“I Did What I Thought Was Right”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's legacy will only be properly assessed decades from now. Richard North explains why.
by Richard North
Tony Blair was a showman to the last, with his resignation announcement delivered in front of an adoring audience in Trimdon Labour Club, declaring of his service as Prime Minister, “I did what I thought was right.”
Outside, in the sunshine, amid the media circus and the phalanxes of yellow-jacketed police, there was a voluble section that disagreed, blasting off air horns with monotonous regularity. Those were the anti-war demonstrators, protesting about what will, without doubt, be the single most important issue which defines the Blair legacy: Iraq.
Perversely, this means his legacy is essentially in other peoples’ hands, since the Iraqi war is, if nothing else, unfinished business. How Blair goes down in the history books depends, to a great extent, on whether the outcome in Iraq is successful or whether it degrades into an insoluble morass. And that depends on President Bush and Blair’s own successor, that political enigma known as Gordon Brown, currently the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Thus it is that Blair will be remembered for three things: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq.
Contrary to what often seems the vast sweep of public opinion, Blair was right to stand alongside the USA in the wake of 9/11 and to put the weight of the British Armed Forces behind the invasion of Iraq.
If he made a mistake, it was his decision to justify the invasion within the convoluted and restrictive framework of international law. He was side-tracked by the question of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, which dominated his case in an attempt to seek international approval through the EU and later the United Nations and to
Instead he could have – and should have – made the case that it was in the national interest to stand alongside the USA to depose an evil dictator in an area of the world which has become the crucible of terrorism and instability. That, at least, would have absolved him from the oft-repeated charge of waging an “illegal” war on the basis of lies.
A simple assertion of an essential principle of nationhood, that every nation has the sovereign right to wage war without higher authorization, would have done much to have pre-empted the assertion that so much dominates the contemporary arguments. There may be wars which are “right” – usually as defined by the victors – or “wrong”. They may be morally justified, or not. But there is no such thing as an “illegal” war.
It says much of Blair that, in the final analysis, he thought he was right and, whatever criticisms may be levied at him, there’s no doubt that he was sincere in believing that the invasion of Iraq was just and necessary.
What is less well-recognized is that Iraq was also the turning point in Blair’s love affair with the European Union. On his election in 1997, this was the man who wanted to be “at the heart of Europe”. Unable – largely because of Gordon Brown’s resistance – to take Britain into the single currency, he instead offered one of the most prized and respected possession of the British nation on the altar of European integration: its armed forces.
Thus, in St. Malo in 1999 he committed the UK into working with the European Union to build a “European Defense Identity”, culminating the following year in an agreement to establish a European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) which would have absorbed the bulk of British assets, in terms of manpower and mat√©riel for years to come.
The watershed came with the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, when Blair experienced first-hand the duplicity of Chirac, attempting to lodge resolutions with the United Nations without even consulting his senior partner. This was one of the many events which soured Blair’s European dream.
Then, as the Iraqi adventure progressed, the exigencies of real war increasingly pushed defense policy into a more trans-Atlantic direction as the British army had to restructure and re-equip to deal with a real enemy on the ground. This meant giving less and less attention to the demands of the European Rapid Reaction Force.
Decisions taken in the early 2000s under the tutelage of an arch-Europhile defence minister, Geoffrey Hoon, took time to come through the system (especially procurement decisions required to meet ERRF specifications, with their long lead time), giving the impression of a continued, Euro-centric policy. But it has gradually emerged that Britain had, by and large, resumed its semi-detached relationship with Europe by then. With its focus on the real demands of dealing with the global war on terror, rather than European political integration, the UK broke out of the claustrophobia of the “little European” mentality and is once again a serious actor on the world stage.
Perversely, that achievement is rarely acknowledged within the country – lending credence to the old saw that a prophet is rarely honored in his own land. Many seem to find comfort in the idea that Britain’s international image has been tarnished.
But the truth is that Britain’s credibility with its greatest and most steadfast ally – and the world’s only remaining superpower, the US – has never been greater, and co-operation with other nations in the global war on terror has brought new allies, and strengthened ties with old ones, not least in the countries of “new” Europe of the enlarged European Union.
It is indeed perverse that a man who for better or worse has spent the ten years of his tenure as prime minister in the search for peace in many quarters of the world -just think Kosovo or Sierra Leone- is branded a warmonger. At least in that he has something in common with Winston Churchill.
Where he has definitely achieved peace – building on the work of his conservative predecessor, John Major – is in Northern Ireland. Whatever the deals, whatever the compromises, and whatever some people call the “sell-outs”, the fact is in that benighted province, where there were once bombs and bullets there is now peace and a growing prosperity. Old enemies sit together in Stormont as equal partners in government.
It’s not Blair’s job to achieve the same miracle in Iraq, but it is germane to note that it took 40 years to bring peace and stability to Northen Ireland. We’re only six years into the Iraqi adventure, and by that measure it will not be Blair’s immediate successor, or the one after that, who will reap the dividend of the chain of events that Blair helped initiate.
It may be forty years, or even more, before the true effect of Blair’s actions may be properly assessed. Should we or our own successors be the happy benefactors of peace and stability in that troubled part of the world, the Middle East, historians may then need to look back to 2003 and the determination of one man, Tony Blair, in order to write the last line of his legacy.”
Richard North is former director of reseach for a political group in the European Parliament and now freelance political researcher and analyst. He’s also co-editor of the award-winning EUReferendum website.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. Jez B:That’s an excellent summary of TB. I personally would emphasise the bit about: “If he made a mistake, it was his decision to justify the invasion within the convoluted and restrictive framework of international law.” This is typical Blair. Rather than say the real reasons behind ANY of his actions, he instead always hid behind a wall of spin and lies. The man is a congenital liar. I wouldn’t buy a used car off him. It’s not that he’s evil, or badly intentioned, he just can never speak straight. And that, I believe, is a combination of his lawyer training and the inherent inconsistencies of being a Labour party member with bourgeois ideals.
May 11, 2007 - 6:23 am 2. christina:This article seriously gets Blair wrong. He still is OUR Prime minister and what he did to our country is unforgiveable.
Iraq is merely an example and Richard North has a bee-in-his bonnet over this. There was an arguable case for toppling Saddam Hussein but NONE for lying to our parliament to get authorisation to do so. But that is the man – he’s a compulsive liar and THAT is his legacy. He dreams and is a good actor but as an executive he is a non-starter.The thing that matters about Blair is that he is a man without substance. He’s incapable of actually doing anything. He’s attitudinal and aspirational but is executively incompetent.
The politicisation of the civil service, the weakening of the Union, the corrupt practices and above all the LIES. The lies that took us into Iraq are what are so dreadful – the target was arguably justified but as Blair is incapable of either telling the truth or executing any plan properly the results are chaotic.
The Iraq war is not central to Blair’s legacy = his failed character is.
Blair is a nasty unprincipled piece of work and I am shocked when I see people defending him
More than anything he has devalued the moral position of our nation. He has made corruption, venality and lies seem normal.
That is utterly unforgiveable. Iraq is a media frenzy side-issue to the flawed character of a nasty man
May 11, 2007 - 6:52 am 3. Bagua:Tony Blair did indeed do the right thing and should be remembered as one of the greatest leaders in the history of the free world. (Domestic politics aside.) He had the courage and fortitude to remove a sadistic tyrant from power and end his reign of terror. In so doing he made the world a safer place and set an example and challenge for future leaders.
Standing shoulder to shoulder with America Tony Blair demonstrated that the United Kingdom could be relied on, a true ally, a true friend in need. He will be sorely missed on the international front.
May 11, 2007 - 11:31 am 4. Bagua:Christina,
Your comments would be more honest and less fatuous if you revealed the entire bee hive in your bonnet regarding the Labour party. As a political partisan blinded by hatred of those you oppose, you are not suited to comment on the Prime Minister’s legacy nor the accuracy of this article; were Blair to cure cancer, end poverty and change water to wine you would still find cause to rant and rail against him.
May 11, 2007 - 12:03 pm 5. Julian Williams:Bagua, maybe it was the right decision to stand by America, especially in circumstances where France was playing the anti-American card (That was how I felt at the time). But he lied to get his decision through Parliament, and the lies were found out to be erroneous and misleading. So he had to resign in order to maintain the honour of both the US and UK position of intervening in the affairs of another country (which was innocent by the criteria set out as the reason for the war by Blair and Bush). By failing to be honourable he showed that he was never removing a dictator, he was playing politics with the lives of thousands of Muslim and hundreds of western lives.
There is nothing great about Blair, he is a disaster for Britain and a disaster for America and a disaster for British American relations and a disaster for Muslim West relations. He is a nasty selfcentred career politician who has held on to power for the sake of his own ego.
May 11, 2007 - 12:54 pm 6. Bagua:Julian, yours is the narrative of Main Stream Media, at the very worst, one could make a case that Blair’s case for Iraq was exaggerated, and even that is strongly debatable. (There is much to suggest the WMD’s were moved to Syria, and Saddam was proven to be concealing and maintaining an active WMD potential.) This Blair/Bush lied nonsense is an invention by those with an anti Blair/Bush agenda. Removing Saddam was the correct thing to do on many levels, including the threat of WMD’s.
As far as the Muslims? You mean it was a disaster for the Islamists Supremacist, not the people of Iraq who were freed from tyranny and now have an historic opportunity to live in freedom and democracy. That the destruction of Saddam’s war machine was achieved with fewer than 2% casualties is nothing short of a miraculous triumph., that the Leftists and their media allies are determined to change the narrative to one of failure and disaster, proves them to be also the enemy. What is going on in Iraq now is an entirely new conflict, fueled and controlled by Iran and Syria.
Yes Blair’s domestic policies were quite a separate issue, I find little to support there, but as an international leader who did a good thing for the free world and a great thing for humanity, there are few in history that can equal Blair.
May 11, 2007 - 1:46 pm 7. Julian Williams:Blair used the 45 minute story to illustrate his point about why we should enter a war with Saddam, then afterwards told the media he was not interested enough to find out what the 45 minute story referred to (an unreliable story about chemical shells). That he was not interested enough to inform himself about the nature of the intelligence he was using to persuade us of the rightness of his cause is impossible to believe, it is just not creditable. A leader who lies to his own side and gets found out should go.
Besides the man has a history of lying, this is just one instance in a long line of instances.
Iraq is a mess, 2 million have fled the country. The idea that the Sunni, Shia and Kurds can live in a single democracy is as dotty as the idea that the EU is a democracy. Blair believes in both because he does not, and never has understood the meaning of accountability to an electorate.
May 11, 2007 - 3:12 pm 8. David Parker:Richard North is right in saying that only historians will judge whether Blair was “right or wrong” over Iraq, however, it is certainly possible for us to comment now about his motivation for joining that war. That can be summed up in his own words, “I did what I thought was right” Not what “my cabinet” thought was right. This, I believe is the key to Blair’s character. He was a man of immense ambition, but an even greater ego, which was his ultimate downfall, for he consistently disdained all opposition to his ideas, however well reasoned or expressed. Consequently he surrounded himself with ego flatterers or ‘yes wo/men’and convinced himself that he always knew best what was good for us mere mortals.
Christina is right in saying that he debased the authority of Parliament, but is that not a condemnation of the calibre of our MPs themselves, on both sides of the House?
Had they been more concerned with their Parliamentary rights than with their personal careers and pensions Britain might now be a better place to live, having been freed much earlier from the cult of big brother Blair.
May 11, 2007 - 4:18 pm 9. Bagua:Julian, my point remains, regardless of his faults, when Tony Blair found himself at the nexus of history, he did the right thing, bringing freedom to millions and ending one of the most horrific and brutal regimes in modern history. If he did only one right thing, it was the important one that counted. How he did it is matter of debate, but only a sideshow to the deed itself.
You seem to say that the Iraqis only option is to live subdued by a murderous tyranny. The Kurds were already enjoying some autonomy from their oppressor. The Shiite too had a right to live without the threat of mass graves and oppression. The current problems in Iraq are to the credit of the Iranians, the Syrians and the global jihad to destroy the West. They are the culprits, not the liberators.
Iraq has evolved to become the major front in the battle against those who would engulf the free world in medieval darkness. Should we tire of fighting this evil there, it will surely follow us home. How historians regard and judge Blair will likely also depend on who survives to write that history. Should the side Tony Blair championed be the victor, you will remain free to criticize him.
May 11, 2007 - 11:14 pm 10. Julian Williams:Bagua, you miss my point. I am not debating whether it was the right decision (I am not debating about whether he was wrong on WMD and probably wrong about getting democracy started in Iraq, and conditions are probably no better for the average Iraqi citizen, especially women who are being repressed by religious zealots). The point I am making is that a prime minister who is caught lying, especially on a matter of whether or not we should go to war with another nation, must resign to retain the dignity of the State. You cannot trust a leader who lies to his own side on such issues
May 12, 2007 - 3:46 am 11. Chad Loser:This article is very funny, with a great advertisement at the top: the “sands of time” indeed! Are those objects at the bottom buried bodies? Certainly no trace of blood or oil.
I don’t know which is worst; The ad, the assertion in favour of war, or the comparison of Blair with Churchill.
May 12, 2007 - 8:40 am