The Blair He Could Have Been

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Blair He Could Have Been
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A15

At the beginning of Tony Blair's political career, his Tory opponents gave him the nickname "Bambi" because of his fawn-like appearance. Now at the end of his 10 years as prime minister, Blair is mocked in Britain as America's "poodle," a slavishly loyal supporter of George Bush and the Iraq war.

Blair had a bit of both animal instincts, deer and dog, but he also had the brilliant political gifts that might have made him a truly great prime minister and the defining politician of his era. That's what makes his story so sad: This immensely talented politician was devoured by Iraq -- and by his support for an American president he kept thinking, wrongly, he could dissuade from mistakes.

Watching Blair deliver a farewell address to the World Economic Forum in Davos last weekend, it was impossible not to think of what might have been. He gave a visionary speech about the values of global interdependence that will be necessary in the 21st century if the world is to survive. The speech seemed to me, in part, a declaration of independence from Bush, the president who took so much from Blair and gave so little in return....

Blair tried to address the crucial disconnect of the modern world -- between a global economy that is seamlessly integrated and a global political system that is broken and ineffective. He went to the heart of this problem of global governance: How can institutions be fixed so that the overriding problems of the 21st century, such as climate change, poverty in Africa and the conflicts in the Middle East, can actually be solved?

"We need a multilateralism that is muscular," Blair said. He argued that the problem wasn't so much a lack of political will as a lack of effective mechanisms to implement goals on which everyone agrees. He cited the genocidal conflict in Darfur, which he described as "a scandal; not a problem, a scandal." He also argued for a new binding agreement on global warming to replace the Kyoto accord and urged the world to meet the target he has set for Britain of a 60 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. In all these comments, he sounded like a leader for a world that badly needs one.

The mystery is how this man who believes so passionately in a multilateral agenda became the apologist and enabler for the most unilateralist U.S. administration in modern history....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001650.html?nav=most_emailed

[Kagemusha]

1. The poodle bit on the tail of a bull and never let go

while that bull trashed the china shop.

[mazzarro]

2. Sadly, he reposed a blind faith in b*sh because of their shared religiosity

Yes indeed, he could have benefited the world more with a sensible leadership directed toward nations working together, alleviating poverty and neo-colonial domination of nations and cultures; but he bought into neo-con ideology and the cut-throat capitalism (globalism) of the Carlyle corporation.

[intaglio]

3. Sadly you do not become PM of the UK unless you alwauys support the US n/t

[Briar]

4. Ignatius is just the most recent in a long line of commentators

carried away by Bliar's rhetoric and persona. It sounds good until one realises what he actually means. That phrase "muscular multilateralism" is the giveaway, along with the term "interventionism" (often linked with liberal). Bliar means fighting wars to impose his supposed goods on the world. He means killing people to save them. He imagines himself as a sort of Lone Ranger (unmasked so he can receive the adulation he deserves) using force to spread freedom and democracy. Of course people brought up in militaristic cultures which venerate armed force buy into this: he is still speaking their language. The narrative he evokes is the familiar one of the mighty and righteous warrior with a god-given destiny to dominate. But the reality is that self-appointed policemen are actually vigilantes. (Real pooicemen are answerable to the whole community, and draw their authority from them.) The reality can be seen in Iraq. The reality is a shattered country, streams of refugees and a 655,000 (and rising) death toll among civilians. Bliar is still dreaming the imperial dream in a world which has been waking up to the reality that it is in fact a nightmare for some 60 years now. And his legacy? An ignored and discredited body of international law and an institution (the UN) whose purpose was - to prevent war. Using humankind's greatest self-inflicted evil as a means of spreading sweetness and light is bound to fail. Bliar should have backed the UN and insisted on the international rule of law instead.