Japan Brief

Prime Minister Blair’s 10 Years in Office: The Bright Side and the Dark Side

[International]　May 13 , 2007

On May 10 British Prime Minister Tony Blair officially announced his resignation, saying in a speech, “Today I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. . . . On the 27th of June I will tender my resignation from the office of prime minister to the Queen.” Blair became the leader of the government after an overwhelming victory in the general election of May 1997. At the age of 43, he was the youngest-ever British prime minister of the twentieth century. He held on to the reins of government for 10 years, the second longest period of rule in postwar Britain following that of the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher, which lasted for 11 and a half years.

The Blair administration’s legacy is a mixture of light and dark. The domestic policies that Prime Minister Blair advocated brought a fresh wind to not only Britain but also European politics, but his full engagement in the Iraq War drew much criticism both from within and without the U.K. Japan’s five national newspapers all carried editorials analyzing the results of Blair’s decade in office and attempting to evaluate the highly charismatic leader, the Asahi Shimbun and the Sankei Shimbun on May 11 and the Yomiuri Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun, and The Nikkei on May 12. In the evening of May 10, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe commented to the press (Yomiuri, May 11), “He [Blair] has left behind some major achievements. He tackled economic development and educational reform and I think was widely supported by the British people. I hope that from now on also he will make efforts to promote Japan-UK relations.”

Much Praise for the “Third Way”
As the political legacy of Prime Minister Blair, the national newspaper editorials expressed much praise for the fact that he clearly set forth the “third way” policy concept aimed at achieving a balance between the market economy based on free competition and social fairness.

The Asahi editorial stated, “As a vision, the Third Way does not seek to achieve the traditional welfare state and its promise of ‘cradle-to-the-grave security,’ nor does it represent the neo-liberalism of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with its stress on the importance of competition. Rather, it seeks to incorporate the merits of both these convictions, in striving to build a fair, efficient and vigorous society. Rooted in that philosophy, Blair boldly promoted new policies for health care systems, local autonomy, employment and on other key fronts. Naturally, not everything went according to plan. There is still a huge gulf between the rich and the poor. The Blair administration was also soundly criticized for its educational policies, an area in which the government was particularly active. Despite the slump in Blair’s popularity rating, it cannot be denied that his Third Way philosophy has opened up new possibilities for modern-day governments, and especially for social democracies.”

The Nikkei editorial commented, “The policy line known as the ‘Blair revolution’ has subsequently continued to exert a big influence on other countries as well, and many politicians have come to model themselves on Prime Minister Blair. In the French presidential election, the Socialist Party candidate, Segolene Royal, was unable to cast off her leftist coloring and was defeated, and the conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who said that he had learned from Prime Minister Blair, was victorious. In Britain, support for the Conservative Party has risen again because its leader, David Cameron, has steered it toward the center.” It added the parting words: “The name Tony Blair will no doubt remain in the memories of people around the world for a long time.”

Blair’s Principled Politics and Support for the Iraq War
The eloquent Blair’s image of freshness faded rapidly in the second half of his administration. Around the time when he took office, he enjoyed a support ratio of more than 70%, but after 10 years this had fallen to 20%–30%. According to a public opinion poll in Britain, the main reason was Blair’s full support for the Iraq War initiated by US President George W. Bush. Why did Prime Minister Blair set about supporting the Iraq War?

Under the headline “Sense of mission suffered setback in Iraq,” the Mainichi editorial stated, “At the end of last year the Royal Institute of International Affairs [Chatham House] issued a report severely criticizing participation in the Iraq War as a ‘terrible mistake.’ The report said that reasons for starting the war and its legitimacy were lacking, postwar peace had not been realized, and, despite making the sacrifice, the British government did not have any influence on the Bush administration. It added critically that the strategy of loyally supporting the United States in order to prevent US policy from running recklessly ahead and bringing it round toward the British position had been ineffective.” The editorial went on, “Blair was proud of his diplomacy of liberal interventionism and was full of principles and a sense of mission when he insisted ‘if we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it.’ By pushing ahead with the Iraq War, however, he lost the trust of the people and damaged relations with Europe.”

The Yomiuri editorial pointed out that the miscalculation in the Iraq War had upset Prime Minister Blair’s ideological diplomacy. It said, “The deteriorating situation in Iraq is no doubt the largest factor behind Blair’s falling approval rating. By placing priority on his country’s alliance with the United States, the prime minister offered British troops for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in defiance of both the British public and members of his own party. In Thursday’s speech, Blair admitted that incidents of international terrorism had only increased since Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime was removed from power. But he stuck with his unswerving convictions, saying, ‘I decided we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our oldest ally, and I did so out of belief.’”

In an article in the Mainichi on May 11, the newspaper’s former European bureau chief commented, “It must not be overlooked that in Prime Minister Blair’s approach of seeing the international community in terms of moral standards, such as good and evil and justice and injustice, there is a political philosophy that empathizes with that of the neoconservatives who supported the Bush administration. In that sense, the Iraq War was a joint Bush-Blair war aimed at spreading liberty and democracy.” The article continued, “Following Prime Minister Blair, President Bush also will disappear from center stage after next year’s presidential election in the United States. The departure of these two politicians will no doubt symbolize the end of the ideology-first interventionist diplomacy that has ruled the world since 9/11.”

Change of Leadership in Major European Countries
With the resignation of Prime Minister Blair, there will have been changes in the leadership in all four of the major countries in Europe (Britain, France, Germany, and Italy), starting with the inauguration of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany in November 2005. A focal point of attention now is which of these new leaders is going to play a leading role in Europe.

In an article in the Asahi on May 11, its European bureau chief commented, “Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once mocked the leaders of France and Germany, who strongly opposed the Iraq War, as representatives of the ‘old Europe.’ Since then, however, Chancellor Merkel has appeared in Germany and mothballed the previous government’s anti-US line, and in France President-elect Sarkozy has made it clear that he is going to place importance on relations with the United States. The flames of war in Iraq have not been extinguished, but the political map of Europe is being redrawn for the post-Iraq era.” The article went on, “Who will be the one to admonish the reckless rush of the United States and draw a blueprint of Europe and the world after the post–Cold War era? It is probably unreasonable to expect the new leaders of Britain or France, who have little experience in multilateral diplomacy, to immediately take on this role. So will it be Chancellor Merkel? Maybe. As the chair of next month’s G-8 summit in Germany, will she be able to gain a consensus among the major developed countries on such issues as global warming? That will be her first test for the present.”