Tony Blair Archive until 2004
An Extract from: Family tragedy at the heart of Blair's ambition by Kamal Ahmed, political editor.
The Observer, Sunday April 27, 2003
"Tony Blair's desire to honour the memory of his mother, who died from cancer when he was still at university, was one of the most significant factors behind his driving political ambition, according to Blair's brother.
"In his first interview, to mark the Prime Minister's fiftieth birthday next week, Bill Blair said that many people had underestimated the role which Blair's mother had in his life. Hazel Blair died at 52 after battling a cancer of the thyroid for five years.
"Biographies of the Prime Minister have tended to concentrate on the role of Blair's father, Leo, in his upbringing, with fewer mentions of Hazel, who looked after the children, Bill, Tony and younger sister Sarah.
"Leo, who was a successful barrister, suffered a crippling stroke at 42 and was nursed by Hazel. His political ambitions to become a Conservative MP were dashed.
"'The effect of our father's stroke on Tony has often been analysed,' Bill Blair said. 'I know many people say that the ambition of the father was transferred to the son.
"'I think it is more complicated than that. The family picked itself up, as families do. I wouldn't want to give the impression that the following years were unhappy. They certainly were not. But five or six years later, my mother was diagnosed as having cancer of the thyroid. She died about five years later.
"'From Tony's perspective, I believe it was a combination of things that gave him the drive to succeed. The death of his mother affected him every bit as much as his father's stroke.'
"Bill Blair, who is a QC in London and is three years older than the Prime Minister, has never spoken publicly about his brother. He agreed after he was approached by The Observer for an interview to mark his brother's birthday ...
"... Bill Blair was one of five close friends of Tony Blair who agreed to be interviewed to mark his birthday, giving a revealing portrait of the younger life of the man who became Prime Minister.
"One of his oldest school friends, Nick Ryden, revealed that Blair was beaten at the age of 17 at Fettes College in Edinburgh for 'insolence, or something quite ludicrous'.
"Mark Ellen, who played with Blair in the Ugly Rumours rock band when the two were at Oxford University together, said that the Prime Minister was a great fan of Mick Jagger and could do a passable imitation of the Rolling Stones star on stage.
"Blair became the lead singer in the group after transcribing and then memorising long lists of song lyrics. Ellen admitted that he was dumbfounded that the Prime Minister had put in so much effort."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Webmaster's note: The Observer of the same date (to mark Blair's 50th birthday) features interviews with Bill Blair, Nick Ryden (school friend), Katie Kay (next door neighbour),Mark Ellen (college friend) and Charlie Falconer (political colleague).
An extract from an article entitled 'Blair apologises for exam fiasco' by Michael White, political editor, The Guardian on Friday October 4, 2002:
Tony Blair yesterday offered the government's apology for the exam marking fiasco that may have affected 100,000 A-level students. But he offered little hope of radical reform of either student grants or the charitable status of independent schools.
At the end of a Labour conference in which he repeatedly told delegates to embrace a "bold" reform agenda, the prime minister took advantage of the mass media's presence in Blackpool to stage his new monthly press conference.
Apart from Iraq, the dominant question of the moment proved to be the A-level crisis into which Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools, is completing an investigation.
"I suspect from the information that Mike Tomlinson has already put out that this is a situation we will be able to deal with. But exactly how we are going to deal with it, I'm afraid we will have to wait until he puts out his report," Mr Blair said.
After fencing with reporters over the scale of the problem - "far smaller" than claimed, Mr Blair suspected - and the blame, he finally conceded: "Of course, I'm sorry. I'm not just sorry for those students that have been put in this position, I'm sorry that this situation has ever arisen."
An article By Nick Speed in The Western Mail, entitled 'Blair admits he is only the English PM' on Oct 4 2002
TONY Blair said yesterday he is relaxed about the Welsh party rejecting key elements of the public service reform being introduced in England.
Taking one of his monthly press conferences in Blackpool yesterday, the Prime Minister sidestepped a potential row with First Minister Rhodri Morgan over the reform agenda.
During this week's party conference, which closed yesterday, it has become increasingly apparent that the policies being implemented to improve schools and hospitals are diverging further and further between the two countries.
While Mr Blair says schooling in England has entered the "post-comprehensive era", Mr Morgan pledged that he will never use the phrase to describe the education system in Wales.
And the First Minister has already sided with Gordon Brown rather than Mr Blair in the debate on proposals to establish "founda-tion hospitals" that would be allowed to raise their own finances, saying they have no place in a Welsh NHS.
Questioned as to why he wasn't following Westminster's reform agenda, Mr Morgan controversially claimed that he was the Prime Minister in Wales as far as schools has and hospitals were concerned, while Mr Blair was the Prime Minister for England.
Pressed on those comments yesterday, Mr Blair suggested differences between public services in the two countries were an inevitable result of devolution.
And asked whether he was only the premier for England, his ready response suggested that he had already been alerted to the First Minister's remarks.
"I agree with him that the Welsh health service and schools are matters for the Assembly and the Welsh executive," said Mr Blair.
"If people in Wales want to do it in a different way they can - and it will be the people of Wales that will be the judge of that."
The Dossier on Saddam Hussein was published today (24 September 2002, here is the accompanying, Prime Minister's Iraq statement to Parliament:
IRAQ AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT, 24 SEPTEMBER
Mr Speaker, thank you for recalling Parliament to debate the best way to deal with the issue of the present leadership of Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Today we published a 50 page dossier detailing the history of Iraq's WMD, its breach of UN resolutions and the current attempts to rebuild the illegal WMD programme. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.
At the end of the Gulf War, the full extent of Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes became clear. As a result, the UN passed a series of resolutions demanding Iraq disarm itself of such weapons and establishing a regime of weapons inspection and monitoring to do the task. They were to be given unconditional and unrestricted access to all and any Iraqi sites.
All this is accepted fact. In addition, it is fact, documented by UN inspectors, that Iraq almost immediately began to obstruct the inspections. Visits were delayed; on occasions, inspectors threatened; materiel was moved; special sites, shut to the inspectors, were unilaterally designated by Iraq.
The work of the inspectors continued but against a background of increasing obstruction and non-compliance. Indeed, Iraq denied its biological weapons programme existed until forced to acknowledge it after high ranking defectors disclosed it in 1995.
Eventually in 1997, the UN inspectors declared they were unable to fulfil their task. A year of negotiation and further obstruction occurred until finally in late 1998, the UN team were forced to withdraw. As the dossier sets out, we estimate on the basis of the UN's work that there were: up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agents, including one and a half tonnes of VX nerve agent; up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 litres of anthrax spores; and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.
All of this was missing or unaccounted for.
Military action by the US and UK followed and a certain amount of infrastructure for Iraq's WMD and missile capability was destroyed, setting the Iraqi programme back, but not ending it.
From late 1998 onwards, the sole inhibition on Saddam's WMD programme was the sanctions regime. Iraq was forbidden to use the revenue from its oil except for certain specified non-military purposes. The sanctions regime, however, was also subject to illegal trading and abuse. Because of concerns about its inadequacy - and the impact on the Iraqi people - we made several attempts to refine it, culminating in a new UN resolution in May of this year. But it was only partially effective. Around $3bn of money is illegally taken by Saddam every year now, double the figure for 2000. Self-evidently there is no proper accounting for this money.
Because of concerns that a containment policy based on sanctions alone could not sufficiently inhibit Saddam's weapons programme, negotiations continued after 1998 to gain re-admission for the UN inspectors. In 1999 a new UN resolution demanding their re-entry was passed and ignored. Further negotiations continued. Finally, after several months of discussion with Saddam's regime this year, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, concluded that Saddam was not serious about re-admitting the inspectors and ended the negotiations. That was in July.
All of this is established fact. I set out the history in some detail because occasionally debate on this issue seems to treat it almost as if it had suddenly arisen, coming out of nowhere on a whim, in the last few months of 2002. It is an 11 year history: a history of UN will flouted, lies told by Saddam about existence of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes, obstruction, defiance and denial. There is one common consistent theme, however: the total determination of Saddam to maintain the programme; to risk war, international ostracism, sanctions, the isolation of the Iraqi economy, in order to keep it. At any time, he could have let the inspectors back in and put the world to proof. At any time he could have co-operated with the UN. Ten days ago he made the offer unconditionally, under threat of war. He could have done it at any time in the last eleven years. But he didn't. Why?
The dossier we publish gives the answer. The reason is because his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
The dossier is based on the work of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. For over 60 years, beginning just prior to WWII, the JIC has provided intelligence assessments to British Prime Ministers. Normally its work is secret. Unusually, because it is important we explain our concerns over Saddam to the British people, we have decided to disclose these assessments. I am aware, of course, that people are going to have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services. But this is what they are telling me the British Prime Minister and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative.
It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.
On chemical weapons, the dossier shows that Iraq continues to produce chemical agent for chemical weapons; has rebuilt previously destroyed production plants across Iraq; has bought dual-use chemical facilities; has retained the key personnel formerly engaged in the chemical weapons programme; and has a serious ongoing research programme into weapons production, all of it well funded.
In respect of biological weapons, again production of biological agents has continued; facilities formerly used for biological weapons have been rebuilt; equipment has been purchased for such a programme; and again Saddam has retained the personnel who worked on it, pre 1991. In particular, the UN inspection regime discovered that Iraq was trying to acquire mobile biological weapons facilities which are easier to conceal. Present intelligence confirms they have now got such facilities. The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death.
As for nuclear weapons, Saddam's previous nuclear weapons programme was shut down by the inspectors, following disclosure by defectors of the full, but hidden, nature of it. That programme was based on gas centrifuge uranium enrichment. The known remaining stocks of uranium are now held under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But we now know the following. Since the departure of the inspectors in 1998, Saddam has bought or attempted to buy: specialised vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centrifuge cascade to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production line of the specification for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual use products such as Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride and fluoride gas, which can be used both in petrochemicals but also in gas centrifuge cascades; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fibre gas centrifuge rotors; and has attempted, covertly, to acquire 60,000 or more specialised aluminium tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges.
In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Again key personnel who used to work on the nuclear weapons programme are back in harness. Iraq may claim that this is for a civil nuclear power programme but it has no nuclear power plants.
That is the position in respect of weapons. But, of course, the weapons require ballistic missile capability. This is again subject to UN disarmament resolutions. Iraq is supposed only to have missile capability up to 150 km for conventional weaponry. Pages 27-31 of the dossier detail the evidence on this issue. It is clear both that a significant number of longer-range missiles were effectively concealed from the previous inspectors and remain, including up to 20 extended range Scud missiles; that in mid 2001, there was a step change in the programme and by this year, Iraq's development of weapons with a range over 1,000 kms was well underway; that hundreds of key people are employed on this programme; facilities are being built; and equipment procured, usually clandestinely. Sanctions and import controls have hindered this programme but only slowed its progress. The capability being developed is for multi-purpose use, including with WMD warheads.
Now, that is the assessment to me from the JIC. In addition, we have
well-founded intelligence to tell us that Saddam sees his WMD programme as vital to his survival, as a demonstration of his power and his influence in the region.
There will be some who dismiss all this. Intelligence is not always right. For some of this material there may be innocent explanations.
There will be others who say, rightly, that, for example, on present going, it could be several years before he acquires a usable nuclear weapon. Though, if he were able to purchase fissile materiel illegally, it would only be a year or two.
But let me put it at its simplest: on this 11 year history; with this man, Saddam; with this accumulated, detailed intelligence available; with what we know and what we can reasonably speculate: would the world be wise to leave the present situation undisturbed; to say, despite 14 separate UN demands on this issue, all of which Saddam is in breach of, we should do nothing; to conclude that we should trust not to the good faith of the UN weapons inspectors but to the good faith of the current Iraqi regime?
Our case is simply this: not that we take military action, come what may; but that the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament (as the UN has stipulated) is overwhelming. I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and he has rejected.
People say: but why Saddam? I don't in the least dispute there are other causes of concern on WMD. I said as much in this House on 14 September last year. But two things about Saddam stand out. He has used these weapons, thousands dying in chemical weapons attacks in Iraq itself. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war, started by him, in which one million people died. And his is a regime with no moderate elements to appeal to. Read the chapter on Saddam and human rights. Read not just about the one million dead in the war with Iran, not just about the 100,000 Kurds brutally murdered in northern Iraq; not just the 200,000 Shia Muslims driven from the marshlands in southern Iraq; not just the attempt to subjugate and brutalise the Kuwaitis in 1990 which led to the Gulf War. Read about the routine butchering of political opponents; the prison "cleansing" regimes in which thousands die; the torture chambers and hideous penalties supervised by him and his family and detailed by Amnesty International. Read it all and again I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
Why now? People ask. I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next, that he will use his weapons. But I can say that if the international community having made the call for his disarmament, now, at this moment, at the point of decision, shrugs its shoulders and walks away, he will draw the conclusion dictators faced with a weakening will, always draw. That the international community will talk but not act; will use diplomacy but not force; and we know, again from our history, that diplomacy, not backed by the threat of force, has never worked with dictators and never will work. If we take this course, he will carry on, his efforts will intensify, his confidence grow and at some point, in a future not too distant, the threat will turn into reality. The threat therefore is not imagined. The history of Saddam and WMD is not American or British propaganda. The history and the present threat are real.
And if people say: why should Britain care? I answer: because there is no way that this man, in this region above all regions, could begin a conflict using such weapons and the consequences not engulf the whole world.
That, after all, is the reason the UN passed its resolutions. That is why it is right the UN Security Council again makes its will and its unity clear and lays down a strong new UN resolution and mandate. Then Saddam will have the choice: comply willingly or be forced to comply. That is why alongside the diplomacy, there must be genuine preparedness and planning to take action if diplomacy fails.
Let me be plain about our purpose.
Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam.
They deserve to be led by someone who can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator.
Someone who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not languishing as a pariah.
Someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam's personal greed.
Someone who can lead a government more representative of the country as a whole, while maintaining absolutely Iraq's territorial integrity.
We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East.
So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam.
But our purpose is disarmament. No-one wants military conflict. The whole purpose of putting this before the UN is to demonstrate the united determination of the international community to resolve this in the way it should have been resolved years ago: through a proper process of disarmament under the UN.
Disarmament of all WMD is the demand. One way or another it must be acceded to.
There are two other issues with a bearing on this question which I will deal with.
First, Afghanistan is a country now freed from the Taliban, but still suffering. This is a regime we changed, rightly. I want to make it clear, once again, we are entirely committed to its re-construction. We will not desert the Afghan people. We will stick with them until the job is done.
Secondly, I have no doubt the Arab world knows it would be better off without Saddam. Equally, I know there is genuine resentment at the state of the Middle East Peace Process, which people want to see the international community pursue with the same vigour. Israel will defend its people against these savage acts of terrorism. But the very purpose of this terrorism is to prevent any chance for peace. Meanwhile the Palestinians are suffering in the most appalling and unacceptable way. We need urgent action to build a security infrastructure that gives both Israelis and Palestinians confidence and stops the next suicide bomb closing down the prospects of progress. We need political reform for the Palestinian Authority. And we need a new Conference on the Middle East Peace Process based on the twin principles of a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We can condemn the terrorism and the reaction to it. But frankly, that gets us nowhere. What we need is a firm commitment to action and a massive mobilisation of energy to get the peace process moving again; and we will play our part in any way we can.
Finally, there are many acts of this drama still to be played out. I have always said that Parliament should be kept in touch with all developments, in particular those that would lead us to military action. That remains the case. To those who doubt it, I say: look at Kosovo and Afghanistan. We proceeded with care, with full debate in this House and when we took military action, did so as a last resort. We shall act in the same way now. But I hope we can do so, secure in the knowledge that should Saddam continue to defy the will of the international community, this House, as it has in our history so many times before, will not shrink from doing what is necessary and right.
From The Independent on 27 August 2002, Tony Blair interviewed by Ed Stourton for the BBC on where and when he heard about the events of September 11, 2001: "I remember it very, very clearly obviously, because I was about to give the speech to the TUC in Brighton, and so I was preparing my speech and the television was on in the background. You saw the first plane crash, and then people came in and started to brief me on it. It became clear a short time afterwards that this was not a terrible accident but was almost certainly a terrorist incident, and then of course everything changed.
"I thought instinctively that it was going to be huge, that it would be a defining moment for American foreign policy, and their attitudes towards the world, but also that it presented a momentous challenge to the world at large. It was clear that it was directed at America as a symbol of the Western world and the values we held. There was no doubt in my mind that one, we had to stand very, very closely with America, that America should realise straight away that it wasn't alone in such a situation; and number two that we should regard this an act as if it was an attack on any of us, and all of us ...
"...I am often somebody who likes to see both sides of an issue and to feel my way consensually but there are moments - and you have got to recognise this in politics - where there is no meeting of minds...I am afraid that there is no point in mucking around with that situation. You either get them, or they get you."
From an article by Robert Chalmers in GQ (September 2002 issue)about Noel Godin aka Georges Le Gloupier, the man who 'flanned' amongst others Bill Gates:
"This year's real flans will be delivered, as they were to Bill Gates, by hand... 'And who, I ask him, were the figures in the latest ceremony at Angouleme [i.e. the next targets]?' 'We have entered the period of the Bs,' said Godin. 'Berlusconi and Blair... With Blair, we're thinking not so much of one cake as a cream avalanche of an intensity that could render your Prime Minister temporarily invisble.'"
The This website is a joint sponsor of the British Politics Pages
May 29, 2000:
LONDON (AP) - "British Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to combine fatherhood and politics as he shares responsibility for raising his son Leo, born early Saturday.
"The boy is the first child born to a serving British prime minister in 152 years. Cherie Blair, 45, and the 6 pound, 12 ounce baby - named after Blair's father - were in good health..."
From The Observer / C4 Power 300 list on 24 October 1999:
"Two of the most powerful people in Britain are not businessmen, the Prime Minister, or central bankers; they are unelected advisers to Tony Blair. Alastair Campbell, Blair's press secretary, has jumped into fifth place, while Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, has risen 50 places to number 9.
""With the exceptions of Gordon Brown and John Prescott, Cabinet Ministers have fallen down the list, while those in the informal court around the Prime Minister have been marked up sharply. Charlie Falconer (40), Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, Anji Hunter (58), Blair's diary organiser and gate-keeper, Philip Gould (60), his pollster and prince of focus groups, and even Geoff Norris (209), industrial policy adviser in the Number 10 Policy Unit, have all entered the list for the first time.
"Meanwhile, those advisers included last year have flown up the rankings. Geoff Mulgan, ex-director of the think tank Demos and all-purpose savant in the Number 10 Policy Unit, has risen 90 places to 37. Most startling of all, the intellectual and impeccably polite David Milliband, head of the Policy Unit, has risen more than 140 places to 29 - he now stands above all but the most senior Cabinet members.
"What the panel is signalling is its collective judgement that power has become more concentrated in the centre. Blair runs a presidential system of government. Cabinet meetings are short and perfunctory affairs ..."
Below is a much edited sample of an article co-authored by the webmaster and Chris Horrie, entitled "Tony's friends lose their way", the full text of which appeared in The Independent on Sunday Business section on 25 July 1999:
"Trade minister Stephen Byers lectured the City earlier this week on the need to link soaring boardroom remuneration to business performance. But many senior executives on which New Labour has relied for political support and policy advice manage companies with weak or even terrible performance since the last election.
"Coming out in favour of The Third Way has coincided with a reversal of fortunes for the likes of BA chief Robert Ayling, former Barclays wunderkind Martin Taylor, and Planet Hollywood tycoon Robert Earl. Call it the Curse of Blair...
Robert Ayling, BA
Labour links: on close personal terms with the Labour leadership. Shared 50th birthday party with Jack Straw. Last year Sir Colin Marshall, BA's chairman accompanied Tony Blair to Tokyo in an attempt to explain the Third Way to the Japanese and raise funds. BA's chief economist Dr DeAnne Julius was one of the first experts brought in to join the new Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.
Performance: share price down from 706p on Labour victory day to around 400p this week and a 52 week low of 303p - in round numbers down by 45% over a period when the London stock market has risen by about 50%. Declining profits have led to major lay-offs. One of the few major British companies to be subject to strike action in recent years. Has slipped from claimed position of being 'the world's favourite airline' to mid-way point on international league table of business travellers' preferences. Earlier this month analysts blamed poor leadership for BA's 'dire situation'.
Martin Taylor, ex-Barclays
Labour links: egg-head ex-financial journalist who became chief executive of Barclays at the age of 41, reaching a final salary of £1.5 million a year. An energetic member of Labour's taskforce on welfare reform before the 1997 election, as one of the party's most prominent supporters in the City. Offered the position of minister for the welfare state in Blair's first cabinet and then touted as a possible successor to Eddie George as Governor of the Bank of England. Turned down both positions, saying he was too busy at Barclays.
Performance: 1998 saw a series of disasters for Taylor including the reported rebuff of merger plans with NatWest, the botched sale of BZW and a £300 million bail-out of an American hedge fund. 1998 year on year pre-tax profits fell by half a billion. The share the price fell from a 1998 high of more than 1800p to 1374p on the day of Taylor's resignation. Barclays sans Taylor has recovered strongly. This week the share price was back up over the 1800p mark.
Robert Earl, Planet Hollywood
Labour links: bailed out the party with an emergency £1 million when in November 1997 Labour repaid the same amount to Formula One's Bernie Ecclestone. Close associate of Mark McCormack of IMG, the man entrusted by Peter Mandelson with the role of finding sponsors for the Millenium Dome.
Performance: in the week of Earls' donation in November 1997 Planet Hollywood's shares were worth nearly $15. They are now down by 95% to under $1. Profits before tax of $13.2 million have been turned into losses of almost $250million. If Labour had taken the donation in the form of Planet Hollywood shares, the million would be worth just £50,000 now..."
Thinking of writing to Tony Blair? You're not alone as Hansard written questions on 23 February, 1999 reveals:
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the representations he has received during the last six months on genetically modified crops.
The Prime Minister: In the last six months my office has received over 100,000 items of correspondence from members of the public. Of these approximately 1,000 have related to biotechnology issues and of these approximately 50 have related specifically to genetically modified crops.
Tony Blair and Stevie Wonder - Excerpt from The White House: Office of the Press Secretary, February 24, 1999 - REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON AT STATE DINNER IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT RAWLINGS OF GHANA
PRESIDENT CLINTON: "Ladies and gentlemen, good evening.I want to welcome President Rawlings and Mrs. Rawlings and the entire Ghanaian delegation, along with the distinguished Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and our other distinguished guests to the White House. Hillary and I are delighted to see you all here.
There was so much interest and enthusiasm about this dinner that we had to move it from the dining room into the East Room. And you might be interested to know that it was in this room that Thomas Jefferson met with Meriwether Lewis to plan the great Lewis and Clark expedition, which explored the American continent.
It is fitting that we are having this dinner here, almost 200 years later, to chart a new century and to explore our relationship with Ghana and with Africa. (Applause.)
It was no accident the Ghana was our first stop, our gateway to Africa, when Hillary and I and our delegation, the members of Congress, the administration and citizens traveled to Africa last year. Mr. President, in the last decade, under your leadership, Ghana has made great strides toward fulfilling President Nkrumah's vision of a proud, strong country.
In important ways, it may even have surpassed that vision. Starting our African journey in a democratic country, with a growing economy, a powerful commitment to tolerance at home and peace around the world, allowed us to highlight for all Americans the progress that Africa has made, and the promise of our future together. It allowed us to reaffirm for all of Africa that the United States is proud and determined to build a partnership of mutual respect with African nations which share our dreams of a better world. It also gave us the opportunity to get to know Ghana.
It has become the subject of some raw humor in the White House that I never tire of telling people that we had a half a million people in Independence Square in Ghana. About -- (applause) -- thank you. Every time the Vice President gets a good news story these days, I say, but have you ever spoken to a half a million people? (Laughter.)
Let me say also, Mr. President, we all know that you have so many friends in the United States -- Quite a few here tonight. I want to mention, though, an astonishing fact that I learned about a friend of Ghana, and yours, who is not here tonight -- also a friend of mine, who performed here for the Prime Minister of Great Britain -- Stevie Wonder.
He has -- spends considerable time in Ghana, and, actually, Mr. President, he has boasted in the United States that he's flown your airplane. (Laughter.) I hope you wore a seat belt. (Laughter.) With a story like that, he may be planning to run for office soon..."
From The Guardian, 3 February 1998:
"...Around the same time, Downing Street officials were helpfully drawing the attention of media analysts to an article in the black newspaper New Nation. It was written by Steve Pope, one of two British-based black journalists who accompanied the Prime Minister's party to South Africa last month ..."
[webmaster's note: see the item below for context on how the trip by Steve Pope was funded].
From an article by Gregory Palast in the February issue of Red Pepper:
"... The danger lies in the core work of The Project, the plan, laid out in the Mandelson-Roger Liddle book, The Blair Revolution, to woo corporate Britain away from the tories. How is this seduction of big business to be accomplished? According to Blair advisor and lobbyist Ben Lucas, 'This government likes to make deals.' Besides the apparent PowerGen deal, Lucas told me (while I was operating under my cover) that a £12 million donation from Tesco's paved the way for an exemption from a car park tax costing several times as much. New Labour's Casbah in influence is rarely a simple quid pro quo, more a web of obligations spun by business spiders for minister flies ...
" ... But it is Draper's description of how Sainsbury's money ended up in his pocket that is intriguing. Draper had gone to Blair himself for the start-up cash. Draper says the PM picked up the phone and got Sainsbury's instant nod for the money ..."
From The Observer, 31 January 1999:
"Downing Street is planning a new media strategy aimed at bypassing national papers and their obsession with 'trivia, travel expenses, comment and soap opera'
" ... Campbell also ensured that two members of the ethnic press accompanied the Prime Minister to South Africa and had their costs paid by the British Council ..."
From an article by John Pilger in The Guardian, January 25, 1999:
"... The truth is that the Blair government has secretly approved 64 new arms contracts to the Indonesian dictatorship. These include small arms, ammunition, bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles, mines, riot-control agents, aircraft. Morever, arms manufacturers are more likely to have their export licenses approved under Labour than they were under the Tories. Fewer than one per cent of applications were turned down between August 1997 and August 1998.
"As I recall, Tony Blair, went to Dunblane following the massacre there and shed a tear on television. He subsequently banned the sale of hand guns in this country, while his government secretly approved their export to other countries, where these British weapons have been used in the equivalent of Dunblane many times over ..."
The following outlines what you get taught about Tony Blair at Stanford University:
Tony Blair's Not-So-New Politics in Britain (MLA 61)
Please note: MLA seminars are open only to students who have been admitted to the MLA program.
For eighteen extraordinary years, a scandal-ridden, dissension-plagued Conservative Party dominated British political life. Yet now, only a year after the victory of the "New" Labour Party, the nearly unthinkable has happened: politics is now as utterly dominated by Mrs. Thatcher's opponents as it was by her a decade earlier. Or, on closer examination, has the change been as profound as it would seem? Is Mr. Blair really so different from Mrs. Thatcher? This course looks at the process of change and continuity occurring in British politics one year after Tony Blair and his New Labour Party came to power. In a larger comparative context, the course will explore how politics in Britain and the United States, as well as in Western democracies generally, tends to work so that national political struggle over time is more about such things as scandals and personalities than about real policy or ideological differences.
8-week course
Enrollment is limited.
3 units, $870
Gerald Dorfman,
Professor (by courtesy) of Political Science
Gerald Dorfman is Senior Fellow and Associate Director of the Hoover Institution. He is also Professor, by courtesy, of Political Science. Professor Dorfman has taught British politics for more than two decades and published several books about conflict in the British political system.
From Associated Press, 19/1/99 12:58: "Burglars strike at pollster's offices twice in a week"
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Capitol Hill offices of a Democratic pollster with big-name international clients has been broken into for the second time in a week.
"An employee of Greenberg Quinlan Inc. discovered the break-in this morning," said police spokesman Sgt. Joe Gentile. It occurred sometime after 4 p.m. Monday.
"It appears burglars entered the offices through a side skylight window on the second floor," Gentile said.
Confidential records were stolen in a burglary a week ago. Police said they were investigating whether certain records were targeted in that break-in, including those touching on the firm's work for Ehud Barak, who is running against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A partner in the firm, Stanley Greenberg, was a key pollster in President Clinton's 1992 campaign. The firm in the past worked for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and South African President Nelson Mandela.
Netanyahu's Likud Party denied any involvement in last week's break-in.
Police had no information on what was taken in Tuesday's burglary.