Tony Blair — Hastening the End of Empire

Tony Blair is likely to go down in history as a symbol of the innocence, naiveté and ignorance that precipitated the close of 200 years of global order shaped by Anglo-American power.  Domestically, for perceived political advantage, he abandoned longstanding Labour principles to Baroness Thatcher’s conservative reforms. Internationally, and less wittingly, he presided over the surrender of British credibility on the world stage.  It is for his betrayal of Britain’s remaining global authority and reputation that he will be remembered.

Blair’s role has been subordinate to that of George Bush, but, as the only leader who might have exercised a restraining and wiser influence, he will be judged harshly as one of the two leaders who squandered the last reserves of empire.  He exposed the lie in any British claim to being an older and wiser partner in the management of an imperial legacy.

After ten years in power (from 2 May 1997 to 27 June 2007) and in his last days in power, at the Group of Eight Summit in Germany, Blair told Vladimir Putin that the world was becoming more and more afraid of Russia’s behaviour at home and abroad.  He spoke of a ‘deep freeze’ in relations with Russia.  This was just prior to Blair’s resignation.  He simply showcased the reality that Anglo-American powers have good reason to become ‘more and more afraid’ — simply because they are today not as competent as their Russian rivals.

Putin has responded with phrases like: ‘they have long forgotten that it is a long time since Britain was a colonial power’.  He is making a habit of highlighting both the irrelevance and ineffectuality of such a ‘deep freeze’, certainly in respect of Britain, but also increasingly in respect of America.

Much of the criticism of Blair focuses on failed policies in the Middle East, where after his resignation as British Prime Minister he was immediately appointed Envoy of the Quartet —a strange group where Russia stands as an equal with the United States, the European Union and the United Nations.  Given his disregard of the seriousness of the Palestinian problem this was not a universally applauded appointment. 

Blair’s real failure, however, stems from an imperial arrogance and complacency that refuses to recognise the shifts taking place in global power relations.  It is not just Russia, but also China, Japan and India, and even Pakistan, Iran and Venezuela, that are showing evidence of outsmarting Anglo-American leaders.  The stubbornly mono-lingual and mono-cultural character of Anglo-American leadership groups is often at the heart of this problem.  They are effectively blind and vulnerable before the strategies of those who choose to revert to wisdom and strategies that do not conform with Anglo-American certainties.  These rising powers are even displaying a potential to marginalise the broader European Community, should it fail to address wisely shifts in global financial, commodity and technological power.

Tony Blair will become synonymous with a period when Anglo-American authority over global finance, strategic commodities and military technology began to crumble and when the claims of alternative power blocs became apparent.  Of course, these alternative centres of power are well practiced in not provoking unnecessarily Anglo-American hostility, but we have already entered a period when Putin for one is prepared to confront Washington and London openly and with confidence.  Blair has led a strategic response that has been inept and counter-productive.  It has only speeded up a process of decline in power that was threatening, but still capable of management and delay over some decades. 

The response to the Litvinenko radiation poisoning is symptomatic of British clumsiness under Blair.  By seeking to lay the blame on Putin he has left Britain more and more suspect of conspiring with exiled and possibly criminal Russian oligarchs openly plotting Putin’s demise.  He has strengthened Russian resolve and conviction, consolidated Putin’s authority and risked Britain’s estrangement from a Europe increasingly dependent on Russian energy supplies.  This can only disadvantage Britain as Europe seeks to accommodate a renascent Russia and the declining authority of an overextended America.

The problem for Blair has been that international relations have entered a period of fluidity when American attempts to ensure a ‘New American Century’ have only proven counter-productive.  Blair has been an uncritical, subordinate partner in these activities.

In this context, the longer serving Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, highlights Blair’s failure.  Even as a close ally of the United States, he has avoided serious combat casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and has won leeway to advance an important relationship with China.  The British experience suggests that Australians should ask whether opposition leader Kevin Rudd’s diplomatic and mandarin speaking background or his electoral pitch based on declared Christianity and youthful earnestness, with its echoes of Tony Blair, provides the better guide to his likely performance.