Here is the letter sent by more than 50 former British ambassadors to Tony Blair, urging him either to influence US policy in the Middle East or to stop backing it: Ambassadors’ letter to Blair
These are all
.
Another article comments: Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East
Some highlights:
Anyone dare to say these 50 signatories are wrong ? Partisan ? I feel they put the issue pretty well. Blair supported Iraq in goodwill... and should now drop out if he cannot be anything but a comic sidekick.What do we know about these signatories, exactly?
They have a point. Not a new one.
I’m not sure what these ex-diplomats hope to achieve. Blair is hardly likely to alter course to suit them. They’re probably saying what their still-serving colleagues would like to say but can’t. There was a time when the diplomats had more clout over policymaking, and perhaps they resent having to do what democratically elected politicians tell them.
There’s a long tradition of Arabism in the UK foreign service - people who have studied Arabic, know the culture well and feel they have a special insight. I believe the US state dept has long had a similar sort of group of Sinologists who tend to empathize with China.
Well I’ve found
The full list is
But you can goodgle them if you wish.
The UK government has come back with PM ‘has influence over US policy’ which is laughable IMO when you look at the recent ME announcment and Iraq. It also it trying to dismiss them as cranks
This is genuinely unprecedented: Diplomats are diplomatic to the very end, even in retirement. The only reason I can think of for such fierce criticism is that they believe diplomacy is simply becoming futile, and that their only option is to express how furious they are “if only for the historical record”.
British diplomats are very mindful of how history sees the actions of certain countries. They are trying to convince future students of history that this Damn Fool War and the U-turn on Israeli settlements were embarked upon recklessly, against the express wishes of those with a lifetime of experience.
I know one of the signatories (from the second list) personally, and as far as I know his diplomatic career did not include any Middle Eastern countries. His politics are to the left of most establishment types, though.
I doubt it’ll make much of a difference. Whatever is motivating Blair in his support for the US in Iraq, it overrides any democratic principles he might still have. The fact that he has never enjoyed full public backing hasn’t stopped him.
“Camel corps” is funny though.
Am I correct in thinking that these diplomats are often regarding as being ‘too close’ to their area of specialty to make the necessary decisions? IIRC, many of the pre-WW2 State Department Japanese experts were replaced during the occupation for that reason.
Who precisely do you mean by “these diplomats”? The ones in the OP that you seem to know nothing about? Or the unspecified non-diplomats in the State Department pre-WW2 who you also don’t seem to know much about?
Or is this some general sort of “boo Diplomats, go Cowboys” sort of post?
I was referring to the ‘people who have studied Arabic, know the culture well and feel they have a special insight’ mentioned by Hemlock.
You don’t like my question? Fine. Bully for you.
You’d be right that that’s how the UK government is painting them. However
I wonder if the letter was praising the government would the possibility of some of them “going native” have been an issue or would the government and supporters be screaming LOOK AT THESE CREDENTAILS 
“Going native” and “camel corps” are the British equivalent to character smearing ? Unpatriotic smearing ?
Whatever their background they do have a point... Bush is dealing extremely badly with Arab pride and Blair is going along blindly for the ride. Supporting Sharon no matter what is just too much.Forgot to ask… has the US media mentioned this ? How have they portrayed it ?
I’ve seen no mention of it…
Don’t know about TV news but there does seem to be a decent web coverage from a quick look at google news
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/27/iraq.blair.ap/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/27/blair_urged_to_sway_us_on_policy/
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2532799
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4839785/
for examples
Their background is what this is about.
Plenty of people have expressed the same sentiments - it is nothing new. What makes this at all remarkable is that the letter is signed by a bunch of high-ranking ex-diplomats, which on its face gives it authority.
The question them becomes whether they are disinterested experts, whose long service and experience give them a unique insight worth heeding - or whether they are representative of a faction, whose partiality makes their letter nothing but a partisan attack on policies they disapprove of.
This analysis is sort of inevitable. Naturally, the same question would be (or should be) asked if such a letter was drafted supporting the government, too.
May I speculate that those who approve of this letter will believe in the former position, and that those who do not will believe in the latter?
Well they’re spread across political parties, some have lots of experience in the area and all have experience in world diplomacy.
I’d say that on the face of it it is up to the people who say they aren’t a good source to show why. The couple of details I posted about some of the signatories seem pretty good if you ask me.
It is all rather reminiscent of the letter to the Times by the 364 distinguished economists in 1981…
The credentials or otherwise of the diplomats who signed the letter is only half the story. The real question is whether they are a disproportionate group, whether in numbers or importance, compared to those who did not sign it.
Exactly. Or, to be less diplomatic (as it were), could it be that this letter is the work of a bunch of self-righteous has-beens?
The points they are making are valid but far from original, and there are equally valid counter-arguments to them (see other SDMP threads or numerous articles in the Economist/Telegraph/New Republic etc etc). They haven’t enlightened me one way or the other, except to alert me to the fact that there is a group of UK ex-diplomats who think they know better than a democratically elected government. It’s a free country, and they’re welcome to speak out, but they speak only for themselves. It might as well be a letter from a group of 50 cab drivers, 50 chiropodists, or 50 whatever.
‘Camel Corps’ made me laugh.
In the real world (that is, the world where convincing the uncommitted is important), it is up to the person making an appeal to authority to prove that the authority in fact is good. An appeal to authority is IMHO the weakest form of argument, and most certainly I would not take any self-proclaimed authority at face value! That simply invites abuse.
Particularly in this area, where reasonable people can (and do) disagree and there is no such thing as a guarenteed right opinion, an appeal to authority is weak.
Of course, it would be stronger if past British diplomacy (concerning which some of these diplomats etc. could claim credit) were a string of outstanding successes, which are now being buggered up by present policies. Can this claim be made? Has British diplomacy been marked by outstanding success on the issues under consideration?
The letter writers certainly claim that four decades of effort in accordance with the principles they espouse have produced “successes”:
A more cynical person may well point (and I think with some justification) to the present situation as the end result of decades of failure to produce success. A failure for which some of these diplomats must bear the direct blame (as they claim credit for “successes”).
Now, it strikes me to be a piss-poor claim to authority, for diplomats who have presided over decades of failure to critisize Bush and Blair for policies that, in their opinion, would lead to … more failure. If these guys knew the secret of success, obviously they would have implemented it in the years before Bush and Blair came around.
On another note … am I the only one to find the use of the term “Holy Land” somewhat odd for professional UK diplomats? 
I make nothing of it, but it is not a term I associate with them.
Right. That’s the same argument as the one saying the large majority of scientists saying that global warming, for instance, is of serious concern, should not be considered against the wishes of a democratically elected government. And 50 cabdriver’s opinions should be considered just as valid.
Why don’t you find us an equal or greater number of diplomats with equal credentials who think that what is going on is just dandy. Then you might have a point.
So the government is always right ? Oceania is our enemy ? Your statement that 50 former specialist in this specific area is the same as 50 cabbies is pretty wierd… actually pretty wrong.
It seems the attacking the messenger has been a constant in this issue…