By Eden I do not mean the garden of Eden but more appropriately, the stupidity of Sir Anthony Eden who took England to war over the Suez canal in 1956. Both Blair and Eden represent stupidity when it comes to making war but there is a basic difference between the two. Sir Anthony had breeding and Tony Blair doesn’t. If it were a case of Eugenics you certainly wouldn’t breed from Mr Blair.

I suppose Sir Anthony thought he was a great politician and statesman although his reasons for this were the somewhat doubtful attributes of Eton ,Oxford and the general networking of nepotism. These assets interpreted by hubristic arrogance enables mediocrities to believe in something that doesn’t actually exist, the greatness of themselves.

Personally I admire the qualities which these three assets can provide but if they are the only thing which such “Blair mediocrities” have to give them their much sought after leadership image, then they will have very little value for the political problems of the 21st century. Afghanistan , Iraq, Yugoslavia and the inchoate African states are examples and the current crisis with Lebanon and Israel is providing full activity on the Middle East front. The terrible truth is that fifty years on from the Suez debacle, we still have the same “prattmatic” quality running the upper echelons of the world’s political system . One would have imagined that half a century would have enabled politics to mature into wise pragmatism and left prattmatism behind. Alas not so, we have a deeply flawed and impoverished form of politics that is impersonating leadership in the format of the Emperors new clothes.

Tony Blair is the latest of a long line of prime ministers or party leaders who obviously want to be remembered by history. Perhaps even more so by the “Education Education Education” concept which helped Blair to become the prime minister even though the repeated word is just another example of the multi faceted speciosity of Tony Blair’s time in office.

Blair’s panic to get as many reforms through before he finally abdicates must be so basic to his existence that it takes second place to his desire to procreate. Such rapacious greed for political celebrity status is dangerous for the peace of the world. Sergovia , Afganistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq have proved this to those unfortunate families who supply the “cannon fodder” soldiers and the tax payer who provides the vast sums necessary to refill the seemingly bottomless pit to finance the war. Without the tax payers funding the West’s bellicose activities, the West would not be able to kill the thousands of innocent civilians in order to give them their democratic rights.
The current panic about the young Muslim men apprehended before they committed mass murder with numerous passenger aircraft is not so much world terrorism trying to destroy the West but political reverberation and knock on effect of what the West is doing in the name of democracy as interpreted by Mr Bush and his doppelganger / acolyte Mr Blair.

If Afghanistan hadn’t been obliterated and had all its essential infrastructure destroyed in the name of Osama Bin Laden (missing almost definitely presumed dead) the new Gas pipe line from Russia across Afghanistan to a suitable transfer filling station for the West , couldn’t have been installed by the Americans and the interested multi nationals. Serbia was a another atrocity although this time committed by United Nations no less. The British, French, Italians and Germans dropped hundreds of bombs, effectively destroying every bridge, motorway, TV station, and airfield even though the Serbians were not threatening anyone. It was internal and effected only the nationals of the old Yugoslavia, an activity similar to the Chinese massacre of its students in Tiananmen Square about which the world did absolutely nothing. There was a subtle difference, China put the fear of god into the West, Yugoslavia ,Iraq , and Afghanistan didn’t. Not dissimilar to the school bully who doesn’t threaten the boys bigger than himself.

The only advantage these wars have is the improved balance of payments created by the sales of arms by the countries who manufacture them and the vast fortunes of those who negotiate the conditions of a contract. ( not arms dealers of course but licensed operators only) . In Britain this massive wealth creates new hospitals , national health for everyone , free dentistry and of course free education for school leavers so they can avail themselves of what Blair and his associates had, a free third level education.

Many people believe that the latest Muslim “near aviation miss” is the direct or perhaps indirect result, of the foreign policies of the West. I don’t think I could argue with that. What worries me however is that it seems that our anti terrorist branch got their motivating information more from the Pakistani government than British Intelligence. So, it is possible that if it hadn’t been for the Pakistani authorities, we might have witnessed destruction of life and property equal to 9/11. This apparent lack of good British intelligence isn’t surprising when you consider what crazed policeman have done during recent fiascos when they showed a penchant to shoot innocent people.

What the English and the American governments have been trying to do since 9/11 is to inculcate onto the public’s collective intelligence that we are all in danger of becoming victims of terrorists. It might be true and perhaps I could accept this without question if it were not for the lack of quality leadership that Bush and Blair simply don’t have and numerous cries of “wolf” that their governments have been shouting for several years. Weapons of mass destruction, the fantasies of American intelligence ( Iraq germ warfare laboratories etc ) the tapes of Osamin Bin Laden, the innocent Brazilian terrorist just about to blow up an underground tube who had a necessary seven bullets pumped into his brain to prevent him, and the forest Gate fiasco based on unreliable reliable information ! So many fiascos based on political stupidity resulting in police thugs masquerading as intelligence front line men wielding guns which they should not be allowed to handle if their self control is so unbalanced.

Then we have the establishment back up to these unbelievable mistakes and the unforgettable and incredible dissimulations effected by the public hearings which have all the reality of the Emperor’s new clothes. The investigation of the poor man Doctor Kelly who is supposed to have committed suicide is one such example.

One thing is quite clear, the British Establishment never changes from the delusion that it is democratic, that it will tell no lies ( the same as telling the truth? ) as long as there is no reason why they should, in which case they will do what is necessary to protect our democratic society, distort the truth and prevent the people from knowing the facts and tell the necessary lies to maintain this fantasy status quo.
And what of the standby “wannabe leaders” waiting in the wings. Thank heaven that Bush cannot get in for a third term of office although the English parliamentary system lacks that empirical wisdom . Blair could get in for a third term but thank god he wont. He has made too many mistakes, told too many lies, shown too many false faces and claimed too many spurious philosophies and in addition it doesn’t take much to realise that Tony and Cherie Blair are using their position to milk the system to make vast sums of wealth. Nothing wrong with that ,politicians have been doing it for centuries but as a socialist and leader of the labour party ? George Bernard Shaw would be turning in his grave!

I wont be presumptuous and give an opinion of the next American president but I will make a few comments about the “Heir Apparent” next in line to that much desired throne at No 10. Gordon Brown is the nepotistic selection of many people including different branches of the media but I am not sure what creates all the certainty about his inheritance. He certainly doesn’t get my vote, a decision shared by many . Brown is pretty glum person and very heavy going. His smiles are lugubrious and unconvincing to say the least and at fifty plus he finally disproved the nefarious underworld press implication that he is a “closet homo sexual” by producing two children . Then there is his brilliance as a Chancellor of the Exchequer. “An economic genius” we are told . What a pity he didn’t study economics , he might have actually been brilliant and not had to rely on the advice of his civil service assistants. An interesting point of observation is the fact that I understand he did not play sport at school which proves that he was, what many schoolchildren and students refer to as, a nerd. Surely there must be other politicians who could oppose him in a democratic leader election and I am not talking about the Scottish politician Dr John Reid who, along with others ,would possibly be more appreciated if he operated north of the border.

Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown ,was voted in as Prime minister by the British public and it would be appropriate if the new leadership followed a more democratic procedure than “out with Blair, in with Brown” concept. As for John Prescott, hopefully he wont get a look in because as far as I can see he only holds his position because he is a joker without the cunning of Batman’s adversary. Having Prescott as deputy PM ensures that Blair cannot be made to look a fool. As for two Jags I wont go into that aspect of Prescott . My name for him is “two jowells” a perfect example of the before photo of the before and after advertisement for a successful slimming diet.

And the Conservatives , what chance Cameron ? Unless labour gets itself sorted he has a good chance but not because he is a brilliant leader and a political embryo of emerging greatness but because of a national rejection of Blair and his socialism. Several times the Conservatives have achieved what they might be about to repeat with Cameron. After the monstrous suburban Thatcher , they produced the grey “Super wimp” John major , the unforgettable sweet sixteen William Haig who still retains his early image and the never to be underestimated “quiet man” Duncan Smith who had no qualities to lead whatsoever.

There has to be a large flaw in the psyche of a public who vote in such unqualified leaders. The Americans do exactly the same , Bush being a prime example and although Clinton was a better choice than Bush, it cannot be argued that his abuse of power with young impressionable females was a characteristic that made good international/ world leadership which he is presently promulgating himself as having. What Clinton did using the Oval office as “pulling power” and part of his seduction technique was almost a branch of paedophilia and yet he is still out there getting rapturous applause, pulling in the audiences with his intellectual and altruistic “emperors new clothes.” Unfortunately, as in past centuries ,regardless of the good that charitable organisations achieve, hidden in their board rooms, one finds some of the most unpleasant, twisted evil people imaginable who use charities for self gain and to enhance their spurious reputation.

So what with the Liberal Democrats, the fastest man in the party? Menizies “Ming” Cambell another north of the border personality. He is a gentleman of the old style , mild and courteous but can he take on the covert ruthlessness of those who would be his political enemies? He might have run fast in his youth and sculptured words as a QC but that doesn’t automatically mean that he can still perform at his retrospective best. We have yet to see but at least he is an improvement on Charles Kennedy who held the party back for years regardless of what his fans wanted to believe. Personally I think that that Menzies Campbell is the best way forward in these troubled times. He isn’t obsessed by spin and false images and he doesn’t change his colour like Britains two political chameleons, Cameron and Blair. I believe that with the help of wise men of integrity giving good advice , Menzies Campbell would be able to produce a balanced government more capably than either Labour or the Conservatives.

As I bring this article to an end, I make a cynical observation. The United Nations brokered a truce on Monday August 14th at 5 am and yet the damage continued. Hezbollah continued to fire their rockets killing the civilians of Israel and Israel continued to smash up sections of Lebanon even though the Lebanese government were not giving the orders to the Hezbollah organisation. Such immaturity is unbelievable and it would be difficult for 6th form school children to match it .

In what direction is the world going ? Is the leadership of the United Nations taking the world along the right path under Kofi Annan or is this just one of the hundreds of political cul de sacs which so many leaders have taken us down over the centuries. It is now two weeks since the United Nations organised the truce and I cannot restrain a derisive smile when I find that although the United Nations will monitor border activities, the member countries have not yet agreed to supply the requisite men to overseer the monitoring. This leaves the standoff in a very unbalanced and fragile state. Notwithstanding another vein of humour comes into the equation. Both the Hezbollah activists and Government of Israel claimed victory where there was no victory. It reminds me of the mad Roman Emperor Caligula who, after ordering his soldiers to slash the sea with their swords for several hours , announced he had finally defeated Neptune. Caligula declared a great victory and ordered his soldiers to put down their arms and begin a grand celebration. Apparently the Romans applauded his success, possibly in the same way as the world is applauding the United Nations agreement for monitoring the Lebanon / Israel conflict. So far only the French have sent in men and they are only 50 engineers whose job it is to rebuild the damage ( another large bill) which has been inflicted upon the Lebanese state.

Presumably the weapon carrier will come later! It is what one might call a United Nation’s convoluted political complexity ! Does this reluctance to supply soldiers mean that the politicians will take up the challenge and fight ? I doubt it but they should because it’s the politicians that create wars in the first place not the people who have to fight them. Of course that would be the end of wars and the balance of payments factor and that is asking for too much from our civilised society with its democratic politics and egotistical desire put the world to rights .

Copyright Dorian van de Braam . August 2006