its
own inability to control the radical
elements and the political stagnation
of the peace process. When Prime Minister
Sharon took the brave step of
disengagement from Gaza, it could have been
and should have been the
opportunity to re-start the process. But the
squeeze was too great and as
ever because these processes never stay
still, instead of moving forward, it
fell back. Hamas won the election. Even
then, had moderate elements in Hamas
been able to show progress, the situation
might have been saved. But they
couldn’t.
So the opportunity passed to Reactionary
Islam and they seized it: first in
Gaza, then in Lebanon. They knew what would
happen. Their terrorism would
provoke massive retaliation by Israel.
Within days, the world would forget
the original provocation and be shocked by
the retaliation. They want to
trap the Moderates between support for
America and an Arab street furious at
what they see nightly on their television.
This is what has happened.
For them, what is vital is that the
struggle is defined in their terms:
Islam versus the West; that instead of
Muslims seeing this as about
democracy versus dictatorship, they see only
the bombs and the brutality of
war, and sent from Israel.
In this way, they hope that the arc of
extremism that now stretches across
the region, will sweep away the fledgling
but faltering steps Modern Islam
wants to take into the future.
To turn all of this around requires us
first to perceive the nature of the
struggle we are fighting and secondly to
have a realistic strategy to win
it. At present we are challenged on both
fronts.
As to the first, it is almost incredible
to me that so much of Western
opinion appears to buy the idea that the
emergence of this global terrorism
is somehow our fault. For a start, it is
indeed global. No-one who ever half
bothers to look at the spread and range of
activity related to this
terrorism can fail to see its presence in
virtually every major nation in
the world. It is directed at the United
States and its allies, of course.
But it is also directed at nations who could
not conceivably be said to be
allies of the West. It is also rubbish to
suggest that it is the product of
poverty. It is true it will use the cause of
poverty. But its fanatics are
hardly the champions of economic
development. It is based on religious
extremism. That is the fact. And not any
religious extremism; but a
specifically Muslim version.
What it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan
is not about those countries’
liberation from US occupation. It is
actually the only reason for the
continuing presence of our troops. And it is
they not us who are doing the
slaughter of the innocent and doing it
deliberately.
Its purpose is explicitly to prevent
those countries becoming democracies
and not "Western style" democracies, any
sort of democracy. It is to prevent
Palestine living side by side with Israel;
not to fight for the coming into
being of a Palestinian State, but for the
going out of being, of an Israeli
State. It is not wanting Muslim countries to
modernise but to retreat into
governance by a semi-feudal religious
oligarchy.
Yet despite all of this, which I consider
virtually obvious, we look at the
bloodshed in Iraq and say that’s a reason
for leaving; we listen to the
propaganda that tells us its all because of
our suppression of Muslims and
have parts of our opinion seriously
believing that if we only got out of
Iraq and Afghanistan, it would all stop.
And most contemporaneously, and in some
ways most perniciously, a very large
and, I fear, growing part of our opinion
looks at Israel, and thinks we pay
too great a price for supporting it and
sympathises with Muslim opinion that
condemns it. Absent from so much of the
coverage, is any understanding of
the Israeli predicament.
I, and any halfway sentient human being,
regards the loss of civilian life
in Lebanon as unacceptable, grieves for that
nation, is sickened by its
plight and wants the war to stop now. But
just for a moment, put yourself in
Israel’s place. It has a crisis in Gaza,
sparked by the kidnap of a solider
by Hamas. Suddenly, without warning,
Hizbollah who have been continuing to
operate in Southern Lebanon for two years in
defiance of UN Resolution 1559,
cross the UN blue line, kill eight Israeli
soldiers and kidnap two more.
They then fire rockets indiscriminately at
the civilian population in
Northern Israel.
Hizbollah gets their weapons from Iran.
Iran are now also financing militant
elements in Hamas. Iran’s President has
called for Israel to be "wiped off
the map". And he’s trying to acquire a
nuclear weapon. Just to complete the
picture, Israel’s main neighbour along its
eastern flank is Syria who
support Hizbollah and house the hardline
leaders of Hamas.
It’s not exactly a situation conducive to
a feeling of security is it?
But the central point is this. In the
end, even the issue of Israel is just
part of the same, wider struggle for the
soul of the region.
If we recognised this struggle for what
it truly is, we would be at least
along the first steps of the path to winning
it. But a vast part of the
Western opinion is not remotely near this
yet.
Whatever the outward manifestation at any
one time - in Lebanon, in Gaza, in
Iraq and add to that in Afghanistan, in
Kashmir, in a host of other nations
including now some in Africa - it is a
global fight about global values; it
is about modernisation, within Islam and
outside of it; it is about whether
our value system can be shown to be
sufficiently robust, true, principled
and appealing that it beats theirs. Islamist
extremism’s whole strategy is
based on a presumed sense of grievance that
can motivate people to divide
against each other. Our answer has to be a
set of values strong enough to
unite people with each other.
This is not just about security or
military tactics. It is about hearts and
minds about inspiring people, persuading
them, showing them what our values
at their best stand for.
Just to state it in these terms, is to
underline how much we have to do.
Convincing our own opinion of the nature of
the battle is hard enough. But
we then have to empower Moderate, Mainstream
Islam to defeat Reactionary
Islam. And because so much focus is now,
world-wide on this issue, it is
becoming itself a kind of surrogate for all
the other issues the rest of the
world has with the West. In other words,
fail on this and across the range,
everything gets harder.
Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we
are not being bold enough,
consistent enough, thorough enough, in
fighting for the values we believe
in.
We start this battle with some
self-evident challenges. Iraq’s political
process has worked in an extraordinary way.
But the continued sectarian
bloodshed is appalling: and threatens its
progress deeply. In Afghanistan,
the Taleban are making a determined effort
to return and using the drugs
trade a front. Years of anti-Israeli and
therefore anti-American teaching
and propaganda has left the Arab street
often wildly divorced from the
practical politics of their governments.
Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria
are a constant source of de-stabilisation
and reaction. The purpose of
terrorism - whether in Iran, Afghanistan,
Lebanon or Palestine is never just
the terrorist act itself. It is to use the
act to trigger a chain reaction,
to expunge any willingness to negotiate or
compromise. Unfortunately it
frequently works, as we know from our own
experience in Northern Ireland,
though thankfully the huge progress made in
the last decade there, shows
that it can also be overcome.
So, short-term, we can’t say we are
winning. But, there are many reasons for
long-term optimism. Across the Middle East,
there is a process of
modernisation as well as reaction. It is
unnoticed but it is there: in the
UAE; in Bahrain; in Kuwait; in Qatar. In
Egypt, there is debate about the
speed of change but not about its direction.
In Libya and Algeria, there is
both greater stability and a gradual but
significant opening up.
Most of all, there is one
incontrovertible truth that should give us
hope.
In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course in
the Lebanon, any time that people
are permitted a chance to embrace democracy,
they do so. The lie - that
democracy, the rule of law, human rights are
Western concepts, alien to
Islam - has been exposed. In countries as
disparate as Turkey and Indonesia,
there is an emerging strength in Moderate
Islam that should greatly
encourage us.
So the struggle is finely poised. The
question is: how do we empower the
moderates to defeat the extremists?
First, naturally, we should support,
nurture, build strong alliances with
all those in the Middle East who are on the
modernising path.
Secondly, we need, as President Bush said
on Friday, to re-energise the MEPP
between Israel and Palestine; and we need to
do it in a dramatic and
profound manner.
I want to explain why I think this issue
is so utterly fundamental to all we
are trying to do. I know it can be very
irritating for Israel to be told
that this issue is of cardinal importance,
as if it is on their shoulders
that the weight of the troubles of the
region should always fall. I know
also their fear that in our anxiety for
wider reasons to secure a
settlement, we sacrifice the vital interests
of Israel.
Let me make it clear. I would never put
Israel’s security at risk.
Instead I want, what we all now
acknowledge we need: a two state solution.
The Palestinian State must be independent,
viable but also democratic and
not threaten Israel’s safety.
This is what the majority of Israelis and
Palestinians want.
Its significance for the broader issue of
the Middle East and for the battle
within Islam, is this. The real impact of a
settlement is more than
correcting the plight of the Palestinians.
It is that such a settlement
would be the living, tangible, visible proof
that the region and therefore
the world can accommodate different faiths
and cultures, even those who have
been in vehement opposition to each other.
It is, in other words, the total
and complete rejection of the case of
Reactionary Islam. It destroys not
just their most effective rallying call, it
fatally undermines their basic
ideology.
And, for sure, it empowers Moderate,
Mainstream Islam enormously. They are
able to point to progress as demonstration
that their allies, ie us, are
even-handed not selective, do care about
justice for Muslims as much as
Christians or Jews.
But, and it is a big ‘but’, this progress
will not happen unless we change
radically our degree of focus, effort and
engagement, especially with the
Palestinian side. In this the active
leadership of the US is essential but
so also is the participation of Europe, of
Russia and of the UN. We need
relentlessly, vigorously, to put a viable
Palestinian Government on its
feet, to offer a vision of how the Roadmap
to final status negotiation can
happen and then pursue it, week in, week
out, ’til its done. Nothing else
will do. Nothing else is more important to
the success of our foreign
policy.
Third, we need to see Iraq through its
crisis and out to the place its
people want: a non-sectarian, democratic
state. The Iraqi and Afghan fight
for democracy is our fight. Same values.
Same enemy. Victory for them is
victory for us all.
Fourth, we need to make clear to Syria
and Iran that there is a choice: come
in to the international community and play
by the same rules as the rest of
us; or be confronted. Their support of
terrorism, their deliberate export of
instability, their desire to see wrecked the
democratic prospect in Iraq, is
utterly unjustifiable, dangerous and wrong.
If they keep raising the stakes,
they will find they have miscalculated.
From the above it is clear that from now
on, we need a whole strategy for
the Middle East. If we are faced with an arc
of extremism, we need a
corresponding arc of moderation and
reconciliation. Each part is linked.
Progress between Israel and Palestine
affects Iraq. Progress in Iraq affects
democracy in the region. Progress for
Moderate, Mainstream Islam anywhere
puts Reactionary Islam on the defensive
everywhere. But none of it happens
unless in each individual part the necessary
energy and commitment is
displayed not fitfully, but continuously.
I said at the outset that the result of
this struggle had effects wider than
the region itself. Plainly that applies to
our own security. This Global
Islamist terrorism began in the Middle East.
Sort the Middle East and it
will inexorably decline. The read-across,
for example, from the region to
the Muslim communities in Europe is almost
instant.
But there is a less obvious sense in
which the outcome determines the
success of our wider world-view. For me, a
victory for the moderates means
an Islam that is open: open to
globalisation, open to working with others
of
different faiths, open to alliances with
other nations.
In this way, this struggle is in fact
part of a far wider debate.
Though Left and Right still matter in
politics, the increasing divide today
is between open and closed. Is the answer to
globalisation, protectionism or
free trade?
Is the answer to the pressure of mass
migration, managed immigration or
closed borders?
Is the answer to global security threats,
isolationism or engagement?
Those are very big questions for US and
for Europe.
Without hesitation, I am on the open side
of the argument. The way for us to
handle the challenge of globalisation, is to
compete better, more
intelligently, more flexibly. We have to
give our people confidence we can
compete. See competition as a threat and we
are already on the way to
losing.
Immigration is the toughest issue in
Europe right now and you know something
of it here in California. People get scared
of it for understandable
reasons. It needs to be controlled. There
have to be rules. Many of the
Conventions dealing with it post WWII are
out of date. All that is true.
But, properly managed, immigrants give a
country dynamism, drive, new ideas
as well as new blood.
And as for isolationism, that is a
perennial risk in the US and EU policy.
My point here is very simple: global
terrorism means we can’t opt-out even
if we wanted to. The world is
inter-dependent. To be engaged is only
modern
realpolitik.
But we only win people to these positions
if our policy is not just about
interests but about values, not just about
what is necessary but about what
is right.
Which brings me to my final reflection
about US policy. My advice is: always
be in the lead, always at the forefront,
always engaged in building
alliances, in reaching out, in showing that
whereas unilateral action can
never be ruled out, it is not the
preference.
How we get a sensible, balanced but
effective framework to tackle climate
change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in
2012 should be an American
priority.
America wants a low-carbon economy; it is
investing heavily in clean
technology; it needs China and India to grow
substantially. The world is
ready for a new start here. Lead it.
The same is true for the WTO talks, now
precariously in the balance; or for
Africa, whose poverty is shameful.
If we are championing the cause of
development in Africa, it is right in
itself but it is also sending the message of
moral purpose, that reinforces
our value system as credible in all other
aspects of policy.
It serves one other objective. There is a
risk that the world, after the
Cold War, goes back to a global policy based
on spheres of influence. Think
ahead. Think China, within 20 or 30 years,
surely the world’s other
super-power. Think Russia and its precious
energy reserves. Think India. I
believe all of these great emerging powers
want a benign relationship with
the West. But I also believe that the
stronger and more appealing our
world-view is, the more it is seen as based
not just on power but on
justice, the easier it will be for us to
shape the future in which Europe
and the US will no longer, economically or
politically, be transcendant.
Long before then, we want Moderate,
Mainstream Islam to triumph over
Reactionary Islam.
That is why I say this struggle is one about
values. Our values are worth
struggling for. They represent humanity’s
progress throughout the ages and
at each point we have had to fight for them
and defend them. As a new age
beckons, it is time to fight for them again.
Read the Q and A
Question:
Mr Prime Minister, can Britain take the
lead in speaking to Iran and Syria
directly?
Prime Minister:
You know the thing that always surprises
me about this is that people talk
about this issue of engagement with Iran and
Syria as if there was some
doubt about what we were saying, or where we
stood, or maybe the message
hadn’t been clear enough.
Actually the message is absolutely clear,
the message is if you stop
supporting terrorism, if you stop trying to
acquire nuclear weapons and
breach your international obligations then
we are willing to have a
partnership with you, but if you export
terrorism around the region and
destabilise democracy in Iraq, we will
confront you. Now I know there are
all sorts of people who engage, and of
course we do, we send messages the
whole time to both governments, but I am
afraid I have come to the
conclusion that this is not an issue of
communication, it is not that people
can’t read our handwriting, it is actually
that they lack the will to do
what they need to do and we need to make
sure they have that will.
Question:
What is the United Nations capable of,
and what is it not? Can all it do is
pass meaningless resolutions?
Prime Minister:
Actually I would say to you that I think
the United Nations can, in certain
circumstances, be absolutely essential to
solving the world’s problems, and
there are situations that have arisen in
which the United Nations has come
together and made a real difference, and
indeed some of the things that we
were talking about earlier in relation to
some of the disputes in Africa and
so on indicate that very, very clearly too.
But there are two things that
need to happen. The first is that we need to
reform the institutions of the
United Nations thoroughly because they are
not as they should be; and the
second thing is you can make any amount of
institutional change, but the key
thing is whether there is the right
political alliance at the heart of the
Security Council of the United Nations.
Now I think there is a case incidentally
for broadening the Security Council
and I favour that, but in a way whatever
institutional framework you have,
the basic point is we have to have political
agreement between the leading
powers. And that is why I say in particular
I think the transatlantic
alliance is really, really important. Europe
and America, whatever their
differences from time to time, they have the
values system in common and
they should be proud of their alliance and
we should make sure that we use
that as a basis for trying to engineer the
right type of political alliance
within the UN Security Council.
So look, if the UN didn’t exist we would
be inventing it, that is for sure,
at least some people would, but I think it
could be so much more effective
but it needs reform, it needs leadership and
it needs the right political
alliance to motivate it.
Question:
In what ways does our passion for western
democracy get in the way of
resolving global or regional conflicts?
Prime Minister:
Well that is a very interesting question
and a very good question. You see I
have come to the conclusion, and I really
confess to you I have changed my
view of this, that actually there are no
stable relationships in the long
term unless there is progress towards
democracy and freedom, that in other
words the idea that countries that are
governed by either secular or
religious dictatorships provide a solid
basis for progress, I think is just
wrong. And the interesting thing about Iraq
and Afghanistan, and this was
the fascinating thing, is that so many
people told us that you just don’t
understand it, people in Iraq aren’t
interested in democracy. The turnout in
Iraq, despite people being threatened and in
some cases killed on the way to
the polls, was higher than the last
Presidential election or the last
general election in Britain. So people do
care about this and democracies by
and large don’t fight each other. So I
actually think in the end, yes, short
term sometimes the passion for democracy can
be difficult because there are
so many vested interests that don’t want it.
Long term I have come to the
conclusion that actually it is only through
the spread of liberty, and
democracy, and the rule of law and basic
respect for human rights that we
will get peace and security.
Question:
Should NATO be used in Lebanon, as it is
in Afghanistan and Bosnia?
Prime Minister:
I think it depends on what is most
helpful for the situation there, because
we will need both the support of the
government of Israel and the government
of Lebanon for the force to operate. And I
think at this point in time it is
not possible to be clear about it, although
I would say to you that the
majority of people probably would say that
NATO shouldn’t be involved. But
whatever force is involved it has to have
the capacity of making sure that
the original reason for the conflict, which
were the activities in breach of
the United Nations resolutions down in the
south of Lebanon by Hezbollah are
curtailed, because unless the government of
Lebanon is given proper
authority over the whole of Lebanon this
will erupt again. And in my view
the purpose of any multi-national force has
got to be able to provide a
bridge between the position for the
government of Lebanon now, and the
position we need to get to, which is not a
permanent multinational force on
the ground, but is a Lebanese democracy that
is capable of having its writ
run in every single part of the country
without armed militias taking over
parts of the country and running them in the
way that they want.
And that is why in Lebanon what is
important is to support Lebanese
democracy. They have done amazing things in
that country, it is why it is so
tragic what has been brought about, but the
only way, whether it is NATO or
anybody else, we are going to get an
effective multinational force there is
if it has at its heart one principle, which
is that our purpose is to make
sure that when the Lebanese people vote in
their government in a democracy,
they do so without outside interference from
Syria or anyone else, and
without inside interference by well armed
militia.
Question:
To many Americans there seems to be a latent
and growing anti-Semitism in
Europe. How can this be stopped?
Prime Minister:
I think that there are really two parts
to this. I think there are people
who are anti-Semitic in Europe and there has
been a growing rise of
anti-Semitic attacks which are appalling and
terrible in different parts of
Europe. But I think there is another strain
of opinion, and this is the
reason I devoted some of my speech to doing
this, that just doesn’t see it
from Israel’s point of view at all, I mean
just doesn’t understand what it
is like to be a country surrounded by a lot
of people who basically want to
deny your right to exist, and in a way I
think that is part of the problem.
And I also think it then gets run in with
the issue to do with
anti-Americanism because of America’s
support for Israel. And again I said
this in a speech I made a couple of months
ago, the only way you ever
confront this is confronting the basic
ideas.
What I said in that speech, let me try
and explain this, a lot of what
happens in the western debate, in the
European debate very specifically, but
also in other countries too, less so in
America but still in parts I guess
in the American system, is that everybody
abhors the terrorist method,
people don’t get up and support terrorism
but they kind of buy half way into
some of the ideas that they are putting
forward in the sense that they say
yes well you do have a real sense of
grievance against America and its
allies, but you shouldn’t blow people up in
pursuit of it. And my point the
whole way through is we are never going to
defeat this until we say actually
that is wrong, you have no sense of
grievance.
In Afghanistan and Iraq we have billions
of dollars waiting there to help
reconstruct the country, the country is a
democracy, where is the
suppression? You know the Taliban down in
the south where British troops
have gone in to try and clear out the
Taliban, they have literally taken
teachers out in front of their class and
executed them in front of class for
teaching girls. Now where should the sense
of grievance be - against us who
have actually helped those countries and
those people get democracy for the
first time, or these absolutely brutal
murderous terrorists who want to send
them back into some sort of feudal time?
In other words unless we are prepared to
stand up and say, ‘No actually what
you think about America is nonsense’, I mean
I said this to some people the
other day and it was difficult, but you have
got to say it. I said look, as
far as I am aware people in America are free
to practise their religion as
Muslims, and they certainly are in Britain,
what is the sense of grievance?
Now we may disagree about this or that
aspect of foreign policy, but that is
not the same as saying that our purpose in
going to Iraq and Afghanistan was
something to do with the fact that those
countries were Muslim, it was to do
with the fact that they were threatening our
security. That is where this is
difficult.
So the answer to your question is yes,
there are real worries about
anti-Semitism, but I think that the problem
is slightly different from that,
if I am frank about it, it is that there is
a world view there that is very,
very, well I would call it somewhat soggy
and unable just to see the
realities of what is happening. And that is
what you have to confront, not
just the activities of the terrorists, but
their ideas, because far too many
of their ideas have some purchase on opinion
in the western world.
