Nobel Peace Prize for Bush & Blair

Nobel Peace Prize for Bush & Blair

If Bush and Blair think that they are going to get a Nobel Peace Prize for their failed attempt to bring peace to Northern Ireland and Iraq they are living in a world even further from reality than anyone could have possibly imagined.

The co-operation in Iraq between the United States and the United Kingdom has always been seen as a manifestation of the mutual support dignified by three centuries of history. The usual propensity for British Prime Ministers to behave like obedient little puppy dogs in response to every whim and command of its former colony.

But it is quite likely that the real reason Bush and Blair have risked everything on the disastrous invasion of Iraq has more to do with overwhelming ego than any desire to relieve two countries - Iraq and Northern Ireland - of tyranny and murder. And very little to do with the much publicised statements around removing a murderous dictator who posed a threat to international stability, or helping part of Ireland to regain the peace they lost in 1968.

Our story begins in September 2002 when Tony Blair and George Bush met in Camp David to discuss what was officially billed as a number of security related issues. At that time the possibility of invading Iraq was just a twinkle in Bush's eye, and Blair was naively talking about maintaining the cliché of a special relationship between the two countries.

Innocent enough in isolation, but seven months later in April 2003 George Bush joined Tony Blair in Northern Ireland to join with the Taoiseach - Prime Minister of Eire - in urging the differing factions to take the final steps towards a lasting peace. Blair's speech for that meeting was peppered with statements referencing how well he and Bush had done in bringing peace to the two regions - Ireland and the Middle East.

Why place such an emphasis on bringing peace when he knew that the next step would be to start a war on grounds that we subsequently learned were questionable even in the most charitable interpretation of the facts? Why did Blair spend so much time and effort on trying to gain the approval of the United Nations when he knew that the war would proceed regardless of any resolution they may or may not pass?

Quite simply, while Bush occupied himself with macho posturing, Blair knew that they would need the tacit approval of this creaking institution for their military actions before any nomination for a peace prize could be placed before the Nobel committee.

Unfortunately the learnings from one facet of this comedy - the troubles in Northern Ireland - were not factored into the second equation of bringing western style democracy to Iraq. Although thousands of miles apart the two regions have a great deal in common. Both have strongly held and deeply divided factions who have spent decades in violent disagreement. Northern Ireland has Protestants and Catholics, Iraq has Sunnis and Shiites.

The Protestants dominated the political scene in Northern Ireland which built up strong resentment amongst the disadvantaged Catholic community that erupted in violence at the beginning of the 'troubles' in 1968. Equally, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni minority held the reins over the Shiites which created the same conditions for conflict when the Baathist government was removed from power.

Similarly the two cultures carry long memories and grievances that are handed down from generation to succeeding generation, posing an obstruction to any hope for peace except by the slow erosion of the centuries. We learned in Northern Ireland, at least the people did, and we now see peace talks in process between the two extremes of opinion - the Reverend Ian Paisley on the side of the Protestants and Gerry Adams representing the Catholic interest.

But their talks, which took thirty six years to bring about, owe nothing to Bush or Blair but simply to the realisation that if they are to compete for political power in the Northern Irish regional assembly they will need to co-operate at the human level as well. Therefore if peace ever does come to the six counties it will be as the result of the efforts of these two gentlemen - Messrs Paisley and Adams - and the determination of the Irish people to reunite their country. It will owe nothing to any subsequent attempts by our respective leaders to claim the glory.

So it is with Iraq, and the lessons that neither Blair or Bush have learned, or more probably tried to ignore, from our experience at home. Forget the promise of a local military force in Iraq taking over from the allied forces anytime soon, and don't even consider the possibility of democratic elections in January 2005 bringing lasting peace to the region.

The United States and Britain have placed an albatross firmly around its necks which will be with us for a long time. Just as the Israel/Palestine conflict has been dribbling on since 1948 and the Northern Ireland conflict since 1968. A Nobel Peace Prize gentlemen? Perhaps when hell freezes over, but not before.



	If Bush and Blair think that they are going to get a Nobel Peace Prize for their failed attempt to bring peace to Northern Ireland and Iraq they are living in a world even further from reality than anyone could have possibly imagined. The co-operation in Iraq between the United States and the United Kingdom has always been seen as a manifestation of the mutual support dignified by three centuries of history. The usual propensity for British Prime Ministers to behave like obedient little puppy dogs in response to every whim and command of its former colony. But it is quite likely that the real reason Bush and Blair have risked everything on the disastrous invasion of Iraq has more to do with overwhelming ego than any desire to relieve two countries - Iraq and Northern Ireland - of tyranny and murder. And very little to do with the much publicised statements around removing a murderous dictator who posed a threat to international stability, or helping part of Ireland to regain the peace they lost in 1968. Our story begins in September 2002 when Tony Blair and George Bush met in Camp David to discuss what was officially billed as a number of security related issues. At that time the possibility of invading Iraq was just a twinkle in Bush's eye, and Blair was naively talking about maintaining the cliché of a special relationship between the two countries. Innocent enough in isolation, but seven months later in April 2003 George Bush joined Tony Blair in Northern Ireland to join with the Taoiseach - Prime Minister of Eire - in urging the differing factions to take the final steps towards a lasting peace. Blair's speech for that meeting was peppered with statements referencing how well he and Bush had done in bringing peace to the two regions - Ireland and the Middle East. Why place such an emphasis on bringing peace when he knew that the next step would be to start a war on grounds that we subsequently learned were questionable even in the most charitable interpretation of the facts? Why did Blair spend so much time and effort on trying to gain the approval of the United Nations when he knew that the war would proceed regardless of any resolution they may or may not pass? Quite simply, while Bush occupied himself with macho posturing, Blair knew that they would need the tacit approval of this creaking institution for their military actions before any nomination for a peace prize could be placed before the Nobel committee. Unfortunately the learnings from one facet of this comedy - the troubles in Northern Ireland - were not factored into the second equation of bringing western style democracy to Iraq. Although thousands of miles apart the two regions have a great deal in common. Both have strongly held and deeply divided factions who have spent decades in violent disagreement. Northern Ireland has Protestants and Catholics, Iraq has Sunnis and Shiites. The Protestants dominated the political scene in Northern Ireland which built up strong resentment amongst the disadvantaged Catholic community that erupted in violence at the beginning of the 'troubles' in 1968. Equally, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni minority held the reins over the Shiites which created the same conditions for conflict when the Baathist government was removed from power. Similarly the two cultures carry long memories and grievances that are handed down from generation to succeeding generation, posing an obstruction to any hope for peace except by the slow erosion of the centuries. We learned in Northern Ireland, at least the people did, and we now see peace talks in process between the two extremes of opinion - the Reverend Ian Paisley on the side of the Protestants and Gerry Adams representing the Catholic interest. But their talks, which took thirty six years to bring about, owe nothing to Bush or Blair but simply to the realisation that if they are to compete for political power in the Northern Irish regional assembly they will need to co-operate at the human level as well. Therefore if peace ever does come to the six counties it will be as the result of the efforts of these two gentlemen - Messrs Paisley and Adams - and the determination of the Irish people to reunite their country. It will owe nothing to any subsequent attempts by our respective leaders to claim the glory. So it is with Iraq, and the lessons that neither Blair or Bush have learned, or more probably tried to ignore, from our experience at home. Forget the promise of a local military force in Iraq taking over from the allied forces anytime soon, and don't even consider the possibility of democratic elections in January 2005 bringing lasting peace to the region. The United States and Britain have placed an albatross firmly around its necks which will be with us for a long time. Just as the Israel/Palestine conflict has been dribbling on since 1948 and the Northern Ireland conflict since 1968. A Nobel Peace Prize gentlemen? Perhaps when hell freezes over, but not before.