Hilary Benn’s ‘great speech’ will lead to ‘great mistakes’ – just like Tony Blair’s

Hilary Benn’s speech urging fellow MPs to vote for air strikes on Syria was rabble-rousing, eliciting cheers from all sides of the house. But as John McDonnell has pointed out, the shadow foreign secretary’s rhetoric owed a lot to Tony Blair’s speech just before the Iraq invasion.

Talking on Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday morning, McDonnell said:

I thought Hilary, his oratory was great. It reminded me of Tony Blair’s speech taking us into the Iraq War and I’m always anxious about the greatest oratory is going to lead us to the greatest mistakes as well.

When presenter Nick Robinson pointed out the comparison might not be “the greatest compliment” coming from McDonnell (who has called Blair a war criminal), the shadow chancellor replied:

I’m just saying sometimes the greatest oratory can lead us to the greatest mistakes and that’s what it did in Iraq and I fear we made the mistake last night.

McDonnell is right. The two speeches have more in common than the fact they both elicited inappropriate cheers and probably persuaded undecided MPs to vote in favour of military action. They were also both thin on details about the military action they were proposing, its efficacy or its alternatives. Instead, they relied on emotive language to invoke the barbarity of the enemy and inspire passion for their causes.

Here’s Hilary Benn’s speech:

Read on...

And here’s Tony Blair’s 2003 speech:

Specific examples of brutality

Nobody in the House of Commons on Tuesday night would have been unaware of Daesh’s brutality. What was at stake in the vote was not the nature of Daesh’s terror, but how best to stop it. Yet Hilary Benn gave over a large part of his speech to listing graphic examples of barbarity, for example:

We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded and his headless body was hung from a traffic light.

This was straight out of Blair’s book:

Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.

The intention in both cases is clear and disingenuous: if you are against brutality, you must be for military action.

We must play our part

Both Benn and Blair made the case for multilateralism, and both talked of Britain’s obligations to its allies. But the nature of these obligations wasn’t explained; instead, the appeal was entirely emotive.

In 2003, Blair did not want to “tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination, that Britain faltered.” In 2015, Benn evoked the same sentiment:

And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much, including Iraq and our ally France? Now France wants us to stand with them, and President Hollande, the leader of our sister socialist party, has asked for our assistance and help. […] should we not play our full part?

An epic battle

Blair was brilliant at summoning the epic when pitching his battles. In his 2003 speech, he painted the battle faced as one of good against evil, citing “the darkness” closing over Iraq’s people and the “regime whose mind is in fact evil.”

But Benn outdid him in summoning the epic on Wednesday:

And we are here faced by fascists. […] And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil.

Diplomatic action as inaction

It is easy (and disingenuous) for proponents of war to paint military action as real action and diplomatic action as inaction – and both Benn and Blair succumbed to this temptation.

Blair’s 2003 speech was peppered with references to strength and weakness. We must “summon the strength,” he said, to act. If we turn back, he said, terrorists will see that “the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.” “This is not the time to falter.”

Benn again borrowed Blair’s tactic, suggesting that a failure to act militarily was a failure to act at all:

So the question for each of us and for our national security is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility?

Like Tony Blair’s speech, Hilary Benn’s was skilled and powerful, reminding both the country and MPs that he has inherited his father’s oratory skills – if not his political beliefs. More importantly, the speech – delivered less than three weeks after Benn all but ruled out backing UK air strikes – also pointedly reminded MPs that there is a serious contender for the Labour leadership waiting in the wings should Jeremy Corbyn falter.

And, like Blair’s speech, it was successful. We don’t know how many Labour MPs were swayed by Benn’s speech, but 66 Labour MPs ended up voting with the government, backing David Cameron and dragging the UK into another endless war. John McDonnell is absolutely right to suggest that Iraq was one of “our greatest mistakes” – and he is absolutely right to suggest that history is now repeating itself.

 

Featured images via Wikimedia Commons/Steve Punter and Flickr/Center for American Progress

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed