Blair Announces Departure: A Legacy of Vanity
Published May 11, 2007
Tony Blair has announced that he will resign on Jun 27, after a decade as British Prime Minister. He has been refusing to set a date for months, when all he would have been remembered for was the Iraq fiasco. By announcing his departure so soon after his efforts at the Northern Ireland peace process seem to finally have come to fruition, Blair has shown that the legacy he leaves behind is one of his primary concerns.
How will history remember Tony Blair? this, I'm sure, is the question he asks himself now as he contemplates life after leadership. History used to be the realm of the few who sought to immerse their lives in the past. But now, with the World Wide Web it is as easy to find out what William Wallace liked for breakfast as it is to watch live news reports from around the world 24/7. Archives have gone live and are there to stay. Tony Blair and other world leaders like him know it — he knew it when he came into office.
So, now when we look back at his premiership, it is easy to see how the thought of his legacy has influenced his policies. Perhaps his best legacy led drive was throwing himself into solving the Northern Ireland conflict.
His efforts achieved rapid success bringing all parties to the table and bringing some sort of resolution in the form of the 1998 Good-Friday agreement which ended most of the more serious violence. After stalls over disarming the I.R.A. and other issues there is now a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, after two of the most prolific members from either side Martin McGuiness-Sinn Fein and Ian Paisley-Democratic Unionist Party, who would never have sat at the same table before Blair, took the oath of office May 8, as head and deputy respectively of the new Northern Ireland assembly. To bring a lasting peace (if it lasts) to one of the world's longest conflicts, and one that had never looked like it could be resolved, is a legacy that Tony Blair has every right to be proud of.
- Blair Announces Departure: A Legacy of Vanity
- Published: May 11, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Government, Politics: Policy
- Writer: Liam Bailey
- Liam Bailey's BC Writer page
- Liam Bailey's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The claim that: 'Blair defied the entire U.K. political hierarchy to follow the U.S. into the Iraq war.' Is false.
I refer you to a BBC News website article that reported in March 2003: '[The government] managed to beat the rebel amendment and see its own motion supporting the use of UK forces in Iraq passed by a large majority - 412 to 149.'
However, the fact that the government voted massively in favour of the invasion does not make it any less of a violation of international law and protocol.
However, the fact that the government voted massively in favour of the invasion does not make it any less of a violation of international law and protocol.
True. It wasn't a violation of international law and protocol because it followed on clearly defined UN rulings against Iraq which could really only be answered by action.
dave
Dave, stop blowing smoke.
"It wasn't a violation of international law and protocol because it followed on clearly defined UN rulings against Iraq which could really only be answered by action."
Really?
The UN ruled the only action was to be continued inspections.
On March 10, 2003, before the US and the UK invaded Iraq, French president Jacques Chirac declared that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. A majority of UN Security Council members opposed any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.
According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.
Neocon apologist!
...orchestrated by the US admin with bullying and lies, some would maintain. And they can make a pretty good case for that, cf. Powells representations to the UN.
The USA has always been successful in bending the UN to the purposes of USA foreign policy, which should serve as a caution to those conservatives who want the USA to withdraw from the UN, a foolish step IMO.
MBD, you might want to take the time to read the AUMF and then bone up on the history of UN resolutions against Iraq.
Dave
Dave, stop blowing smoke.
What do you think you know that I don't know?
I know better than to call someone a 'neocon apologist' when I've already demonstrated I don't understand the Neocons or the reasoning behind the War in Iraq.
Dave
Dave says,
"I've already demonstrated I don't understand the Neocons or the reasoning behind the War in Iraq."
That could be the problem.
You don't know who you are -- and you don't understand why you are what you are.
Out of context selective quotation!
So, doggie, you're a network TV reporter.
[Personal attack deleted]
Sorry, MBD. Typo in #9. Just change that second 'I' to 'You'. Then it makes sense.
Dave
Sorry, Dave. You got it right the first time.
I did not expect to provoke such flame baiting when informing Mr Bailey of his factual error.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/63766)
I never, ever would have thought Ian Paisley would be seen dead in the same room as anyone from Sinn Fein. He always came across as the most intractable, belligerent, bigoted obstacle to the whole peace process - so to see him settling happily down with McGuinness to start governing Northern Ireland is an absolute gobsmacker. One of the finest diplomatic works of art of our times - right up there with getting the Serbs, Croats and Muslims to share Bosnia without blowing each other to kingdom come.