Exclusive Interview with Tony Blair
Interview with Tony Blair – Dublin Sept 3 ’010.
0n publication of his autobiography ‘A Journey.”
EM. Why did you write Peter Robinson out of history? He only gets two passing references in a tome of this size?
TB. “When he got two references, that’s pretty good I would say.”
EM: He’s our Prime Minister. Is that all you think of him?
TB. “It’s not what I think of him. I think he is fantastic but it’s a book about my ten years as PM.”
EM: Ian Paisley was always ‘the no man’. What changed him?
TB. “It was very simple because the IRA gave up violence and it was always his position that if they did he would share power.
I think also there was a mellowing happening that went on with Ian. He also listened to the people. I remember him very clearly saying towards the end putting together the final agreement that led to power sharing, him saying I have been listening to the people. I think they want this and I think it is my duty to make it happen.”
EM: Did he ask you if God wanted him to do the deal?
TB. “It was a conversation really – we often used to talk about religion actually but I said frankly I think he you should make up his mind about that.
” When you are in politics in Northern Ireland people have very strong views about, whether it is Gerry Adams, or Ian Paisley or David Trimble, when you’re from the outside you actually often see the best of people more easily.”
EM:’ The couple’ – a strange term for Adams and Mc Guinness – when you were speaking with them did you see them as Unionists portrayed them as killers, the leaders of a killing organisation?
TB. “I saw them as people, political leaders of an organisation. Whatever the past but you don’t have to forget or forgive indeed. They wanted a different future.”
EM: Why did you say that you got to like them probably too much?
TB. “Partly because you can’t ignore what happened in the past but on the other hand they did exercise considerable political courage in making the changes necessary to get peace and to get power sharing where we are now. Northern Ireland, the peace process, sometimes we have got to lift our eyes up a little bit. Around the world, I was in the White House the other day with President Obama in the Middle East process. Around the world the Northern Ireland Peace Process is a symbol of hope and encouragement for people trying to make peace.”
EM: In terms of politicians you have known how would you calibrate Adams and Mc Guinness as leaders?
TB. “They were strong leaders, good leaders. That isn’t to forget anything that happened in the past or necessary to forgive. In the context of Northern Ireland they showed considerable courage in leadership so did David Trimble, so did, in the end Ian Paisley.”
EM: When Robert Mc Cartney (killed in Belfast city centre bar, Jan 30 2005) how bad was that? Did you consider chucking it all in at that time, walking away from it all?
TB …”It was very bad but in a sense the thing that gave you heart was the reaction of his family and of the local community who decided in a sense said we’re not having this and that which probably wouldn’t have happened 10/15 years ago gave us heart.”
EM: Unionists are hammering you for your overt declaration that you were in the business of bending the truth at times, stretching the truth, indulging in creative ambiguity, how do you square that in terms of your morality, your catholicism? They’re hammering you for this.
TB: …” I think my response is come on guys let’s all be a little bit honest with each others. I actually talked a bout creative ambiguity at the time . When I made the ‘acts of completion’ speech in 2002 I actually said creative ambiguity had been our friend but now was the time for acts of completion. That was what we were struggling for. What are they really saying that they were never been in a political situation where they were trying to manoeuvre their way to get what they thought was right.”
EM: Paint this picture for me. Bertie Ahern and yourself and De Chastelain in Hillsborough Castle that famous day( Oct 21/ 2003) when I undid Mr De Chastelain, come on tell me the story …
TB. “We remember you Eamonn” (Blair roars with laughter).
EM: I was blamed for wrecking the Peace Process but I didn’t. What actually happened in there in that room?
TB “What happened was basically was that General De Chastelain who is someone of the highest integrity he felt he couldn’t say more than the IRA had allowed him to say which really wasn’t enough to get the thing done.”
EM: What did the herald say? Give us that lovely description …
TB ..” I think you are going to have to go and read the book”
EM: I’ve read it. You said “the herald was forbidden to say with whom the king had been abed the night before.” Was that how exactly how he felt himself?
TB.. “Put it like this we needed a lot of detail and didn’t get much.
He was being true to himself to be fair. ”
EM: Were you shocked when he talked about the IRA decommissioning tanks?
TB: “Yes because (“laugh) we hadn’t actually appreciated they may have ever had such things. Through the Peace Process the one thing you have got to do is keep a sense of humour.”
EM: What about ‘ah Jasus Bertie? What was it between the two of you that worked?
TB. “We were both modern examples of our own country’s culture in a way. Bertie was steeped in Irish history but was prepared to move beyond and I couldn’t believe as we approached the 21st century we couldn’t get peace among people in Northern Ireland.”
EM. How important was John Hume? How important in local politics in world politics?
TB: “Fantastically important. Even in America today John Hume is one of the most respected people. In many ways he was the person who first saw the prospect for peace and was prepared to act when it was really really very difficult to do so.”
EM: Did David Trimble let you down?
TB. “No. On the contrary he justifies his place in history and his Nobel Peace prize.”
EM: I always considered you a very controlled disciplined individual. I was shocked to learn that you hit the bottle. What is that all about?
TB: (Roars of laughter). ” The thing that I love about my description there is that John Reid …
EM ‘I loved it. What you were drinking he feeds to the budgie.’
TB “I think it is an interesting thing when you approach middle age you’ve got to be careful.”
UDI? Rhodesia? Robinson a Prime Minister?
Great to see everyone from Martin McGuinness to Ian Paisley are nice guys and part of the team. Good too of Robert Mc Cartney to be killed to show the “community” that kiling members of the “community” is “wrong”.
Is Tony doing Podge and Rodge too?
Anyway, good interview Eamonn. I hope he gave you a few free books for your work. Quid pro quo and all that.
Many people, rightly or wrongly, hate Tony Blair. But without his vision, energy and perserverance, aided and abetted by Bertie, we would not be where we are today. Terrorist violence, worrying, but at a very low level. The vast majority of the population accepting the current status quo. Two hated enemy parties governing together and becoming more used to and comfortable with each other.
That you Tony and Bertie.
The peace would have happened without Tony Blair. He wants the credit but the peace was started by John Major. Tony Blair wants the credit but he does not deserve it. Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, David Trimble and of course John Hume are the ones who put themselves on the line for peace. Tony is still patting the hand of destiny on his shoulder, although that hand has probably shifted a bit along with his halo.
He was pelted with eggs and shoes etc in Dublin and that is the good news of the today.
Sorry for the ‘errors’ I really miss the preview option…
The news says that the numbers lining up for his signature on his book vastly outnumbered the cretins who think that pelting someone is harmless fun. It isn’t.
As for Major, he may have theoretically started the process but he never was serious, always finding new ways to exclude SF.
Blair forced the pace to make those others you name move forward.
Still don’t know what to make of TB personally, but for the effort he put into here we owe him quite a bit, I think history will be kind enough to him and even Iraq might look different after a decade or two.
The two things that bugged me most about his reign was the relience of spin and his constitutional tinkering, that and lettin El Gord muck up the economy towards the end.
protesters outside threw eggs & shoes at the war criminal while inside eamon gave him a blow job – blair mentions importance of robert mccartney killing but if you read his sister, catherine’s memoir what comes across was the utter indifference of blair’s government to the murder.
Pippakin – I’m inclined to agree that Tony’s more than eager to take his share of the credit for the peace process, especially post-Iraq as his legacy has truly taken a battering.
However you comment that “The peace would have happened without Tony Blair. He wants the credit but the peace was started by John Major. Tony Blair wants the credit but he does not deserve it.”
Very, very big question there. I wouldn’t at all consider idle speculation on whether the GFA would have been possible without Tony Blair (or at least a Labour Govt), never mind reach your degree of uncertainty in dismissing the role played by Blair.
joe
Sorry, but Tony Blair has lied too often and for too long to be taken seriously on anything, especially the north. Peace happened because it was obvious it was the logical next step and Major for all his faults (and no way was he as good a liar as Adams or Blair) set the ball rolling and was prepared to go the distance.
Oddly Blair who since leaving office, is despised as a leader everywhere within these islands compares badly with Major, who whilst being relatively unknown outside the UK and hated when he left office, is now accepted as an, within the usual political boundaries, honest leader.
I have nothing but contempt for Tony Blair. he lied about everything up to and including his own religion.
Charminator
You leave out all the other ‘players’. Peace was not TBs to deliver. It took all the people involved and was most definitely not a ‘one man band’. John Hume and David Trimble hardly mentioned anymore, arguably sacrificed their own careers and indeed their parties positions to bring peace. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have put their own futures, literally, on the line and their party has lost, in many ways, as much as it has gained.
joan
Agreed. Typical.
I am extremely surprised to see that Peter Robinson only gets two fleeting mentions in Tony Blair’s book, particularly given the role Robinson has played in the course of the Troubles and the Peace Process. Although I am not a fan of Peter Robinson I do find it annoying to see such much praise lavished upon Ian Paisley for saying yes when it was Robinson who fueled the DUP’s ultimate acceptance of power-sharing, it was Robinson who made the DUP into the electoral force that they are today and it was Robinson who guided Paisley towards the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The focus upon Paisley and the praise reserved only for him is quite extraordinary because it completely ignores the role played by, of all people, Peter Robinson. I really cannot fathom how Blair could only briefly mention Robinson twice in the course of what is a huge account of Blair’s political life and of the peace process in Northern Ireland, of which Robinson has been a huge player. In recent years Paisley has been wined and dined by everybody, and praised beyond that of which is deserved – even Paisley has swallowed the hype by suggesting that Sinn Fein did not become the largest party on his watch and that he had ensured the growth of the DUP when everybody knows, including David Gordon who wrote about this recently, that it was Robinson who made the DUP – he was the brains and Paisley was the heart. Robinson deserves greater credit rather than being, as Eamonn suggested, written out of history!
Would there be a whole lot of difference Tony Blair and David Cameron.
Tony Blair was/is a Tory in Labour clothing.
The question to ask Tony is, does he regret not becoming leader of the Tory party.
I am not sure that I agree. Tony Blair brought an aspect of “hands on” to the whole thing that wasn’t there before. He also showed a degree of determination that I don’t imagine John Major would have been able to show. Finally, I don’t think the Tory establishment would have tolerated a Conservative prime minister signing off on prisoner releases.
To me the peace process is just about the only worthwhile contribution to history that Blair made.
Joe, I think it is a bit unfair to say that Major was trying to find ways to exclude SF. I think he understood that they couldn’t be excluded, but due to his thin majority (which the unionists used to maximum effect) there is no way that he could do anything but accede to their demands. Republicans often say that he should have taken risks and shown leadership, but I find that typical of the kind of over-inflated sense of self importance we have here where people seriously believe that it would have been appropriate for a Prime Minister to sacrifice his entire government just to stop the unionists from roadblocking things.
I have a lot of time for John Major these days and I respect what he did to get the process started. I don’t think his contribution is really accorded with the credit it deserves. But I don’t think he would have had the kind of single-mindedness that Blair had, which was ultimately required to get the deal sealed.
Mixed views about Tony Blair. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the GFA could not have been achieved without the British PM and others going out on a limb, commiting themselves to finding an all-party agreed solution, and refusing to go behind that agreement.
On the other hand, cannot understand why a Social Democrat could become a fawning and compliant supporter of a barely literate right-wing US President in his desire for overseas military adventures. Britain would have been admired internationally had it acted more independently with a policy of its own, more in touch with its European neighbours and friends, and the thoughts and thinking of its own peoples. My tuppence worth.
Do you agree with Tony giving his money for his book back?
Trimble did sacrifice his career, but I don’t think he did it out of some sort of act of altruism. He did it because the British, ie Blair, put a gun to his head and said that if you don’t start dealing we’re going to make your life a living hell. It was the first time since partition, IMO, that a British government really laid it on the line to the unionists. I think that in itself is probably more responsible for the success of the enterprise than any other single aspect of the process.
John Hume didn’t sacrifice his career, he carefully machinated things to ensure that he had a place in the history books despite not really doing anything in particular. I don’t buy the idea that he persuaded the IRA to stop using violence, the IRA had already realised by the mid 1980s that the war couldn’t be won and that they needed to find a way out. Hume’s role was to provide a leg up for SF, and it was his party, not he, who paid the price.
Gerry and Martin did take risks, I would not want to diminish that, but I think they were rather calculated risks and I don’t think there were many points were they were in really serious danger, except for that period around the Canary Wharf bombing where they carefully backed out of the limelight and waited for the trouble to pass. They didn’t make any big moves until all the ducks were in line first and they took care not to get too far ahead of their followers.
Nice try but the style of Tony was certainly not that of a Tory.
You’ll see soon enough.
Yes; it will always be an unanswered question as to why he totally supported Bush. Simple payback for the help when the UK once stood alone. A mystery.
Comrade Stalin
Whilst I disagree about Tony Blair, you have to be aware most of his ‘hands on’ commitments cost lives. I do completely agree with you about Major. His last year or so in office was a nightmare for him (and this is a socialist saying it) but he did try and was prepared to move forward.
joe
I think he did actually believe in the war, not the WMDs but in the need to get rid of Saddam and I think there is a kind of evangelical (odd applying that word to him) streak that fully supported Bush.
He thought getting rid of Saddam was, in the long term, worth any lie or any deed, which is pretty much par for the course for his entire premiership.
Comrade Stalin
I agree with much of what you say, but as regards Trimble not so much. I don’t think Trimble would have been risking as much as you think in refusing Blair. Blair had to get unionists on board, without them the democratic process would not work, and without the democratic process he might not have bought the rest of the UK with him. The English don’t like the north but they don’t like blatant disregard of people and democracy either.
John Hume was on his way out, having not achieved much, but he must have known he was sacrificing himself and the SDLP when he agreed to the deal.
Everyone thinks the Brits cared so much about Canary Wharf but it, apart from risking the talks, was not such a big deal, there had been worse. The risks Adams and McGuinness took was in the sense of betrayal their own hardliners felt and still feel. In some ways they are still at risk.
Sorry, Pippa, can’t agree with your last contribution. I don’t believe he was by nature a war monger. Although it is true to say that alleged WMD were used as a pretext for the war, both by the US and Britain, despite their being no objective evidence to support the false assertion, it would have enhanced Britain’s standing in the world had it taken a more independent position based on the actual reality on the ground.
Remember, it was only a short time before that Saddam was the great ally the West was glad to have in the Iraq/Iran conflict. When Colin Powell saw how misled he had been in presenting bogus picture evidence to the UN he had no hesitation in resigning. And the French to their credit never went along with the fraudulent WMD ‘evidence’.
Your view, Pippa, that he was driven to get rid of Saddam is hard to accept given the prevalence around the world many equally obnoxious rulers and dictators. Was it necessary to cause the deaths of so many just to kill one man ?
Yes, Blair and Bush were practicing Christians and perhaps this religious bond may have, or not, drawn them closer. What I find hard to understand is how an otherwise clever man was so suppine to the extremist thoughts of Bush and his neocons n this issue. By doing so, a real opportunity was lost to display an independence of thought and action.
Blair’s role in Northern Ireland was nothing if not overwhelmingly positive. He drove the process through and we have to thank him (and Adams and Trimble) for where we are today.
All three did the heavy lifting.
Paisley was only ever going on one direction once he took over the leadership of Norn Iron’s unionists.
Only instead of going the way of O’Neill, Faulkener, Molyneaux, and Trimble – he could close the deal because there was no Paisley breathing down his neck.
AND, crucially, he created the fear and then, when the crown was offered, extinguished it.
Those might would come after, and ride the same tiger, should ponder the fate of Jim Allister: much more intellectually robust than Dr P, maybe didn’t have the same cunning, but he couldn’t sell or exploit that ‘traditonal’ unionist fear.
That ship has sailed, despite what you might read in the Newsletter.
Warren Poynt
Oh Im not excusing Blair not at all. He was totally wrong to take the British into a war they did not believe and did not support. I have heard and read some extraordinary reasons for his support for the US, but I do think it may simply be that he agreed it was right to get rid of Sadam Hussein. Or perhaps one of the conspiracy theories are correct. It makes no real difference. Tony Blair lead his country into a war that was completely disastrous for Iraq. The outcome is likely to be yet another US approved dictator and the Iraqis will continue to suffer.
Some say it was all about oil but Im not so sure of that, it seems a stretch, there are other easier oil rich countries which would almost certainly be more welcoming to the US than any Arab country.
Hussein was yet another US stooge, like Bin Laden and the Taliban who grew in power and turned on their benefactor. Perhaps that was the real reason for US action. You do not bite the hand that feeds you.
It will need another, more honest person than TB to set the record person straight.
TB What a load of bull shit .Listenning to him , We had the same trash on RTE last night, Soft Interviews, soft answers and then the War Criminal thinks they /he has the right to go into Iran, what a fucking mad killer.Last night on RTE he spoke about how the Mortality rate in Iraq under Saddam was on par with the Congo and how now so many children are now living becuase Saddam is gone, what a load of shite, Remember he and his cohorts brought in the sanctions and that ruined a Country that in 1980 had problem one of the best Educationl and Health Systems in the World.This is one mad mother killer.Iran a great Country and he thinks they can walk in just like Iraq .Crazy Crazy. Have we now say
Who could argue with your apparent belief that pre-Saddam Iraq was a paradise on earth? cough cough, excuse me for a moment…
Pre-Saddam’s overthrow, that is. I don’t know what it was like before the Baathist coup.
Saddam was a Killer and should have been dealth with , Simple easy enough.. Israel or the CIa could do that without a thought. To invade to cause sanctions that is a differet matter It suited everyone that SH was there, Rumsfield met him 2 days before the invasion of Kuwait and basically told him to go ahead invade.,
He assisted with the launch of an illegal war on a sovereign state.
Crimes of aggression are defined by the Nuremberg principles as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties”
Pasted from wikipedia.
The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
* taking of hostages
* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
* unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement. – extraordinary rendition.
Blair violated the Nuremberg principles and Geneva conventions.
// You had a war criminal and served soft ball questions.
I don’t think getting close enough to kill him was easy. There were a number of failed assassination attempts.
I hope he is right (in religion) and he burns in hell, a man more close to the word evil in my time and close to me in time i have not known.
Jay,
“// You had a war criminal and served soft ball questions.”
Indeed.
What is it the Americans say, a circle jerk?
Tovarich
I think that you are being subjective over Major rather than objective. I am more than happy to accept differing opinions but nevertheless he lost the poison chalice that was his Prime Ministerial office without much honour for ‘doing the right thing’ over a peace process that he was prepared to stall, the reality of which dissolusioned others and could have have resulted in a disastrous split in Irish nationalism……………and to what end?
Pip
I agree Blair is a liar, something of which he has freely admitted but anyone looking in from the outside must give him credit for his stewardship.
I would argue that if Blair did not start as the leader of the Tory party, he certainly left as the leader of a ‘tory party’ Even years after Blair left they are still churning out policies that are to the right of the tories.
“Simple payback for the help when the UK once stood alone.”
Joe what is that daft statement about??? when did the UK ever stand alone?
Was it when they were fighting the Romans!
You are so right Joe…. Iraq today with it’s 1.7 million dead civilians (you know women and children) the secterian violence killing tens of thousands of ordinary people.
The road system ruined the rail system fucked all the bridges that are not on an oil route still destroyed, the health system worse than Africa’s, army corrupt, police corrupt, officials corrupt, and they countries assets being raped and plundered by forign multi nationals…
you’re so right Joe Iraq of today is sooooo much better, Jesus it’s easy to see that you’ll swallow any propaganda bullshit so long as it emminates from a western culture preforably American
Not by professional agents from super powers, or guided missiles, oh great western propaganda swallower.
it was an invasion the yanks wanted not a new Iraqi president
Gentlemen: I think we have to be fair to George Bush and his fellow Americans. International war crimes legislation do not pertain to them. There is currently no provision to bring any American servicemen in front of international war tribunals. So, as in Vietnam and elsewhere, they do what they like.
Remember the great Springsteen song: “Out killing the yellow man”. The Yanks are good at that, killing that is. So don’t be jealous as tht is one of the cardinal sins.
Tony Blair merely helped secure the stability of Israel, which is a nuclear power because it needs nuclear weapons and which is the world’s fourth largest power because American tax payers (those old chestnuts) have to cough up for them, and which launches huge attacks on Palestinians because, let’s face it, they’re f-g Arabs, and which can do anytihng it likes because God told them all they see is theirs and smiting Arabs is kosher.
Let us also remember that Tony Balir brought peace to the savage Irish, who should, in fact, replace the Spike with a statue of PIRA Volunteers shooting Jean McConville as Bertie and Tony look on.
Finally, please rmemeber the sycophants who queued up to get their book signed (witt a few arrested exceptions) far outnumbered the protesters. More so if we take Garda numbers into account. This just shows that those with no principles will always outnumber the conscienscious. Thank God for democracy. It is worth killing (others) for.
Eamonn,
You had Tony Blair were he couldn’t walk away or ignore you and the only line of questioning you could come up with were the weakest of weak questions.
Really a wasted opportunity that any junior reporter just out of journalist school would have made better use of.
And really asking questions about your own percieved role in history are extremely tacky Eamonn, but when the role is more immaginary than real it can be a little off putting
Blair rightly or wrongly recieved the kudos for cementing in the peace process but like the decision to go into Iraq he was only doing what he was told by his pay masters, the same people who encouraged him to cover up one of the biggest peadophile scandals in British history involving members of his own cabinet. If he had not been PM someone else would have done the same job maybe not as deviously but nevertheless they would have been following the same path that was laid out for Blair. He has been well paid for his troubles, £20 million in the last few years from his contracts in Iraq, Im sure he sleeps well in the knowledge that he was part of the old fashioned, modern day land grab that has resulted in the deaths of 100s of thousands of innocent people in the pursuit of profit for the global elite.
To be fair to our esteemed blogger, he is not Louis Theroux and Dr Strangelove was only going to give him so much time. He did well to get Robert McCartney into the frame.
As regards the dead: he can confess his sins (if he has any) as he is now a Catholic. The Pope should have put him in front of the British tour. I wonder how much that would have cost.
tacapall
Ive read the sites containing those allegations and there is absolutely no evidence, never mind proof! Just rumour and hearsay.
There are, I think reasons for suspicion and on another subject have argued suspicions should be investigated, you disagreed!
II those spreading the rumours cannot find a ‘D’ notice, they have a problem. Im still looking and if I find anything worth repeating I will indeed repeat it.
As for the Blair was blackmailed by the US rumour, Hmm, I would have thought he would have been relieved to get rid of a thorn in his side.
Prince E
No, no credit due. He did not start the talks, John Major did, the peace process worked because the time was right and because braver men than him put themselves on the line to do it.
Be that as it may, how much space exactly do you think our region should be given in a book about a man who was prime minister for 10 years? We are 1.7 million out of 60 million, indeed out of 6 billion. We need to get over ourselves a bit here.
sorry that went into the wrong section, I was replying to the apparent surprise that Blair hadn’t devoted his book to a dissection of the life and times of P Robinson Esq
really?
“II those spreading the rumours cannot find a ‘D’ notice, they have a problem. Im still looking and if I find anything worth repeating I will indeed repeat it”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/feb/14/ukguns.scotland
Maybe you’re not looking hard enough Pippakin as theres a wealth of information out there regarding this. Of course if you’re one of those people who only believe what the established media are allowed to publish or allowed to tell us then you wont find anything as its all been pulled. like this
Child porn arrests ‘too slow’
http://www.sundayherald.com/30813
But try this one.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg105203.html
Pip
Is it written that Major is due credit just for being there in the right time and place yet astonishingly you ignore what his subsequent involvement………………which apart from stalling all but ending to suit his own survival was what exactly? I am intruiged about Majors involvement especially since the good tovarich writes so warmly of him……………..should I go and read his autobiography.
I’m afraid until you elaborate I have no clue why Blair shouldn’t be givern credit for his stewardship of the peace process. And this is coming from someone who would have been with the demonstrators in Dublin and not the sychophants.