|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume 55 Number 22, October 4, 2025 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBCENTRE | SUBSCRIBE |
(Workers' Daily Internet Edition, June 28, 2007)
Tony Blair, prior to his departure as Prime Minister, set out on his long goodbye. His peregrinations, taken together with his eight lectures given over a period of a number of months entitled "Our Nation's Future", had the character of an attempt to define the legacy of his ten years in office. But they also were intended to set the tone for the future of British imperialism, an empire on which, in one sense, the sun has now set, but which under the stewardship of Tony Blair especially has taken on the character of a new imperialism, a component part of the push for world domination by Anglo-US imperialism.
Indeed, the mooted position of Blair as the envoy to the Middle East of the Quartet of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia, demonstrates that for the imperialists of England, the dream of empire is not over, that they still have delusions of grandeur, of "making Britain great again". Where there cannot be the British empire, then there will be a British mandate seems to be their watchword. All the indications are that Gordon Brown will pursue that course unchanged. He has gone out of his way to emphasise and bolster the union of Scotland with England in this year of its 300th anniversary, and in his own world tours, especially to Africa, has been at pains to extol the "achievements" of the British empire, a very notable sentiment in this year of the 200th anniversary of the Act to abolish the Atlantic slave trade.
On May 31, at the conclusion of his much criticised tour of Africa, Tony Blair gave a keynote speech at the University of South Africa, which he used as yet another opportunity to defend Britain's interventionist foreign policy.
It has now become generally accepted that Blair uses his alleged humanitarian concern for Africa not just as a mask to hide the plunder and impoverishment of that continent by the big multinationals and financial institutions, but also as a means to justify Britain's interference throughout the world, which he makes every effort to present as being based on the defence and promotion of so-called universal values, and therefore allegedly in the interest of humanity.
Therefore it is not surprising that in his speech in South Africa Blair began by claiming that his foreign policy in Africa was "not based on rich and poor or donor and recipient but based on common values of justice, democracy and human rights; a partnership of trust and equality". He then went on to claim that in the era of neo-liberal globalisation, national self-interest "is in substantial part defined by the well-being of others", and that therefore "our best chance of security and prosperity lies in advancing freedom, opportunity and justice for all".
Behind such sanctimonious phrases the Labour government has launched military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and other countries. It has lied, ignored the United Nations and its charter and broken international law repeatedly, not least in Sierra Leone, where the government broke the UN embargo on arms and which Blair visited before arriving in South Africa. It has created instability and mayhem in many of parts of the world, continued to attack the rights of the Palestinian and other peoples, while all the time claiming that it is concerned about the "well-being of others" and "advancing freedom, opportunity and justice for all".
In Africa, it is clear that Britain sees a continent rich in resources, with potentially untapped markets, as well as an area of contention with the other big powers and China in particular. At that same time, as Tony Blair kept stressing, it is a region where the Anglo-American alliance wants to make sure that its values "take root". It is always noticeable that when shedding crocodile tears about Africa's misfortunes, this man never mentions the fact that Britain was the colonial power in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Zimbabwe and other countries, nor the de-stabilising role that Britain, through its army, police, banks, multinationals and Eurocentric values, has continued to play since these countries gained formal independence.
In his speech, Blair extolled the virtues of the private sector in Africa and announced that the British government would fund and encourage even further penetration of its economies by foreign capital. At the same time, Tony Blair kept referring to the need for more "aid" as if this were something entirely different, although also connected with the "well-being of others". But the facts show that both so-called "aid" and the hegemony of the private sector are means to exploit the people of Africa. For example, in 1999 the Labour government, together with the World Bank, created the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) which, amongst other things, promotes the privatisation of water and other utilities throughout Africa and in many of the other poorest regions of the world. The British government is the world's largest donor to PPIAF, contributing over £53m of taxpayer's money, 54% of the total funding since 1999. At other times "aid" may be linked to large contracts such as the controversial deals Blair brokered with the South African and Tanzanian governments in the interests of BAE Systems, the details of which have reappeared in the media recently.
One of the key features of Blair's speech is the arrogance with which it is delivered. Although there may be talk of "partnership", nevertheless Blair speaks of "helping Africa take the right path", as if the British empire were still in existence. The impression is given that not just the countries of Africa but even the G8 countries should follow the British government's policies, adhere to its values and do what it dictates. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Britain aims to step up its interference and intervention, not just in individual African countries but also in the African Union.
What is key for the British government in its ideological aggression is the issue of values. The demand is that African countries should accept that there is no alternative to neo-liberal globalisation, to representative democracy, the domination of the monopolies, privatisation, etc. As long as the economies and political systems of Africa are fully integrated into the Eurocentric framework and can be totally dominated in the interests of the big monopolies and financial institutions this is allegedly for the "well-being of others". If "aid" is used in the interests of the big armaments manufacturers, or to facilitate greater privatisation in the interests of the monopolies, then this is "advancing freedom, opportunity and justice for all".
Blair's speech and the government's continued policies in Africa do not show its alleged humanitarian concern but rather that it is the multinationals and big financial institutions that dominate. Prime ministers and governments may come and go, but it is the interests of the rich that determine Britain's foreign policy, just as they determine the attacks on the NHS, education and other social programmes in Britain. It is vital that there are no illusions and the recognition that the times cry out for working people to empower themselves and become the decision makers.