Even though it has been a given for more than a year that Tony Blair would step down as Prime Minister of Great Britain before his term ended in 2009, his announcement today confirming that he will resign as party leader (maintaining his position as Prime Minister until a new Labour head is named) still should elicit much sadness here in the United States.
Blair forged one of the unique personal relationships of our times with George Bush that, much to his detriment and own personal political standing in Great Britain, has sustained the war effort in Iraq. The two made something of an odd couple although they complemented each other beautifully. Bush as the blunt, outspoken and emotional leader while Blair played counterpoint as the suave, sophisticated and often eloquent partner. Where Bush’s defense of his policies sometimes fell flat, Blair’s ringing endorsement of the war and the necessity for it made it seem at times that he was the senior member of the partnership.
And this is where the Bush-Blair relationship differed markedly from the FDR-Churchill and Reagan-Thatcher partnerships of the past. Blair was much more Bush’s equal in the “special relationship” that has endured between the United Kingdom and America for more than a century. It was Blair who convinced Bush at the beginning of the war to try and get the United Nations on board – a futile effort given the amount of Oil For Food bribery Saddam had spread around the Security Council membership as well as the general anti-American feelings in that body. But by taking his case to the Security Council, Bush gained some much needed legitimacy for the war with the American people – at least for a time.
And it was also Blair who outshone the President in defending the decision to go to war in Iraq as well as advocating a united western response to the threat of Islamic radicals – a threat that to this day is not acknowledged by much of the western left.
To win, we have to win the battle of values, as much as arms. We have to show these are not western still less American or Anglo-Saxon values but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.This is the challenge. Ranged against us are the people who hate us; but beyond them are many more who don’t hate us but question our motives, our good faith, our even-handedness, who could support our values but believe we support them selectively.
These are the people we have to persuade. They have to know this is about justice and fairness as well as security and prosperity. And in truth there is no prosperity without security; and no security without justice. That is the consequence of an inter-connected world.
But perhaps most strikingly, Blair is one of the few European leaders who acknowledged the “madness” of anti-Americanism and how destructive and dangerous this virulent hatred of all things American had become in the west:
And I want to speak plainly here. I do not always agree with the US. Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us, can be resolved or even contemplated without them.
Our task is to ensure that with them, we do not limit the agenda to security. If our security lies in our values and our values are about justice and fairness as well as freedom from fear, then the agenda must be more than security and the alliance include more than America.
Those are words that have needed to be said for more than a generation as much of Europe has gloried in tweaking America’s tail every chance it gets. Now, with new leadership in Germany and France and a new Prime Minister ready in the wings in Great Britain, Europe may be turning the corner in its relations with the United States. Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President-elect Sarkozy of France cannot be considered “pro-American” by a long shot. But they represent a qualitative improvement over the nakedly anti-American attitudes of their predecessors. This bodes well for the United States as we ourselves prepare to elect a new President. Whoever takes possession of the oval office in January, 2009 will have an historic opportunity to forge new and stronger links to Europe which can only help the United States face the challenges in the Middle East and beyond.
Much will depend on the new US President’s attitude toward global warming and whether or not the US will join the rest of the industrialized world in making a serious effort to combat it. Even more than the Iraq War, the biggest stumbling block to better relations between Europe’s “Big Three” of France, Germany, and Great Britain and America is the perception that America is ignoring what the Europeans see as the real dangers of climate change.
But at the same time, Europe fails to acknowledge that by far the biggest economic burdens to be born in the fight against global warming will be carried by the US economy and industries. Even modest efforts to cut emissions here in the US will mean tens of billions of dollars in lost economic activity and probably increased unemployment. And as long as China and India – the two biggest polluters on the planet – are exempt from any climate treaties, the US will probably refuse to take any meaningful steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
Clearly, the new US President and his counterparts in Europe will have their work cut out for them.
For Great Britain, it is almost a certainty that Blair’s deputy Gordon Brown will succeed him as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister. What kind of man is he? What is his attitude toward America and the “special relationship” enjoyed by the two countries?
I gave some background on Chancellor Brown last year when it first became apparent that Blair would leave before his term expired:
Asked during the General Election of 2005 what Britain would look like under a Brown Premiership, the Chancellor replied ‘more like America’. Brown is a passionate Americanist, having studied economics at MIT and regularly vacationing on the East Coast. American business practice is held in reverence by him. A consistent theme has emerged in Brown’s key economic speeches; he wants the British and European economy to become more like the United States. More competitive, entrepreneurial and dynamic, but combining free-market capitalism with social justice. The Chancellor’s first foray into foreign policy, last autumn, with a EU/G8 trip to Palestine, gives us an insight of Brown’s approach to international policy. Brown intends to bring his economic expertise to the aid of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by attempting to reduce the poverty and unemployment experienced by Palestinians, which makes them ripe for transforming into Jihadists.Mr. Brown has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and has praised America’s ‘courageous leadership’ in the fight against Islamist terrorism. There has never been a hint from his camp that he would have done things differently, and on several tense occasions when Mr. Blair has been under fire over Iraq, Mr. Brown has intervened to offer his backing.
Clearly, Brown is a man we can do business with. But it remains to be seen whether the new British Prime Minister will be able to create the same kind of productive partnership that his predecessor forged with George Bush. And there may be a feeling among some of Mr. Brown’s supporters that perhaps being so close to America is not such a good idea, that pulling away from the extraordinary and unique Anglo-American alliance that has dominated the world for a century may be politically smart and in the national interest as well.
I believe this would be a huge mistake. The US and Great Britain have steadfastly supported each other through some of the most turbulent times in world history. The alliance has benefited each country enormously both economically and strategically. We’ve had each other’s backs for more than 100 years – World Wars, the Cold War, Viet Nam, the Falklands, and now Iraq. We’ve assisted in peace efforts in Northern Ireland as well as using Britain’s good offices on more than one occasion when our diplomacy has been stuck in a rut. There is a symbiosis, a melding of interests between the two countries that would not be easily pried apart. And any effort to do so would not only affect our two countries, but also Europe and points beyond as well.
For these reasons, I feel confident Mr. Brown will resist calls to redefine our relationship and instead, try and establish that special bond with the American President – whoever it ends up being – that has been the hallmark of this, the most remarkable partnership the modern world knows. It has benefited both nations in the past. And I see no reason why it can’t be a plus in the future.
UPDATE: IT”S OFFICIAL
Blair announced he’s stepping down as party leader on June 27:
Tony Blair has announced he will stand down as prime minister on 27 June.
He made the announcement in a speech to party activists in his Sedgefield constituency, after earlier briefing the Cabinet on his plans.
He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead “the greatest nation on earth”.
He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader – widely expected to be Gordon Brown.
UPDATE II
Michelle Malkin rounds up react from the MSM as well as some interesting comments from British bloggers.
She also has an extended excerpt from one of Blair’s most eloquent speeches on the war.
7:45 am
[...] I have some further thoughts on Blair’s passing the torch: Farewell and Adieu, Tony. [...]
8:06 am
UK’s Blair set to announce departure…
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected Thursday to announce his intention to step down after …
8:14 am
[...] Moran says we can do business with Gordon Brown, but that may be considerably less true now than it was even recently. The Brits are gasping for a breath of fresh air in their leadership as deeply as Americans are in our own, and with the GOP turning against Bush now on Iraq, Brown has no incentive to continue any intimate partnerships with the U.S. Not until 2009, anyway, at which point the Tories might well already have bounced him. [...]
8:43 am
“For Great Britain, it is almost a certainty that Blair’s deputy Gordon Brown will succeed him as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister.”
Minor correction.
Gordon Brown is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, basically government treasurer and tax inspector.
John Prescott is Blair’s Deputy.
May the Saints preserve us from the indignity of Prescott as PM…
10:56 am
Interesting that both French candidates used Blair as a positive example as the way they would steer their economic policies during the recent election. Blair speaks fluent French and even managed to get along with Chirac.
As for the USA, I can’t remember how many Americans expressed to me that they would have preferred Blair to either Clinton or GWB as US President, in the best of all possible worlds—-a sentiment my Brit friends can’t seem to fathom.
6:24 pm
“It was Blair who convinced Bush at the beginning of the war to try and get the United Nations on board – a futile effort given the amount of Oil For Food bribery Saddam had spread around the Security Council membership as well as the general anti-American feelings in that body.”
The effort was futile because the reasons given for war – that the Iraqis had substantial WMDs that posed a threat to any other nation – were nonsensical. These claims, and the evidence for these claims, were transparent fictions.
Clearly Bush gained some legitimacy with the American people by going to the Security Council. If his case had been based on the facts, instead of the hallucinations of his advisers, he might still have that legitimacy today.
Bush and Blair were wrong – Saddam did not have WMD - and those on the Security Council and elsewhere were right. Blaming anti-Americanism and corruption might be worthwhile if they had been proven right, but they have been throughly discredited. The case for war was a fraud; Bush and Blair were liars.
6:31 pm
Ray:
You have the brains of a goat and the memory of a flea.
http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
Every major intel agency in the west thought Saddam had WMD stockpiles – including El Baradei and the IAEA believing he was close to reconstituting his nuke program. Tommy Franks was warned by Putin, Chiraq, Mubarak, and other world leaders that Saddam would use chemical weapons on our troops during the invasion.
Your selective memory rewrite is idiotic to anyone who knows how to Google. Go away.
9:12 pm
[...] Rick Moran points out how Blair’s attempt to moderate the Bush administration’s—and surely, Blair’s solid support for the US endeared him to Americans—Iraq policy ironically undermined his moral authority. [...]
12:34 am
[...] But Bush supporters are saddened. Rick Moran, at the appropriately named “Right Wing Nut House” site, compares Blair’s relationship with President Bush to those between Churchill and FDR and, later, Thatcher and Reagan, with this – [...]