|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
Blair, Murdoch and the oligarchy
By Chris Marsden and Julie Hyland
2 August 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
As Tony Blair once again lines up behind another US-backed
war in the Middle East, in defiance of public opinion, millions
might ask just whom Britains prime minister really represents.
The answer was made clear this week, and not only by his joint
appearance with US President George W. Bush.
Blairs July 28 White House press conference took on a
major significance due to events in Lebanon. But his flight to
America was in fact planned months ago so that he could address
the annual gathering of the executives and journalists of Rupert
Murdochs News Corp.
Even given the political imperative of solidarising himself
with Bush, Blair spent just a few hours at the White House before
flying to California to begin five days of engagements addressing
movers and shakers in the business world, of which Murdochs
gathering was the centrepiece.
Media reports of the News Corp. event would lend the impression
that Blair was the star of the show. But that is in no small part
due to the veil of secrecy drawn over the gathering in an attempt
to spare the political blushes of others seeking to curry favour
with the media magnate.
The panel of leading politicians assembled by Murdoch provides
an insight into the domination of a global financial oligarchy
over world affairs. Indeed, the title of U2 singer Bonos
talk on his campaign against poverty and AIDSThe Power
of Oneis a more fitting description of the gathering
in California.
Joining Blair at the exclusive Pebble Beach resort were former
President Bill Clinton and his wife and potential Democrat presidential
candidate Hillary; former US Vice President Al Gore; the current
frontrunner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Senator
John McCain; and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In addition to the stellar Republican-Democrat line-up, Israeli
Vice Premier Shimon Peres scheduled time out from waging war against
Lebanon to make a speech on Islam and the West.
Blair stands out from the crowd only in the extent of his reliance
on the backing of Murdochs media empire. He even used his
speech on leadership in the modern world as part of
his ongoing efforts to defend himself from criticism over his
support for Washington and Tel Aviv.
Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that all those in
attendance were hawking themselves to the man who is undoubtedly
the worlds highest bidder.
As Blair departed from Britain, there were reports that Murdoch
might offer him a position in News Corp. after he leaves office.
If so he would join former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Marie Aznar,
another staunch supporter of the US-led war in Iraq. For his part,
Bill Clintonwho closed the eventalso has direct ties
to Murdoch. News Corp. Executive Vice President Gary Ginsberg
was a lawyer in the Clinton White House, and last month Murdoch
hosted a New York fundraiser for Hillary.
Even if Blair does not take up a job offer, he remains Murdochs
creature.
Consider the implications of his devoting himself to the Pebble
Beach jamboree at a time when the world is facing such a major
political crisis. Blair can hardly be bothered to maintain the
pretence that he functions as the political representative of
the British people. As far as his policy goes, it is stamped Made
in America and copyrighted by News Corp.
Blair considers Murdoch as his most important and strategic
backer, someone whose publications such as the Sun make
him a political kingmaker. This view is shared by Murdoch.
In a recent candid hour-long interview on US public television,
Murdoch boasted of his ability to set the political agenda of
the Blair government. Right now we are giving them a bad
time, he said. Weve supported him, but we fought
him pretty hard on Europe. We said, stay away from there. Hes
come around. His newspapers had also set the governments
agenda regarding the breakdown of law and order in Britain
and the thuggishness and the social behaviour that has come about
through mistaken changes in the law.
When asked whether he would transfer his allegiances to Chancellor
Gordon Brown, Blairs likely successor, or switch to supporting
the Conservatives, Murdoch replied, I would like to see,
well before the next election, a match up between Brown and the
new Conservative leadership and just see how they look.
Blairs relationship with Murdoch is only the most high-profile
of his dealings with big business. There is a question here of
immediate self-interest. Not a few commentators have pointed out
that when Blair leaves office, he will be able to make millions
from the lecture circuit in the US. His audience will be fabulously
rich and overwhelmingly right-wing. His visit to California will,
at least in part, have been aimed at consolidating the network
of contacts required to launch such a post-governmental career.
However, it is not just Blair that is politically on sale.
He went to California as the representative of Labour PLCa
party that functions as an instrument of a global financial oligarchy
at whose behest it slashes public expenditure, cuts corporate
taxes, privatises public utilities and conducts an aggressive
militarist foreign policy.
Blairs broader itinerary in California is revealing.
Prior to his Pebble Beach engagement, he was the guest of George
Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan and a
leading member of the so-called Vulcanskey neo-con
policy advisers to Bush including Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
Shultz is also on the board of the US engineering giant Bechtel,
whose company is bidding to build facilities for the 2012 London
Olympics in London.
Blair also met with numerous other CEOs, including John Chambers,
the chief executive of Cisco Systems, which is seeking government
contracts in IT that include the new biometric identity card scheme.
The prime ministers speech to the News Corp. executives,
full as it was with his usual hyperbole and grandiose moralising,
was also politically instructive.
Explaining why he had opposed an immediate ceasefire in the
Lebanon, he said that it was necessary to deal with the
underlying causes of confrontation, whose roots reach
right down into a more basic struggle: between those who want
to embrace and those who resist the modern world.
Blair presented this as a struggle between Islamic fundamentalism
and Western democratic values, but for him the modern world
more correctly means the right of global corporations to plunder
the oil reserves of the Middle East.
Recognising the imperatives of globalisation must also dictate
politics in the advanced capitalist countries, he stressed. Blair
repeated his claim that there is no longer any significance in
the traditional division between left and right. He added that
the fundamental fault line in politics was now open versus
closed.
The response to globalisation can be free trade, open
markets, investment in the means of competition: education, science,
technology. Or it can be protectionism, tariffs, tight labour
market regulation, resistance to foreign takeovers, Blair
said. The traditional European welfare state and social
model is hopelessly inadequate to meet the challenge of the modern
competitive global market, and also that traditional
civil liberty arguments are not so much wrong, as just made for
another age.
The most misunderstood speech I ever made was my Party
Conference speech of 1999 about the forces of conservatism,
he continued. This was taken as an assault on Conservatives.
Actually it was an assault on small c conservatism,
resistance to change, which can be every bit as much from the
left as from the right.
Blairs bracketing of Islamic terrorism alongside those
opposed to the destruction of the welfare state and concerned
with the preservation of democratic rights is truly chilling.
Let it not be forgotten that on the eve of his remarks, Israels
military machinewith the backing of US and Britainwas
reducing Qana to rubble in the name of the war against terror.
For weeks, Blair has opposed all calls for a ceasefire and demonstrated
his supreme indifference to the terrible suffering of the Lebanese
people. He continues to do so, knowing that this will have earned
him kudos from both Murdoch and Bush.
But Blairs attitude to Lebanon is only the most debased
aspect of a political agenda founded on contempt for the democratic
and social aspirations of working people the world over and a
determination that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way
of the interests of the oligarchy. That is what has earned Blair
a favoured place at Murdochs table.
See Also:
Bush, Blair meet to oppose
Lebanon ceasefire and back Israels war aims
[29 July 2006]
Britain: Mounting criticism
of Blair over Lebanon
[28 July 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |