The Hindu Business Line : Perverse logic

IT WAS really a treat to watch the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, deliver his keynote address at the annual Labour Conference held at Bournemouth. Treat, because it packed a lot of punch and took his critics head on with impressive eloquence and courage of conviction.

Accustomed as we are to spiritless and sloppy delivery by our own politicians who never lift their heads once from the sheaf of papers from which they read, the refreshing contrast provided by Mr Blair's extempore performance with command of both style and substance, with every word in its place and every idea in the right sequence, was in itself a lesson in the art of effective communication.

It was a hard-hitting justification of his domestic policies and an unyielding defence of his joining the US to attack Iraq and overthrow Mr Saddam Hussein. Thunderous applause greeted him when he said that he did not do it as "America's poodle", but to make Britain safer. It will not be surprising if this bold attempt at vindication helps turn the tide in his favour to the extent that many within his own party were wanting or expecting him to step down.

Admiration for his speech does not mean acceptance of his wholly untenable argument for going to war on Iraq.

He did say that he had hit a "rough patch" on this count, that there was a large number of people who were angry and resentful, and that he had received "hate letters" from parents who had lost their sons in the war.

But he also said that in the same circumstances, he would take the same decision as, in his opinion, Mr Saddam Hussein was a cruel tyrant under whose brutally oppressive regime, the country was turned into killing fields and, therefore, he deserved to be eliminated. How come Mr Blair, with all his quick-wittedness, is too blind or mulish to realise the dangers of letting this perverse logic govern the conduct of nations with one another?

Were the people of Iraq waging a struggle for Mr Saddam's removal?

Was there any such demand from anywhere else, other than the arm-twisting of the members of the Security Council by the US and UK by cooked up evidence of Iraq's weapons programme?

On the contrary, are not countries such as France, Germany, Russia and millions of people elsewhere bitterly opposed to the policies of both pre-emptive strike and regime change?

In the eyes of most in India, General Pervez Musharraf is presiding over a terrorist state whose nuclear `assets' can any day be farmed out to radical Islamic terrorist outfits.

He has made killing fields of Kashmir. He has given sanctuary and sustenance to jehadists. The Western media have been constantly exposing his regime's misdeeds. Will Mr Blair support a regime change in Pakistan the same way as he did in Iraq?

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Twisted policy

Knowledge-hungry yes, food-hungry no

A corporate body over board

Perverse logic

Separate platform for small-caps ideal

The all-important FDI flow factor

Pseudo-victory at Cancun?

`No standards world-wide for pesticide residues in soft-drinks'

Government audit

Social responsibility of companies