Read more about Blair's problems in Britain.
From GlobeAndMail.Com:
Blair's Churchillian gamble
By JENNIFER WELSH
From Monday's Globe and Mail
A funny thing happens when you cross the Atlantic these days: a man who is respected and admired on Canadian soil is transformed into a villain by his own public.
That man, of course, is British Prime Minister Tony Blair. While many of us disagreed with Mr. Blair's policy on Iraq, we were impressed by the eloquence and clarity of his case for war. At a time when our own political leadership seemed incapable of articulating a clear position, and U.S. President George W. Bush spouted off unconvincing moral platitudes, Britain's Prime Minister stood out as a voice of reason. When he spoke, we listened.
In Mr. Blair's case, the words seem to be matched by action. Intent on modernizing Britain, his government has enacted a string of bold policies: devolution in Scotland and Wales, reform of the House of Lords, enactment of progressive human-rights legislation, a more positive approach to the European Union and humanitarian interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone.
Mr. Blair's poise and passion — combined with his determination to "do the right thing" — earned him top spot in a poll on world statesmen. Indeed, the research shows that the U.S. public trusts Mr. Blair more than it does its own president. It was Mr. Blair's support for the war in Iraq that led many to feel more at ease with the policy of the Bush administration.
The story on the other side of the ocean is not so rosy. For the first time in the history of his leadership, Mr. Blair's approval ratings are running behind those of his Labour Party. Last week, he narrowly avoided defeat at the hands of his own Labour MPs on a bill to establish so-called foundation hospitals with a degree of freedom from state control. The humiliating vote — which produced gasps in the House of Commons — cut the government's majority to just 35, the lowest since Mr. Blair became prime minister.
While Mr. Blair calls upon the world to address the "scourge of Africa" and rubs shoulders with former South African President Nelson Mandela, the public infrastructure at home in Britain continues to deteriorate. Those who voted for him aren't impressed by his approval ratings abroad. They are waiting (impatiently) for him to deliver on the Labour Party's platform on public services.
And then there is Iraq, the story that just won't go away. A committee of British MPs recently cleared the government of any explicit campaign of misinformation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, pressure is growing for an independent judicial inquiry into the Labour government's handling of the secret intelligence that supported its case for war.
A defiant Mr. Blair continues to stand by his decision to use military force against Saddam Hussein. "I have absolutely no doubt at all," he claimed before the committee, "that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programs." But the insertion of that last word — programs — demonstrates just how desperate Mr. Blair has become. As the months drag on, and no evidence of such a program is found — let alone the weapons the British public were told were ready for use within 45 minutes — his rationale for putting British soldiers at risk is looking thinner and thinner.
While the American public may brush off the failure to find the weapons, accepting the Bush administration's line that war was still justified, the British public is not so easily soothed. In February, in a now famous BBC television interview, the Prime Minister responded to the persistent questions about the imminence of the Iraqi threat with a plea for trust — I've seen the intelligence reports. You'll just have to take my word for it. But the value of Mr. Blair's word has been debased. If there's one thing the Brits don't like, it's being duped by their politicians.
Mr. Blair has lost that all-important but intangible political asset — credibility. And once that's gone, it's an uphill battle to get it back. There was a time when Mr. Blair could manoeuvre around his often obstructionist Labour Party and speak directly to the British people about his dreams for reform, both at home and abroad.
Now, with levels of trust in his government at an all-time low, British commentators are beginning to raise questions about the viability of Mr. Blair's leadership. Six months ago, such speculation would have been unthinkable; it was a given that Mr. Blair would see out the next general election. Today, that is by no means a certainty. The causes of this remarkable decline are many, but history will show that the furor over Iraq was the major catalyst.
There is a lesson here about leadership. Mr. Blair has opted for the "Winston Churchill" model: clear moral choices, big gambles, and passionate oratory.
Our own Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, has settled for the "Mackenzie King" model: postponing choice for as long as possible, remaining in lock-step with public opinion, and avoiding the spotlight and microphones. Which model is best? We must wait and see whether Mr. Blair can match Mr. Chrétien in winning a third majority government.
Jennifer M. Welsh is university lecturer in international relations at the University of Oxford, and a fellow of Somerville College. Her book on Canada's role in the world after Sept. 11 will be published next year by HarperCollins.
No comments:
Post a Comment