This post by Will Hutton is a good post on the political tragedy that Tony Blair finds himself caught up in, and pulled apart by, a conflict of between different sets of values. Blair wants to be, or have both sets. But the after 9/11 the world is organized in such a way that he cannot have both. He cannot side with the Bush administration on the war with Iraq and still be a good internationalist, support the UN and be a pro-European. His desires conflict, so he has to give up one or the other and he will regret what he gives up for a long time. Its a tragedy that is being played out.

Hutton also locates this tragedy within an account of US conservative neo-con style. The link is courtesy of Natasha over at The Watch

The choice is simpler in Australia. They did not see that they had to do one or another in a situation where the world is so arranged that cannot do both. The conservatives are in power and have been since 1996. So its all the way with LBJ mark 2.

The Australian conservatives are soul mates of the US neo-cons. They have a contempt for internationalism and are willing to aid and abet the break-up of the UN system. They have little concern for regional cooperation. They are willing to trigger the most acute divisions in the region with their talk about being of US deputy sheriff in the region and pre-emptive strikes in Indonesia. They give unflinching support for the projects of Washington's neo-conservatives, which use force to advance democracy and markets worldwide. And they view US as the exemplar of a civilisation that the rest of the world should copy and emulate.

What is most worrying is that they have no sense of tragedy. They have no sense of having lost anything with their wholehearted siding with the Bush administration. They do not see that a tragedy can also involve an ommission, or a failure to pursue a particular course of action. An example is the failure to assert enough independence to ensure regional co-operation; eg., in the form of giving Indonesia a helping hand to prevent Islamic fundamentalists destablizing the country and overthrowing a secular liberal democracy.

Is this not doing a big, if not irreparable, harm to the people of Indonesia through violating a precious commitment involving major values?

What would the conservative's inhouse philosopher say? They do not have one from what I can tell. So let us construct an argument for them. The fictitious RIP would say that there is no conflict. There is only one course of action the correct one. The correct one is all the way with President Bush. So the old fashioned notion of tragedy does not apply. Their moral views are in harmony with the way the world is.

What can we say to that? Well, intuitively we feel as if we have given up something of importance by siding with President Bush ---eg., a working through the UN, working within international rules, or through the values of regional cooperation. We also have sacrificed Australia's independent foreign policy.

What is more we have stepped into a situation where Australia is seen to engaged in a fight with Islam; it is morally indifferent to the conflict within Indonesia caused by the war; and has no emotional compassion for the suffering caused by the turmoil and conflict within Indoneisa. Australia is also seen to be willing to sacrifice some Indonesians through pre-emptive strike to ensure its national security. You can hear them crunching the numbers in Canberra to figure out how many Indonesian deaths will be required to ensure Australian national security.

None of this is seen as a tragedy in Australia. It is just hard-headed realism in the name of national security. But it is a tragedy that the Kurds' desire for ain independent homeland-- Kurdistan-- will be denied; or that the Kurdish people will not be recognized as a distinct society within an Iraqi federation, and on the strength of that be given extensive powers of home rule. It is more than likely that the Kurdish people will continue to be oppressed within Turkey and Iraq.

Is it a tragedy that their claims for cultural recognition and affirmation as a people will be denied? Is it a tradegy that these claims are denied by the Anglo-Americans occupying Iraq who claim that their liberal culture is superior to all others. Indeed, who go on to claim that there is one way to live and that this is their way. At this point we hear the American invocation of manifest destiny to defend their liberal universalism.

And so the Kurd's desire for self-determination will be dismissed as romantic nationalism that stands in opposition to the universal, liberal Enlightenment. It will be seen as advocating that each culture constitutes a self-contained moral universe; that each culture is of equal value; that different cultures are incommensurable; and that we cannot make comparative judgements about different cultures.So the way to arrange matters to avoid conflict is to have a state for each particular culture in the Iraq of Sadam Hussein.

If would be a tragedy if the Kurd's claim for the recognition of their culture and self-determination is dismissed as them merely whistling the old tune of the Counter Enlightenment.