Tony à nouveau en première ligne

L’étonnante carrière de Tony Blair se poursuit. Le Premier ministre britannique est sur la voie de se trouver de plus en plus isolé dans son soutien total, inconditionnel et aveugle à ce qu’il suppose être la politique américaniste du jour, c’est-à-dire le soutien total, inconditionnel et aveugle à Israël. Blair se trouve contesté dans son gouvernement, dans son parti, voire dans la vie politique britannique au sens large puisque les conservateurs ont pris la précaution de prendre une position officielle critique du comportement israélien.

Blair ne bouge pas de sa Ligne Maginot : rien, surtout pas d’un cessez-le-feu qui risquerait de briser le rythme des destructions, tant que les deux soldats israéliens n’ont pas été libérés. Tony Blair représente un cas psychologique qui devrait passionner les historiens, par la passion intraitable avec laquelle il a identifié depuis cinq ans la politique internationale dans cette question de la crise centrale du terrorisme et de la politique américaniste à une seule position possible : l’absence de tout compromis, de tout changement, de toute évolution à partir de sa position extrême de soutien à GW Bush. Même pour un politicien britannique, il s’agit d’un cas exceptionnel.

Quelques mots du Guardian sur les actuelles péripéties du PM britannique.

« Tony Blair is publicly highly supportive of Israel and has declined to call for an immediate ceasefire. But some in the Foreign Office are now privately urging greater restraint by Israel amid concern that the scale of the bombardment is counter-productive, disproportionate, and undermining the political stability of the Lebanese government.

» Margaret Beckett, who only became foreign secretary three months ago, is trying to straddle the divide between Downing Street and her department. But she refused to bow to intense Labour backbench pressure yesterday in the Commons either to call for an unconditional ceasefire or condemn the Israeli action as disproportionate. (...)

» By contrast, her junior minister, Kim Howells — due to travel to the region today — was more openly critical of the Israelis, as well as Hizbullah, reflecting the mood among many British diplomats and most Labour MPs. Mr Howells revealed the Foreign Office “had repeatedly urged Israel to act proportionately, to conform with international law and to avoid the appalling civilian deaths and suffering we are witnessing on our television screens”. He added that Louise Arbour, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, had to be taken very seriously when she said this week that the attacks on both sides could be war crimes under international law. (...)

In the Commons, many Labour MPs were furious that the [Conservative] shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, was prepared to be tougher in his warning to Israel than Mrs Beckett. “I think we can say that elements of the Israeli response are disproportionate, including attacks on Lebanese army units, the loss of civilian life and essential infrastructure and such enormous damage to the capacity of the Lebanese government, [which] does damage the Israeli cause in the long term,” he told MPs.

» The former international development secretary, Clare Short, described the British policy as “so unbalanced, morally wrong and counter-productive and disrespectful of international law”. The former Labour Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin asked Mrs Beckett if it was not “a tiny bit shameful that we can find nothing stronger than the word ‘regret’ to describe the slaughter and misery and mayhem that Israel has unleashed on a fragile country like Lebanon”. »

Mis en ligne le 21 juillet 2006 à 08H14