|
Was it time for Straw to go?
06/05/2006
 Hossein Ansari Pour |  |
The departure of Jack Straw from the Foreign Office at a time when his presence is so vital leaves everyone surprised and baffled. This mostly worries those who are concerned about Britain’s stance towards Iran.
Although it was a reactionary move to reshuffle the cabinet so suddenly and extensively but one can sympathise with Tony Blair and understand why he did it after an embarrassing loss in the local elections on Thursday.
Charles Clarke, the Home secretary lost his job for letting foreign criminals go lose who should have been otherwise deported. Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary was moved to take care of Deputy Prime Minister’s duties for letting in paedophiles penetrate into the schools and John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister lost his control over his office for having an affair with his secretary, although he got away with his title and salary intact.
But why Jack Straw?
He served as the British Foreign Secretary in the run up to the Iraq war and therefore he was the best man to handle and finish the job in Iraq.
He also managed to establish both a successful personal and professional relation with his American counterpart Condoleezza Rice.
However he was also the leading British official involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute. He had visited Iran many times during his time as the Foreign Secretary, which made him the first British Foreign Secretary to do so since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
As the rumours over a possible military strike grew after President Ahmadinejad’s victory in Iran’s presidential election and the resumption of uranium conversion in Isfahan, Jack Straw made it very clear as to where he stands on Iran.
His opposition to any type of attack on Iran first came when he said the war on Iran is “inconceivable”.
Then he called the possible US nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear sites as “completely nuts” and more recently in a speech at Lord Mayor's Easter Banquet in London on 26 April he said “…lets be clear: Iran is not Iraq. Nobody is talking about military action”.
Instead he had made repeated calls that the Iranian crisis must be resolved through diplomatic not military means. Speaking in a seminar at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2006 he said “We must have a bargain which enables both sides to come out of it with their head held high”
Apparently, he himself wanted to stay in his post for at least another year but despite his own judgement on the matter Blair decided it was time for him to go.
Having spoken his mind about Iran, Straw could undoubtedly be a pain in the neck for Blair if he is to follow the US blindly into another quagmire.
And what sort of a signal his replacement with Margaret Beckett sends, whom is a former secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs with no experience in foreign issues. A zero beginner at such a crucial time when Britain needs to flex its foreign policy muscles more than ever before.
But in Blair’s eyes she has been a loyal frontbencher throughout his leadership and will probably follow orders without questioning.
This shows that Blair can be in more control over its foreign policy an in particular regarding Iran. Beckett would probably make a good joystick for him to play the game the way he thinks is right without noisy interruptions from a Foreign Secretary like Straw.
It also indicates that Blair is more attached to the US way of thinking about Iran and a Foreign Secretary like Mr Straw would certainly cause further embarrassment for him both home and abroad, as did Robin Cook and Clare Short over the Iraq war.
Straw might follow the footsteps of Robin Cook by resigning as the Leader of the Commons should there be any military action against Iran but Blair certainly doesn’t want him to do that as a Foreign Secretary.
Whatever the reason may be it seems pretty obvious that Blair doesn’t want to leave his foreign policy in the hands of a Foreign Secretary who has serious differences with him as to how to approach the Iranian dispute. Should Iran be subject to tougher actions from the West such as a possible US attack, it would be much easier for Blair to do the poodle game with Bush having Beckett onboard rather than Straw.
Yet, despite Straw’s departure and the rising suspicions over what Blair might be up to as far as Iran is concerned, there is a strong possibility that all this could soon be thwarted.
Given Gordon Brown’s calls for renewal within the labour party and government after Labour’s election defeat and the growing calls form labour backbenchers for Blair to quit, Blair’s agenda might not get the chance it needs to proceed.
|
|
|
|
