Redstate

By Diane Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I suppose this is a little late, as the news has moved to debates and other debacles, but I wanted to offer a tribute while I still have time. And considering that Mr. Blair is visting President Bush in Washington today, probably for his last time as PM, perhaps it's not too late after all.

As most of you know, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced last Thursday that he was going to standing down as prime minister after a 7 week period during which a new leader of the Labour Party will be chosen, making Blair's official departure date June 27th.

Although this is hardly surprising news, as he had previously announced he would be leaving this summer, it is signicant news, as Mr. Blair has been a bedrock of support for America in the Global War on Terror and an ally in engaging the world.

Blair ends his career on a low note - his reputation shrouded in the fog of Iraq, his poll numbers among Britons at record lows. His career ends ironically for someone who had won landslide victories and achieved record high support.

Looking at the histories of the United States and Britain, it is easy to downplay the significance of what Tony Blair has done. Britain and the United States share a common language and a common history - it is natural to assume that they would be close allies.

Unfortunately, in the last few years, things have hardly followed their normal course. 9/11 and Iraq have changed the world. Iraq, among other things, has significantly soured many in the world against the United States. It was no longer natural or normal for any European country to stand "shoulder and shoulder" with the United States in a time of such intense criticism.

Britain, though, because of Mr. Blair, did stand with the United States, not only offering verbal support but offering significant troop support. Mr. Blair led Britain into the Iraq War despite significant opposition in his country, a phenomenon Bush wouldn't face until later down the road. He did it knowing what it would cost.

The decision to enter the Iraq War was and is a gamble. Whether one thinks it was worth the gamble or not, it was a brave move and it was a just move. It was a move designed, not to enrich or expand a nation, but to protect the world from rogue actors and establish democracy where it had never before existed.

In attempting this grand goal, Mr. Blair, along with Mr. Bush, committed himself - regardless of the price it would inevitably cost, regardless of the scorn it would earn him, regardless of the difficulty it would require.

And Mr. Blair was an enormous asset, in the war, in 9/11 and in a number of other international relations issues. He spoke with an eloquence that Bush didn't have. More than that, he understood, in a way few understand, the interworkings of world events: the connections of ideas, events and actions.

He acted with a level of altruism that is rare, seeking to engage the world for the sake of peace. Among other things, he brokered a historic peace agreement in Northern Ireland and worked to seriously address the deep problems in Africa, proposing major debt relief initiatives.

And for all this - a country engaged in the world, a strong British economy and a strong alliance with the US - he has gotten the type of criticism that frequently makes liberals' criticism of Bush look tame in comparison.

We can debate Mr. Blair's domestic policies - I am sure there are policies that many of us would disagree with. I know I disagree with some of them - but I think the calibre of his leadership is undebatable.

Under the leadership of Gordon Brown, Britain will continue its relationship with America, but probably in a much more subdued and reserved manner. It is hard to see him as enthusiastically supporting the war effort in Iraq (and he may start initiating more withdrawals) and maintaining the same level of closeness with America that Blair did.

It is doubtful if any European leader will be as Blair was. It is doubtful because few could and because few would. It is just too hard. It demands too much. It, in fact, demands everything.

Blair, like Bush, is someone who will be seen as one of the significant figures of our time. He is someone who learned throughout his career what it meant to be a statesman. He asked himself the question that all politicians must ask themselves: will I do what is easy or will I do what is right? He answered that question correctly, and America and the world are better off for it.