Sunday
(0)David Renwick is scornful of the 52 diplomats who signed a letter denouncing Tony Blair's Iraq policies, and is equally scornful of those who described this letter as a revolt by The Establishment:
The fact that the letter was not signed by a couple of hundred other former ambassadors, including this one, was thought scarcely worthy of mention.
So who were these signatories?
Many of the signatories were former Arabists in the Foreign Office, affectionately known as the Camel Corps. Some members of the Corps have shown a tendency over the years to develop a quite passionate attachment to the Arab world that, unfortunately, has not always been reciprocated by the Arabs. They have tended to concentrate on the crimes of the Israelis, rather than those of the Palestinians. Most of us would prefer to be more even-handed.
Stephen Pollard is even more scornful. He links to a piece by Andrew Roberts in the Times which says that whenever the Foreign Offices protests like this it tends to be wrong:
TONY BLAIR should be delighted that no fewer than 52 former diplomats have written to him to say that his Middle Eastern policy is "doomed to failure". Whenever a collective view has developed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office it has been only a matter of time – and usually not long, either – before it has been proved spectacularly wrong.
So the 52 are either wrong because they aren't the majority view at the Foreign Office, or because they are. But either way, they are definitely wrong.
Pollard also links to Melanie Phillips, who is even more scornful. To her the Camel Corps is also "The Establishment".
The main personal consequence for the 52 diplomats of having put their heads above the parapet like this has been to draw attention to all the financial interests they have which predispose them towards saying what they have said.
Personally, I am not surprised that people have financial interests in alignment with their opinions. Most of us prefer to make money doing things we believe in. And if these guys believe in making friends with Arabs … For me, the question is, not: Who paid them to say this? It is: Are they right?
Well their post war diplomatic efforts in the Middle East don't seem to have been very sparkling.Suez,Iran,Palestine the Lebanon,great diplomatic successes. None of them seemed to have an inkling about the gigantic oil for food scam.
As for working where their interests lie,diplomats lie for Her Majesties Government could they do the same for somebody else's Majesties Government?
Certainly the timing seems very convenient.
Posted by Peter Bocking at May 3, 2004 02:56 AM
The problem that I have with these revelations is not that officials in the diplomatic service should also have business interests, or that these should be with Arabs. The problem is the massive undeclared conflict of interest that is involved in making political declarations in favour of commercial employers. Politics contain the assumption that they are disinterested, at least on a personal level - naturally we expect our political representatives to have a healthy national self-interest!
If it were generally understood that politicians represented commercial interests as well as political principles, then Brian's position would be correct. However, the assumption is that politicians act from higher principles (hah!), and this is the assumption that the 52 washed-up diplomats had been counting on to give their pronouncements weight.
This is what makes them despicable - not the simple fact of having commercial interests in their area of interest and expertise.
(This comment also reproduced at my own blog)
Posted by Dominic at May 3, 2004 02:07 PM
For me, the question is, not: Who paid them to say this? It is: Are they right?
Much of their credibility comes from their supposed experience and position with the Foreign Service. Rightly or wrongly, we are much more likely to give credence to someone billed as an impartial expert than someone revealed as a paid flack.
And, human nature being what it is, people are much more likely to accept and develop opinions that comport with their financial interests. It may not be so much a matter of thinking the Saudis are wonderful chaps, and then taking their money. More likely, it is a case of thinking the Saudis are wonderful chaps because they are giving you money.
Posted by R C Dean at May 3, 2004 04:20 PM
For me, the question is, not: Who paid them to say this? It is: Are they right?
RC Dean, with Brian Micklethwaite, has raised the crucial point. And when interests align with ambiguity we need to turn on the objectivity-counter and listen for clicks. Not too many coming out here...
Posted by ChrisPer at May 6, 2004 03:09 AM
