The following interview of Tony Blair has been published in the latest edition of the Stern magazine.

Here, you will find a transcript in English (it is NOT an official translation)!!!!!

I would like to take the opportunity to thank BlairSupporter for his valuable help in trying to translate the interview as best as possible.

That’s the link to his fantastic and excellent blog.. If you want to read his thoughts on the Stern interview, please follow this this link

jjjj

Interesting about this interview are not only the questions (more to follow) but also what the media made out of it.

I want to focus on one particular quote of Tony Blair:

“I think whoever has the possibility should topple Mugabe – the man has destroyed his country, many people have died unnecessarily because of him. My perception of foreign policy is: If you can, you should, but you obviously have to operate within careful limits.”

Tony Blair CLEARLY SAYS “WHOEVER” has the possibility to topple Mugabe, should do it. Who is a pronoun. It is an interrogative pronoun. You should keep that in mind while trying to understand how the media has changed and manipulated the meaning of his words………

The Stern not only published the interview in its hard copy but also a very reduced online version with the headline “Tony Blair would topple Mugabe”. In the following introduction it says: He toppled Saddam Hussein together with the United States and would do the same with Mugabe- if he had the possibility”

His words were changed and completely taken out of its original context , to make headlines and to support a political agenda.

Famously, the Stern is a left wing paper. Therefore against war, against Iraq, against Tony Blair. A man who calls himself a social democrat but advocates a foreign policy which traditionally is rather right wing, is especially suspicious to them. How about the Third Way?!?!?! Just as a little reminder in original Blairism: “There are new questions that cross traditional Party lines:(…) engagement in foreign policy or isolationism(…). In these, the issue is less left vs. right but open vs. closed“

There you go.

The British neo-right wing paper Daily Mail, famous for its tridents of hate against the former British Premier, went even further translating his words with: “I’d topple Mugabe if I were still in power”.

So far on that—————-oO…………………………..

For everybody who wants to know what he really said: here the scan of the original Stern magazine and my and BlairSupporters translation

gggg

jjjjdhdhdhdhduu

Inhaltsverzeichnis

“If you just sail through, you do not lead.”

For a long time, he was the most popular Western politician; today his work is being critically evaluated. A conversation with Tony Blair about the war in Iraq and his life after Downing Street.

Seite 1

For the last two years he has no longer been the Prime Minister. Nevertheless he travels around the world more than ever. As the Middle East peace envoy, adviser of banks and insurances and one of the world’s best paid speakers. Without the one particular issue that still haunts him Tony Blair would probably be a superstar.

S: Mr. Blair, right now Obama is the coolest statesman in the world. You have to be familiar with that, because, when you became Prime Minister, you were the most attractive politician.

TB: Well if a new leader enters the political stage, he always raises high hopes. And Obama is doing a brilliant job.

S: In a way, similar to your early days. When you entered office suddenly there was talk of  ‘Cool Britannia’.

TB: The funny thing was that everyone believed it was part of a basic strategy. The truth is I had no idea that Oasis would come over to Downing Street. ‘Cool Britannia’ was the idea of other people, but it was the right time for it. When everyone celebrated the election success throughout the night, I didn’t even permit myself a drink. I was totally focused on running my country, from the next day onwards.

S: Why did your personal ratings crash that hard?

TB: As time goes by, you have to make big decisions. And they are always controversial and difficult. Just two years after our first election success, I said in a speech: It is time for us to become unpopular. If you just sail through, you do not lead. Then you only try to hold on to power.

Seite 2

S: In your particular case, it was especially the result of the decision to join George W. Bush into the Iraq war. Is this decision the open wound of your time in office?

TB: Yes, I have to live with that, because I have to live with the consequences of this decision. But the question is: Would the region be better off if Saddam was still in power? Let alone all the difficulties, getting rid of Saddam was never the problem. This happened within two months. The problem was the aftermath.

S: If we recall rightly, you did not go to war to topple a regime.

TB: This is true. We declared war because we had evidence for WMDs. Ultimately, the evidence was wrong. But we knew that Saddam had used such weapons in the past. Therefore we knew that he was in possession of them. It was also the general basis for the previous UN resolutions. Of course I have to accept that important aspects of the chain of evidence were proven wrong. But do I regret having removed Saddam Hussein? The answer is frankly, no.

S: According to international law, as claimed by your Attorney General, you were only permitted to go to war because of the WMDs,  not in order to topple a regime.

TB: This discussion is kind of artificial. Of course the character of a regime is essential, if you try to assess its potential danger. And if you look at the first Gulf war and its consequences, you know very well how dangerous this regime was.

S. The former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has recently said    that he would have never gone in front of the UN Security Council if he knew how fragile the evidence was.

TB: If you are sure that something isn’t right, you of course don’t claim it is right. You just have to consider that at this time nobody questioned the evidence of our secret services.

S. But the dossiers you received were sexed up.

TB: This allegation is still circulating in our media. We had an inquiry into that for over six months and ultimately the government was cleared by it.

S: Still there is reason for another Iraq inquiry. The government of your successor, Gordon Brown, is just launching it.

TB: You have to learn from the events of the past. We did the same after the Falklands war. But this is a totally different matter than another inquiry into whether or not we deliberately misled people.  At that time we took a decision. You can agree with it or not. But we acted in good faith and not because of a dark ulterior motive. There is no scandal, no conspiracy, no piece of paper that states that in reality it was about oil or whatever.

S: Previously, the new US administration published reports indicating that the US has systematically tortured. Presumably with approval from the very top. Were you aware of that during your time in office?

TB: I can’t comment on what people knew or not, or did or didn’t. I can only emphasis that I always condemned torture. This was my private conviction, as well as my official approach. Certainly, I was not aware of that.

S. Does it alter your view about the Bush administration?

Seite 3

Seite 4

TB: Before I am going to judge on that, I would like to know what the people have supposedly done. I am long enough in the business to know that by no means everything we read is according to the truth. Some parts of the British media always attempted to suggest that I took part in it or even approved torture. This is utterly wrong. I was the first to bring back Guantanamo detainees. I told America we would have done better without Guantanamo. But I also understood that it was difficult.

S: Until today, some members of the former US administration try to assess what torture really is.

TB: This debate should never have been started from the very beginning because it is totally obvious. As far as I am concerned British citizens never took part in such interrogations.

S: In the end, the question is why Saddam? Why not Mugabe or other dictators?

TB:. I think whoever has the possibility should topple Mugabe – the man has destroyed his country, many people have died unnecessarily because of him. My perception of foreign policy is: If you can, you should, but you obviously have to operate within careful limits.

S: Have you been disappointed that France and Germany clearly were against the war?

TB: There were differences in opinion. Chancellor Schroeder has every right to have his distinctive one. He thought that he was right, and I was wrong.

S: Bill Clinton once said that Chirac and Schroeder have left you naked in the middle of the room. Were you surprised that Schroeder decided against you?

TB: I don’t know. But I don’t think that discussing it is a very productive way of using my time. Or his.

S: What about Bill Clinton? He always seemed like the far better counterpart for you.

TB: My relationship to George Bush was fine. I am not a fair weather friend. I always thought of him as very straight. There were many things on which we disagreed. Climate change and stem cell research. But after September 11^th we had to draw a clear line. Politically, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are closer to me. But in respect to security issues I believe it was right to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US.

S: Today you talk way more openly about your religious faith. Was it the basis for your friendship with George Bush?

TB: The answer is No. Either you have faith or you don’t. If you have faith, of course, it influences your life and the way you are. But it doesn’t mean that you go to work and pray.

S: If you talk about religion, you put emphasis on the aspect of togetherness.

TB: Absolutely.

S: On the contrary, George Bush seems to use his faith as a kind of dissociation from others.

TB: I don’t know. Ask him.

S: But you must have thought about that, considering that he believed that God told him what to do.

TB: Did he ever say so?

S: Yes. And his perception of religion must have influenced his politics.

Seite 5

TB: He became convinced of that because, just nine months after he had entered office, 3000 people were killed on the Streets of NY as a result of the worst terrorist attack the world has ever seen. It altered him. It was not a religious enlightenment. It was because his country was subjected to a terrible terrorist attack.

S: Your Ambassador in the US, Sir Christopher Meyer said at that time that you and George Bush were convinced that evil came onto the world.

TB: If 3000 people are being killed by people who fly planes into buildings, it is right to say this is an act of evil. And if people try to destabilise whole countries through terrorism, then the ‘what-is-it-all-about’ thing seems pretty contemptuous. These people should go to Afghanistan, to Iraq or Pakistan, where people are simply being killed for having a different religious faith. And then they can come and tell me I have no right to talk about good and evil.

S. And your religious faith helped you to decide on war and peace?

TB: Such decisions have to be made on the basis of political analysis and convictions. Religion can give you strength and the ability to understand that besides strength you also need a certain humility. But faith doesn’t tell you what is right or wrong in respect of a particular issue.

S: Did you talk to George W Bush about that?

TB: No.

S: Why not?

TB: We have talked about religion but not in relation to that. And that’s important to me, because otherwise, people start to talk about absurd conspiracy theories again, saying that he did all that in the name of God’s mission. He did so for a simple reason: He thought that the world had changed. And he was right.

S: Were you surprised that the UN, the EU, Russia and America –the so called Middle East Quartet-decided on you out of all people to become Middle East envoy?

TB: No. I even tried hard for it. I did so because now, after leaving politics, I have the chance in my life to use my knowledge from my time in office with deeper insight and in more detail.

S: But are you not famous in the region for being George W. Bush’s poodle?

TB: I can honestly say that not once in all the time that I have been dealing with the Palestinians has the issue of my close relationship with the US or Israel ever been a problem. On the contrary, it is an advantage. I remember president Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, when I had my first conversation with him. I said it might be a disadvantage because of my closeness to America and my strong view on Israel, and he said: ‘That is why you are useful’.

S: Although three years ago, you supported Israel in the war against Lebanon, in contrast to the advice of your closest political aides?

TB: Yes, but we have to be very careful here. I criticise Israeli politics and fight hard for the rights of the Palestinians. However, Israel must be able to defend itself if it is attacked.

S: But has Israel not overreacted with the bombing of large parts of Beirut?

TB: Sure. And there was a debate on that. The truth is: Israel has a security problem. And whoever ignores that – and especially the Europeans like to do so – do not help the Palestinians. The problem can only be solved if the Palestinians manage to live under one government, law and army.

S: While the Israel government of Benyamin Netanyahu continues to build new settlements?

TB: All kind of different governments have continued with this policy. From Rabin to Barak. It should encourage us even more to secure a peace deal.

S: Should we talk to Hamas?

TB: The Quartet is not talking to Hamas. But it’s not vital right now. Because Egypt is talking to Hamas.

S: You did say about your life after Downing Street that you don’t have power any more but influence. Is this true in respect to the Middle East?

TB: After years in power of course you have a lot of contacts. And if you have, on top of that, the wish to have a mission – which I have – your influence hopefully increases after some time.

S: And how exactly has your life changed, after resigning as Prime Minister?

TB: I had to come to terms with the daily routine: e-mail, Blackberry. In the previous years I had a lot of people who did so for me.

S: So are you a Blackberry man, like Barack Obama, now?

TB: Absolutely. One day after leaving Downing Street I sent a message to a friend of mine. “How are you, what are you doing?”  I forgot to put my name under it.  So I got a message back: “Who exactly are you?” And I thought: “Just 24 hours after leaving office nobody knows you anymore.”

S. Even people who are not greatly concerned with politics remember a very distinctive moment for you, just four months after becoming Prime Minister. It was the day when Diana Princess of Wales, died in a car crash in Paris. How did you feel about that?

TB: A terrible shock. I knew her quite well and liked her a lot. She was an icon. She touched the lives of many people in a very unique way. In such moments it is best to say what you feel. You can’t prepare for it.

S: Has this day changed your relationship to the Queen?

TB: I did not know the Queen (well) at that time. If the accident had happened later it all would have been easier. But the Queen is a very nice and dignified person, so it wasn’t that difficult.

S: So she liked how you were portrayed three years ago, as a young Prime Minister in the movie “The Queen”?

TB: During one of my last audiences she said: “I do not suppose we will watch it.”

S: And how did you like the movie?

TB: Like a dutiful subject I also didn’t watch it.

S: In her autobiography, your wife tells a story about one of your visits to the Royal Family at Balmoral. Nine months later your son Leo was born.

TB: That’s a very diplomatic way to describe it.

S: And what kind of contraception was your wife not able to hide away from Balmoral’s security people?

TB: We don’t really want to discuss this topic, do we?

S: So let’s try another one. In hindsight, it looks like you just resigned at the right time. Shortly afterwards, the financial crisis began.

TB: Ten years are ten years. I have won three elections, and I did not want to go into a fourth.

S: Your successor, Gordon Brown, or Schroeder’s successor, Steinmeier, are in deep trouble. Actually social democrats should profit from this crisis, shouldn’t they?

TB: It is important for the left wing parties to understand that this is not a crisis of capitalism. I think the voters know that the financial crisis can be tackled with the help of the state. But that’s something different than turning back the politics from over 40 years. People wouldn’t buy that. They know they need competition. They are worried about the prices they have to pay in the long run.

S: What has the left done wrong?

TB: You can’t win an election without taking the centre into account. Nowadays, parties need the backing of the economy and the unions. You have to be tough on security issues, smart in diplomacy, and reform the public sector not only maintain the welfare state.

S: Gerhardt Schroeder has been criticised for taking on a job at Gazprom, after leaving politics. You are a high paid adviser for American banks. Do you feel like being caught up in a clash of interests or even a moral conflict?

TB: I can’t comment on the decision of Mr Schroeder. But I think it’s good when the people who have run a country are highly valued.

S: Were you prepared to give up parts of your income to become the EU President?

TB: (Laughs) Let us wait and see if the job really comes into existence.

——————-END OF INTERVIEW———————–

dd

d

He is one of the most famous politicians and certainly one of the most controversial of our time.

There are many people who disagree with him, or even hate him, mostly because of his intense relation to the US and his decision to invade Iraq. There are plenty of possibilities to negatively read, write or talk about him. Very often it has been ignored how much good he has done for Great Britain, but also for the International Community. It is scandalous that he is regularly treated with such ignorance and arrogance.

To many people, especially outside the UK, he first became an issue, after beginning to resolutely fight against terrorism. For many people this still is the only foundation to judge him. When the threat of radical Islam first became massive, he had already finished two terms in office and his foreign policy had not particularly changed.

Tony  Blair was, is, and always will be a humanitarian interventionist, and that’s the way he has always described himself. According to his own words, his political credo is that you should get involved if it is possible. He often acted correspondingly to it, for example when he, as leader of the opposition in the UK, agitated for the immediate end of the slaughtering of the Tutsi by the Hutu militia in Ruanda 1994, or when he convinced the Clinton administration to transact the decisive action against Milosevic in the Kosovo war, or his intervention in Sierra Leone which put an end to the long lasting civil war, or in one of his most vital roles as a mediator in the Northern Ireland peace process, which terminated the 300 year long civil unrest.

Tony Blair has never shied away from intervening, while others would rather look away, keep quiet or deny. For the same reasons, he decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US, after the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Many accuse him of have taken an inferior, even devoted, position towards the US. Very often people call him the lap dog of George W. Bush. The truth is that Tony Blair has, in one of his most important foreign policy speeches in Chicago in 1999, where he introduced the doctrine of humanitarian interventionism, already pointed at the threat deriving from Saddam Hussein’s regime.

For many people his actions will always be wrong, dubious and  too complex to understand. They will not stop calling him a war criminal, even though he has never been tried by a secular court (and never will!!!!!). Quite the contrary, everywhere in the world he receives awards and peace prices.

Even after his resignation as Prime Minister he has not stopped fighting for the good of others, as envoy of the Middle East Quartet (consisting of the UN, EU, America and Russia) as well as the chairman of several charity organisations.

Here on this blog, we would like to pay tribute to Britain’s longest serving Labour Prime Minister, who has revolutionised his country and has shaped Western foreign policy.

Tony Blair once said that history will show how people ultimately judge him. We are confident that, maybe not even too long from now, he will receive the credit he so very well deserves.

Julie

fffff