British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s nine years in office have finally taken their toll. Instead of a brilliant young political luminary, perched on a moral high horse and out to change the face of Britain, stands a haunted weary white-haired man, who is deeply unpopular at home.
Following the Blair-Bush joint press conference last week, unkindly dubbed by The Economist as the “Axis of Feeble”, Blair’s performance was savaged by the international press. Blair showed a lack of confidence and was tongue-tied at times.
Indeed, the US president, whose ratings are down to a low of 31 percent, positively shone by comparison, receiving grudging praise for his regrets concerning his earlier “Bring ‘em on” and “Wanted Dead or Alive” polemics.
Since the early days of the Bush presidency, when a preference for Colgate toothpaste was just about all they shared, they’ve discovered a slew of commonalities.
Both men believe they have been anointed by a higher authority to cleanse the planet from “evil”; both are willing to use pre-emptive force to achieve that aim and have stuck to their guns, literally, in the face of mounting domestic and international criticism. And both have led governments tainted with wrongdoing and corruption, which they have sought to gloss over with cosmetic Cabinet shake-ups.
In light of Blair’s current tenuous status and the dysfunctional “democratic” states that he and his Texan partner have created, one wonders whether Blair regrets tying his apron strings to Washington. He would only be human if before he sleeps at night he weighs the pros and cons in his own mind.
After all, what has Washington given him, apart from a Congressional gold medal he has thus far refrained from physically accepting, aware that if he did his “poodle” status would be sealed? Word has it he will wait until out of office when the accolade will stand in lieu of the traditional gold watch for a job well done.
For instance, Blair’s insistence on vigorously pursuing “the road map” seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Bush hardly mentions it nowadays and, on the contrary, appears eager to rubber-stamp the Israeli prime minister’s Convergence plan, once Ehud Olmert has gone through the motions of talking peace with the other side.
Blair’s attempts to bring Washington on side the Kyoto Treaty, in an effort to avert the looming menace of climate change, have also been ignored as have the British attorney general’s urgings concerning the closure of Guantanamo.
Moreover, in spite of Blair’s undisputed loyalty to the Bush administration, the US had to have its arm twisted when it came to sharing software related to the $270 billion Joint Strike Fighter Project with its British ally.
Amid Italian papers labeling Blair “the scrounger” related to his propensity for holidaying at the luxury homes of rich friends, a British MP George Galloway demanding he be tried at The Hague for war crimes, while his own Labour Party backbenchers conspire to effect his ouster, the prime minister’s star has never looked as dim.
With time running out, it is little wonder then that Blair needs to secure a legacy, and fast, else the history books will record a sad tale.
Georgetown University provided the platform for the unveiling of Blair’s new world vision last week. And, indeed, in contrast to the “Axis of Feeble” the day before, he was once again his charismatic self, even permeating his speech with off the cuff humor. When his talk turned to the sensitive subject of tackling climate change, a mobile phone rang and he quipped that the White House might be on the line.
In brief, it seems that Blair has seen the light when it comes to “coalitions of the willing” led by the US and Britain launching strikes on what he perceives as rogue states. Instead, he calls for a greatly remodeled and strengthened United Nations taking on this global responsibility utilizing a new rapid reaction UN force.
This would entail appointing a new UN secretary-general with a powerful mandate, and enlarging the Security Council to include Germany, Japan, India and, possibly, Brazil — all US allies. Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, was not mentioned. It has even been suggested that Blair might be angling for Kofi Annan’s job.
“Such action cannot be done unless it is on an agreed basis of principle,” said Blair. “Common action can only be done on a basis of common values. We must fashion an international community.”
On the surface, this looks like a sensible plan, obviating the current unpopular US role as world policeman. Pundits are generally speculating that this idea will not go down well in Washington. But I wonder. It might well have been contrived with the White House’s agreement.
For all its posturing, the Bush administration realizes that its unilateral aggression has triggered worldwide anti-Americanism, which could ultimately impact on the dollar, bonds, trade agreements and investments.
With Blair or someone equally White House-friendly as head of a new UN and a slew of allies in the Security Council, the US could get its policies implemented via the back door. And when and if things went wrong, the president could simply shrug his shoulders and say, “it was the will of the international community”.
The idea that Blair might be going off at a tangent putting a distance between himself and his US counterpart was soon quashed by a story in the Telegraph suggesting that Blair altered his Georgetown speech at the very last minute so as to pander to White House diktats. This has been denied by Number Ten but then it would be, wouldn’t it.
When Bush was asked by a British reporter what he would miss most about Blair when he leaves office, he answered “hmm. I’ll miss those red ties...”
It’s up to Blair to show his constituents, his country and the world that his premiership has meant more than a silky American appendage.
Bush further expressed his desire to see Blair stay in office as long as he is the president of the United States. Was he being polite or does the duo still have unfinished business in Iran? Time will, no doubt, tell.
