News from the New Party

No discussion of Tony Blair's legacy would be complete without a consideration of the international dimension. As we have seen, as party leader Blair was a reformer who dragged along a Labour party seduced by his electoral appeal but apprehensive about becoming 'New' Labour; and in domestic policy, Blair had a vision of reform in health, welfare and education that was only ever partially realised. So too in international affairs, Blair was an idealist and an optimist, despite - at times - the odds being stacked against him.

When Labour came into office in 1997, Blair's first foreign secretary Robin Cook announced that there would be an 'ethical dimension' to foreign policy. This was soon shortened by the media to an 'ethical foreign policy', a parody of which was to suggest that almost any departure from a quasi-pacifist stance was in contradiction to Labour's goals. It would be more accurate to see the ethical dimension being played out in Tony Blair's notion that intervention was sometimes necessary to protect universal values against tyrannical and dangerous regimes, a notion that he outlined in his 1999 speech 'The Doctrine of the International Community'.

Where the Conservatives under John Major were actively resistant to intervention in Bosnia, and thereby helped to prolong the suffering, Blair had no such inhibitions. An early intervention was that in Sierra Leone against the brutal rebel forces who routinely massacred civilians and rounded up children to fight. The successful intervention there was followed by British involvement in a US and NATO intervention in Kosovo, a conflict which helped to precipitate the downfall of the Serbian dictator Milosevic.

It was the events of 9/11 and their aftermath which helped to shape the Blair legacy most decisively, however. Blair's immediate recognition of the significance of 9/11 and his support for the war in Afghanistan were indicators of a robust approach to foreign affairs. Even more controversially, Blair supported action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002-3, eventually committing British troops to the war and becoming perhaps the most prominent supporter of US president George Bush.

Much has been said and written about the decision to invade Iraq, but the character assassination of Blair has been extraordinary. Blair's argument all along was that in the post-9/11 environment we could no longer afford to risk the coming together of rogue states, terrorist networks and weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq's persistent defiance of the international community had to be challenged. No one tried harder than Blair to get the international backing that might have forced Saddam Hussein to back down, but in the end it was not enough and British forces joined the invasion in March 2003.

Blair has never wavered from that decision even though it has done him great political damage. He remains an idealist, even now taking on a role as the international envoy to the Middle East, a job that looks inherently unlikely ever to succeed but a challenge which accepts willingly. Blair's conviction on these issues is certainly a surprise for those who saw him as a political lightweight obsessed by opinion polls.

Similarly, in Europe Blair has sought to keep to his goals even though ideals so often are forced to give way to squalid reality. In the European Union, for all the talk of noble goals and the European destiny, it is farm subsidies, transfer payments and voting rights that more commonly occupy the member states, and on important issues the divisions within the EU tend to destroy any broader vision. In the run-up to the Iraq war, for example, the behaviour of Germany and France led US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to talk of 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe' - an indication, if one was every needed, that a common European foreign policy remains a long way off when it comes to the most difficult issues. Despite this, Blair has managed to remain a committed European and has seemed able to put such differences aside and move on.

Blair also remains convinced of the need to deal with many of the underlying problems in the world, such as poverty in Africa, and has devoted much time and effort to such issues.

The upheaval in international affairs in recent years has given the lie to the assumptions of the 1990s that we could take a holiday from history and enjoy the 'peace dividend'. In a less turbulent era Blair might have been more universally appreciated on the world stage; post 9/11, however, by stepping up to the challenges he has proved a more divisive figure. That should enhance our view of him, not detract from it.