Tony Blair and Osama bin Laden may have changed the Guardian's line on Northern Ireland
STEPHEN GLOVER
From time to time Tony Blair is in the habit of paying a visit to the Guardian, where he is welcomed by Alan Rusbridger, the paper's editor, and senior colleagues. Such occasions are normally marked by a spirited but friendly exchange of views.
On Monday 10 September Mr Blair popped along to the Guardian's offices in Farringdon Road with his press secretary, Alastair Campbell. Mr Rusbridger was there, in the company of his senior writers, though one notable absentee was the columnist Jonathan Freedland. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss private-public partnerships, but Mr Blair also criticised the paper's editorial line on Northern Ireland, which he found unhelpful. He was unhappy about the Guardian's reluctance to take seriously the recent arrest of three IRA suspects in Colombia.
It was perhaps unfortunate that Mr Freedland could not be present since in the many leaders and columns he has written about Northern Ireland he has bent over backwards to see the point of view of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Or was it a mercy? For on 20 September the Guardian published a long and thoughtful leader about Northern Ireland whose tone was strikingly different from other recent offerings, some of which I mentioned in my column of 8 September. The paper, I then remarked, had earlier opined that 'the hullabaloo over the arrest of three suspected IRA men in Colombia . .. is not a major issue'.
In its leader of 20 September this line was abandoned. The paper thought that the outrages in New York and Washington 'will — or should — have made Americans ask themselves some hard questions about support for Irish terrorism. Washington was sufficiently alarmed when three Irishmen suspected of working with the Colombian Fare guerrillas were arrested in August to send the state department envoy Richard Haass on his first Irish visit just before last week's atrocities. Now the administration is likely to be even more uncompromising towards both the Provisional and the Real IRA. Washington should therefore immediately outlaw all Irish terrorist fund-raising groups.' The leader went on to make some sensible proposals for achieving a settlement in Northern Ireland.
One swallow does not make a summer, and it may be that tomorrow will bring another pro-Sinn Fein editorial. But I am
keeping my fingers crossed. My suggestion is not that Mr Rusbridger and his colleagues had been cowed by Mr Blair's criticisms. Say what you like about the Guardian, but it does not generally aspire to being in the lap of New Labour. No, my belief is that Mr Rusbridger, who as I have said is essentially a judicious and moderate man, was genuinely impressed by Mr Blair's arguments. Perhaps the atrocities in America have also made him think a little more deeply about terrorism. Why, in the end, should such a person want to give succour to Sinn Fein and the IRA? Let us hope that the influence of Mr Freedland — by all accounts clever and charming, but loopy when it comes to Northern Ireland — is waning, and that Mr Rusbridger is going to apply some of his own good sense to the subject.
In an article in the Independent the writer Joan Smith seems to imply that the so-called right-wing press is uniformly in favour of waging war. Actually this is not so. It is perfectly true that the Sun is gung-ho, and that Richard Littlejohn has already donned his battle fatigues. But at its sister newspaper, the Times, columnists Simon Jenkins and Matthew Parris have expressed strong reservations which are at odds with their newspaper's editorial line. At the Daily Mail Andrew Alexander is one of several columnists who have expressed disquiet, and the paper itself, though generally supporting Tony Blair, continues to ask difficult questions.
The Daily Telegraph would seem to conform to Ms Smith's analysis. But even there not everyone is singing from precisely the same hymn sheet. On Wednesday Lord Powell, aka Charles Powell, a former adviser of Margaret Thatcher, published a piece which, though it enthusiastically backed American action, chided the Israelis. He wrote that, although 'a life-long supporter of Israel', he found its conduct 'cynical to a degree'. Lord Powell, of course, has business links with the Arab world, and is an extremely close friend and associate of the Syrianborn multi-millionaire, Wafic Said. (Perhaps unfortunately, none of this was mentioned in his article.) Interestingly, not very long ago Peter Mandelson paid a visit to Syria, arranged by Lord Powell, or his wife, Carla. Mr Mandelson was originally introduced to Wafic Said by the Powells. It so happens that on Wednesday Mr Mandelson also published an article — this was in the Guardian — which also seemed to suggest that the Israelis could do more to achieve a settlement with the Palestinians.
These things can sometimes be more complicated than they may appear when viewed from a left-wing dug-out.
This column, loyal readers may conceivably recall, has from time to time had some searching, though I hope always constructive, things to say about Sir Max Hastings, editor of the London Evening Standard. But I was shocked the other day to read in a newspaper diary some outrageously dismissive observations about the great man. I have also noticed there is an idea abroad that his six-year tenure at the Evening Standard may be finally coming to an end.
These prognostications are hurtful, as well as grossly premature. While we can probably dismiss one rogue report that Sir Max has recently signed a new two-year contract — such arrangements are rare, if not unprecedented, at Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Evening Standard — I see no reason for alarm among his admirers. Nor are criticisms of Sir Max's occasional absences from his desk in Kensington either wellfounded or in remotely good taste. He may have been filming a programme in the Falkland Islands when the World Trade Center was hit, and rumours that he has subsequently been grouse shooting in Scotland can perhaps not be wholly discounted, but his arm has always been long, and his grip remains assured. Talk about flagging sales figures at the Standard is much overdone, and if classified advertising revenues have sagged, that can hardly be laid at Sir Max's door.
No one can seriously believe that his colourful and eventful editorship could possibly be drawing to a close. I have every confidence that Sir Max Hastings will continue to entertain and divert us for as far as the eye can see.
Previous page
