The suspicion that politicians are inclined to tell lies is as old as politics itself. Yet when a politician is caught in a lie, the consequences are often dire, at least in democratic countries. Indeed, proving that a politician is a liar is just about the only way to get rid of him or her quickly and terminally, which is why the attempt is so attractive to political opponents.
But what, exactly, is a lie in politics? Few cases are as clear-cut as that of Anneli Jaatteenmaki, whose short-lived stint as Finland's first woman prime minister recently came to an end. She had attacked her predecessor during the election campaign for being fork-tongued about Iraq, saying one thing to US President George W. Bush and another to the Finnish people. Her knowledge was based on Finnish foreign office records. Had she seen them? She began to equivocate and in the end said that she had not. When the opposite was proven and a secret document was found in her possession, she had to go.
Another campaigner under investigation by his parliament for being "economical with the truth" is German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But his case is very different. The opposition, still smarting from its narrow defeat in last autumn's election, accuses him of not having told the truth about Germany's weak economy and the consequences for the national budget.
Almost a year after the election, a parliamentary committee of inquiry is still interviewing "witnesses." But it does not look as if it can get very far. At most, deputies will be able to offer the public a fresh example of a favorite trick in politics: to tell the truth was told and nothing but the truth, but not exactly the whole truth.
The most serious current case concerns Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In fact, the charges of lying concern only Blair, for Bush has (so far) been absolved of all possible sins in view of the apparent success of the Iraq campaign. But Blair is under heavy fire from his parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee for having overstated the threat posed by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Intelligence dossiers (it is claimed) were "sexed up" by Blair's underlings. More particularly, there was no evidence for the prime minister's claim that the Iraqi dictator could have launched "WMDs," as weapons of mass destruction are now called, "within 45 minutes."
Does it matter whether this claim was strictly true or not? Don't we know from past evidence that Saddam was prepared to develop WMDs and to use them if the occasion presented itself? Are not the reasons for the war overtaken by its reality? In the end, is this really a question of lying?
In the British case, the answer is not so simple. In the middle of his second term, Blair is going through a bad patch. Opponents within his own party are increasingly replacing the ineffectual Tory opposition. Blair is much more vulnerable than he was a year ago, and he must tread softly if he does not want to lose further support.
But there is another point. The reasons given for the war in Iraq were never entirely clear. WMD's in Saddam's possession were but one in a sequence of arguments. There was also, at least in the US, the desire to avenge the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, as well as geopolitical interests.
Blair also expressed moral outrage at the way the Iraqi dictator had behaved toward his own people in making the case for regime change. Supporters of the war -- often reluctant in any case -- had picked up one or the other of these arguments, and if they focused on WMD's, they now feel betrayed. The two British cabinet ministers who resigned over the affair, Robin Cook and Clare Short, want their own revenge and thus continue to attack Blair for his "lies."
So far, Blair has proven his resilience to such charges. Indeed, he has gone on the counter-attack, notably against the BBC, which had not exactly supported the war with enthusiasm. But does the uncertainty now circling Blair like a vulture now smell the appetizingly foul scent of a lie? Or is it more a question of a prime minister losing the trust of his people, including some his erstwhile friends and allies?
Trust is a vital commodity for all politicians. Once lost, it is difficult to regain. Blair has used the "Trust me!" pose often, not least in the case of the war in Iraq. In any case, one does not have to be found out as a liar to lose such trust. It is sufficient that clouds of doubt develop. Indeed, a politician's reputation can be damaged even if no one doubts the truthfulness of his statements. It suffices if people feel that he is trying to mislead them, or even that he has not got things clear in his own mind.
A leader can tell the truth, nothing but the truth, but less than the whole truth and yet still be trusted. Once a politician has lost trust however, people will no longer believe him even if he tells the truth.
Ralf Dahrendorf, the author of numerous acclaimed books, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics and also a former warden of St. Anthony's College, Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers