The disgraceful Mr. Blair

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Remember when then-Prime Minister Tony Blair had more credibility over the Iraq War than Bush, Cheney, and the various warmongering American neocons given his supposedly deep-rooted moral convictions in support of freedom and democracy? For them it was about oil and power and dreams of American global hegemony, for him it was about something more essential, or so we were led to believe, something nobler.

Well, it was a thin veneer, but it was there. But there it is no longer:

Tony Blair gave Kazakhstan's autocratic president advice on how to manage his image after the slaughter of unarmed civilians protesting against his regime.

In a letter to Nursultan Nazarbayev, obtained by The Telegraph, Mr Blair told the Kazakh president that the deaths of 14 protesters "tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress" his country had made.

Mr Blair, who is paid millions of pounds a year to give advice to Mr Nazarbayev, goes on to suggest key passages to insert into a speech the president was giving at the University of Cambridge, to defend the action.

Mr Blair is paid through his private consultancy, Tony Blair Associates (TBA), which he set up after leaving Downing Street in 2007. TBA is understood to deploy a number of consultants in key ministries in Kazakhstan.

Human rights activists accuse Mr Blair of acting "disgracefully" in bolstering Mr Nazarbayev's credibility on the world stage in return for millions of pounds. 

Actually, we all should accuse him of it. Because what he's doing -- following in Henry Kissinger's footsteps in making shitloads of money helping to prop up tyrants and rogues -- is truly disgraceful.

British election just over a week away

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Want something fun to do? Then check out the BBC's "Election seat calculator."

Because, as you know, Britain heads to the polls on May 6, and the race between Prime Minister Gordon Brown's governing Labour Party, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats is incredibly tight. Labour appears to be in third at the moment, with David Cameron's Conservatives in the lead and the historically third-place Lib Dems, headed by upstart Nick Clegg, a stunning second (after Clegg did so well in the first debate).

In Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, though, Labour has a built-in advantage that means it could actually lose the popular vote and yet still win the most seats. This is because Conservative support is heavily concentrated in "safe" ridings that the party tends to win with big majorities, whereas Labour support is more evenly distributed across ridings in which it tends to be competitive. And in a first-past-the-post system, as opposed to a proportional representation system (in which seats are allocated based on the popular vote), it doesn't matter if you win a seat by a single vote or by thousands and thousands of votes, what matters is just having the most votes in a riding. (It's like Gore winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote, which tends to favour Republicans.)

Anyway, it's all quite exciting, and entertaining, and it's worth paying attention to. Here, as a good entryway in, in addition to the links above, is the BBC's main election coverage page. 

As for me -- a Canadian but also a British citizen, if much more Canadian than British, and probably much more American than British, too -- I've had enough of Labour, which has been in power since 1997, when Tony Blair trounced John Major, but still prefer it to the Conservatives, who are revitalized under Cameron but who are still a party of regressive right-wing policies. I actually like the Lib Dems a great deal now, and that's the party I tend to have the most in common with, policy-wise. I just don't know enough about Clegg, who remains a bit of a novice. And while Brown's premiership has hardly been all that impressive -- I'm not sure how it could have been, though, given Blair's shadow over it -- there's a lot I like about the PM and his priorities. And so I actually wouldn't mind to see a Labour-Lib Dem coalition committed to the environment, civil liberties, and responsible diplomacy (as opposed to Blair's pro-American adventurism, however rooted in idealism).

British newspaper reports Hillary will be secretary of state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been much speculation -- it has been reported, through anonymous sources, that Obama discussed the job with Hillary at their meeting in Chicago last week, and Bill is apparently being vetted with respect to his many international dealings and connections -- and now one newspaper (and one newspaper alone), Britain's Guardian, is reporting that Hillary will accept Obama's offer.

Or will she? The Guardian does not identify any sources. It has simply "learned" that Hillary "plans to accept the job." Which may or may not be true -- but how does it know this and how is it the only media outlet with what is undeniably major news?

I actually do think the job is hers if she wants it. Whether or not a formal offer has been made, it would be rather difficult for Obama to defend giving the job to anyone else at this point, even a reputable choice like Kerry. I will have more to say if and when we know more.

For now, though, let me just repeat what I've said already, which is this: I am intrigued by the prospect of Obama and Hillary working together to chart a new course in U.S. foreign policy. And I do not buy into the whole "Team of Rivals" view that has rapidly made its way around the punditocracy and into the CW. Obama and Hillary were engaged in a long and sometimes bitter primary campaign, and they have certainly been rivals within the party, but they are not enemies of the sort they are often made out to be. Indeed, Obama picking Hillary would be a lot like Reagan picking Bush for VP in 1980, two leading figures from the same party coming together to form an alliance to strengthen the party/government.

And, to be sure, there is always rivalry to some degree among the leadership contenders in any party. How could there not be? Hillary wanted to be the Democratic nominee, as did Obama, and the two were required to engage in a long campaign against each other. Does that make them enemies? Hardly. Does it make them rivals? Sort of. They were rivals during the primary campaign, and that campaign emphasized the differences between them, and no doubt left some hard feelings between them, but, with that campaign long over, they are no longer rivals in any formal way. And yet the media continue to insist that the divide remains, because, of course, what the media want is drama: the "Team of Rivals" story plays better than, say, my "Team of Allies" alternative.

And yet I stick to that alternative. The fact is, both Obama and Hillary are loyal Democrats. It may not be easy to get over losing, but Hillary isn't a petulant child. She is no doubt thinking about her future, but can she not also be thinking about what's best for her party, for her president-elect, and for her country? And it may be, in this case, that what is best for her future is also what is best for the country, namely, being secretary of state. Furthermore, on the issues, Obama and Hillary are in agreement far more than in disagreement. It's not like Obama has asked, say, Giuliani to be attorney general, Romney to be treasury secretary, or Palin to be energy secretary. What he is doing, if we are to believe the reports, is to unite his party and strengthen his administration by reaching out to one of its leading figures, his former rival for the nomination.

This happens all the time in parliamentary systems, where the leader of the party -- say, the prime minister -- must form a government from other sitting members of his or her party, with top Cabinet spots often going to his or her former leadership rivals. In the U.K., for example, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown apparently made a secret deal before they took office, while they were still in opposition, with Blair assuming the leadership of the Labour Party, and then, once elected, Blair going to No. 10 and Brown taking the chancellorship (finance minister). Over time, though, there is no doubt that they became heated "rivals," each with his own support in the party. And yet, they continued to govern together as "allies." Here in Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin, the two leading figures in the Liberal Party from 1990 until Chretien stepped down in 2003, were, within the context of the party, bitter "rivals" with significant ideological and policy differences who nonetheless governed Canada together for over a decade.

In other words, the Obama vs. Hillary meme has largely been manufactured. In any parliamentary system, there is little doubt that they would both be top members of the government. Sure, they may not be close personally, and there may be a few crucial differences between them on policy, but Obama is forming a government, not building a circle of friends, and his Cabinet certainly does not need to be ideologically rigid. If he thinks that Hillary would be a positive addition to his administration, that they could work well together, and that she would be an excellent secretary of state at this extremely challenging time, then why not?

They are allies, after all, far more than they are rivals.

Malign legacy: Bush's destruction of the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Our must-read of the day comes from yesterday's Independent (U.K.), which commented on President Bush's meeting with Prime Minister Brown on Monday. They talked up the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K., but:

[P]erhaps Mr Bush's most significant legacy, as far as Britain is concerned, will be the destruction of the instinctive trust of America and its leaders that once prevailed here. It is no exaggeration to say that Mr Bush has done more damage to relations between our two nations than any president in living memory. This rupture is not an accident of circumstance; there are no impersonal forces of history to blame. This sorry state of affairs is the consequence of the actions of a single leader and his small coterie of advisers.

America's invasion of Iraq must, of course, be recorded at the top of the charge sheet. In 2002, Tony Blair announced that he was prepared to pay "the blood price" for the sake of the special relationship. But it was not the then prime minister who paid it. That fate has, instead, fallen to 176 British troops who have lost their lives in Iraq.

Yet President's Bush's malign legacy is about much more than Iraq. Relations have been soured by the prolonged jailing of innocent Britons in Guantanamo Bay, the suspected use of Britain as a stopover point for CIA torture flights and a hopelessly one-sided extradition treaty. President Bush has even helped to undermine the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War. He has antagonised Russia by pushing America's missile defence shield project, an outpost of which is to be situated on British territory.

And that -- as bad as it is -- just skims the surface of what has been a truly malignant presidency.

The new faces of influence in the Middle East

By Carol Gee

And some old faces in brand new roles -- George W. Bush and Tony Blair -- The Financial Times headlined: "US takes ownership of peace process". Written by Harvey Morris, November 28, 2007, the story opened with a succinct summary of the current reality:

When George W. Bush this week read out the words of what historians will no doubt come to call the Annapolis Declaration, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders peered over his shoulder as if trying to read for the first time the terms of the contract they had just signed.

Low down in the fine print was a clause that handed the US president ownership of the peace process as monitor and judge of their performance during the remaining year of his term.

The BBC carried a story earlier in the week that discussed the new role of former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Middle East. To quote:

The envoy of the Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators, Tony Blair, has announced a series of economic projects to help boost the Palestinian economy. . . ."It is a strong beginning for what is a critical part of this process, because without hope of prosperity... then politics will never succeed," said Tony Blair, Middle East envoy.

(Suleiman photo from AFP at Aljazeera)

Lebanon has not been in a strong position for some time. It would be good if both sides could agree on someone to lead them, not into more conflict, but into problem-solving.

According to Aljazeera, the Lebanon presidency deadlock seems to be easing. To quote:

The commander of Lebanon's army has emerged as the candidate most likely to be agreed as the country's new president, officials say.

Parliamentarians from both the ruling majority and the opposition, which is led by the Shia Muslim party Hezbollah, said on Wednesday that General Michel Suleiman was being discussed as a compromise candidate.

Retired Marine General James Jones will soon have a new job, according to Israel's Haaretz. To quote:

Former NATO head expected to join Rice's Mideast team

Former NATO commander, retired General James Jones is expected to accept a role as adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on security issues related to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, according to official sources.

The retired Marine Corps general will go by the official title of "Special Envoy for Middle East Security."

Jones, 64 next month, ended his 40-year career in the Marines last February, and will remain in his current job as president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Energy. Last summer, he headed a congressionally-chartered panel that studied the readiness of Iraq's army and police.

However, Israeli sources say that Jones is not a favorable choice because of his blatantly cool attitude to Israel.

We will see how it all works out. I am not holding my breath for any effective contribution from our current president (OCP). I am cautiously hopeful for former NATO Commander General Jones and Tony Blair, and particularly for Jones, who is among the most competent and independent people Secretary Rice could have chosen for the job. It should be a very positive signal to the Palestinians that he will not be biased in favor of Israel.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Views from a parallel universe

By Carol Gee

There is reality, and then there is "Bush reality." Many of us responded with a big yawn to the recent news of a call for peace by OCP.

First, The Decider - A note of explanation for the uninitiated here. In order to keep my sanity I refer to the president as OCP - Our Current President, George W. Bush. My definitions - "Current" means (thank goodness temporarily) in office, Lame Duck, and author of Middle East failures.

Why Peace talks? Today's post explores the current news around OCP's announcement of renewed efforts towards achieving peace in the region. Where is the hope of success given the chaotic track record of the current Bush administration? Why now? It may be the time for a diversionary tactic in the face of an increasingly long list of failures.

How do others decide? Becoming an ally of the West, and particularly the U.S., can be the kiss of death, literally, for any Middle Eastern country's leader. Why would any leader in the Middle East take the risk and choose to join with OCP and the USA in anything? What is in it for them?

• Money is in it for them - Now that Palestine has been radicalized and "balkanized," is it just now time to talk peace? Where was the U.S. prior to now? BBC News reports on U.S. to aid West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas. To quote,
  
  

  Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush also announced a $190m (£95m) aid package for President Mahmoud Abbas's emergency Palestinian government.
  
  Our correspondent says Mr Abbas - in many ways the lynchpin of the initiative - is already in a weak position.
  
  The more he is embraced by Israel and the West, the more vulnerable he becomes to the charge he is acting in their interests rather than those of his own people.
  



• Loose reins and few demands - Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has the best of both worlds in his relationship with OCP: U.S. sanction of nuclear weapons, lots and lots of financial aid, and no requirement to clean out al Qaeda from their ungoverned tribal areas. The Financial Times headlined, "US still at risk from al-Qaeda, says report." To quote,
  
  

  Al-Qaeda has regrouped in tribal areas of Pakistan and could use contacts and capabilities developed in Iraq to mount fresh attacks on US soil, a US intelligence estimate on Tuesday warned.
  
  . . . It was reported last week that a classified intelligence assessment had judged al-Qaeda to be stronger than at any time since September 2001. Tuesday’s declassified report confirmed that al-Qaeda had found havens in tribal areas of Pakistan and replaced leaders that had been captured or killed.

Second is Condi, the Concurrant - in short, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. My definitions - Current head of U.S. diplomacy (see State Dept. website), Lame Duck and co-author of Middle East national security and now, diplomatic failures. Why would any leader in the Middle East join with OCP, Condi and the USA? This is the current dismissive view, as presented by the administration. Here, again, is "Bush reality." It borders on being delusional; at the least it is remarkably arrogant.

• Only the United States can assure the success of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process - Israel's Haaretz reports that Condi implies she will be in charge of the Middle East peace process, and our new Quartet envoy, Tony Blair will be there only to help. To quote,
  
  

  The United States will keep leading Middle East peace efforts with former British prime minister Tony Blair playing a complementary role as envoy to the Quartet of mediators, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday.




• U.S. Middle East view trumps that of the U.N. - Our State Department reports on OCP's "briefing" meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon, as if he were a beginner needing to learn a thing or two. To quote,
  
  

  President Bush (July 17): "...One of the things I briefed the Secretary on was my views about extremism and these radicals that will do anything to disrupt the goals set by the United Nations and/or disrupt the advance of democracy in peaceful societies. Al Qaeda is strong today, but they're not nearly as strong as they were prior to September the 11th, 2001, and the reason why is, is because we've been working with the world to keep the pressure on, to stay on the offense, to bring them to justice so they won't hurt us again; to defeat them where we find them."

So that is the Bush Middle East reality. And then we have the rational reality for which we can only wish - intelligent, non-delusional, realistic about the facts, respectful of other Western leaders, honest and fair, consistent and timely, reasonable. I am not holding my breath for peace to break out in the Middle East any time soon.

cross-posted at South by Southwest

Substantial negligence: Bush's "pathetic attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the world" on global warming

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Blair may have thought he could convince Bush to agree to a "substantial cut" in greenhouse gas emissions at the G8 summit in Germany -- that is, to take global warming seriously -- but, as has been the case before, his hopes were the stuff of delusion. In an interview with The Guardian, Blair suggested that Bush's "new framework" -- which I debunked here and which another and more prominent critic, John Sauven of Greenpeace, called "a classic spoiler," "a disaster," and "a pathetic attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the world and an increasingly concerned US electorate" -- is "significant and important". He is right that Bush has admitted that global warming is a reality, but the "new framework" is nothing but an effort to look like he's doing something without really doing anything at all.

And, indeed, the U.S. has agreed to nothing at all at the G8 summit:

Washington says it will not agree to a deal on slashing greenhouse gas emissions at the G8 summit in Germany.

A top US climate official said the G8 should not dictate members' policies, but President Bush said he still had a "strong desire" for a post-Kyoto plan.

Bush may not be a global warming denier along the lines of many on the American right, but he is a unilateralist who refuses to pursue any sort of transformative international agreement on global warming. He wants to do it his way, to pursue some sort of post-Kyoto plan on his own terms, with talks conducted on his own terms. He may want to bring new powers like China, India, and Brazil into the mix, but what will that mean without a "substantial cut" in greenhouse gas emissions? Not much. And Bush doesn't want anything to do with a "substantial cut". In fact, he doesn't really want to do anything at all.

Ultimately, his "strong desire" amounts to fuck all.

What Bush's "new framework on greenhouse gas emissions" is really all about

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It is being reported -- by the BBC, for example -- that President Bush, in advance of next week's G8 summit in Germany, has "urged countries to agree on long-term goals for greenhouse gas emissions". Given his, and his administration's, appalling record on the climate crisis -- I recently called him "an enabler of future genocide" and his inaction and opposition to action "the height of stupidity and irresponsibility" -- this would seem to be an encouraging sign of progress. Indeed, in a speech delivered in Washington yesterday, Bush even admitted that "global climate change" is a reality. He has admitted it before, but, again, given his appalling record, not to mention the even worse record of many Republicans and conservatives, even the repetition of this admission may be taken as a positive development. And his proposal was met with approval from at least two key European leaders. Tony Blair called it "a big step forward," while Angela Merkel found "common ground".

But what to make of the proposal? Is there reason to be optimistic? In a word, no:

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says Mr Bush's speech was short on details, and White House aides have made clear Mr Bush will oppose demands for the US to cut emissions and join a global carbon trading system.

The US seems to be trying to set up a separate framework on climate change talks outside the G8, our correspondent says.

And that's just the start of it. For an excellent assessment of Bush's alternative "framework," see Gristmill, where David Roberts picks apart the framework and finds it not just hollow but counter-productive:

To give credit where it's due, there is considerable symbolic significance to the news that the U.S. is shifting from a stance of truculent foot-dragging to active engagement. Perhaps he's desperate for a PR boost, or perhaps he's just realized the pressure is too great to keep fighting directly, but for whatever reason, Bush's rhetorical shift sends a welcome if long overdue signal. Unfortunately, the shift is only rhetorical.

*****

[T]his announcement from Bush is not a genuine change of heart on climate change. The U.S. still will not agree to any emission reduction targets. It will not agree that the developed countries bear primary responsibility for climate change. It will not sign on to the growing consensus among developed nations about how to tackle the problem.

This announcement is an attempt to run out the clock on the Bush administration without committing to anything but sweetheart deals for corporate backers.

Same as it ever was.

Make sure to read the entire post. Under Bush's proposal, "[t]he meetings will be convened by the U.S. and held on U.S. territory; the U.S. will control the agenda." And, again, these would just be "talks," not "immediate action," which is what Blair, Merkel, and the others really want. As well, it may be worthwhile to include countries like China and India in developing a long-term strategy to deal with the climate crisis, but they, like the U.S., will likely oppose "any binding targets". In other words, the U.S. would include them in order to advance its own interests (and to thwart real progress).

The more the climate changes, the more Bush stays the same.

Don't hold back, Jimmy

By Creature

Former president Jimmy Carter on current president GWB:

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

As for Tony Blair:

Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

Douglas Brinkley, a Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as "unprecedented." Unprecedented and sorely needed. Let the conservative backlash begin. Hold on.

More Carter here.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

A very special friendship

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here are Tony and George heading into the Rose Garden. You know, I've said some very nice things about Blair recently, but reminders of his oh-so-special friendship with Bush, built around a disaster of a war, compel me to reconsider my generosity. He accomplished a great deal as prime minister, far more than his critics care to admit, but Iraq remains his Waterloo, of sorts. And for that he has no one to blame but himself.

(Photo from the Globe.)

Blair triumphant

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He is unpopular at home, popular with the American right, and set to leave office with his apparent legacy, the Iraq War, still an unmitigated disaster. And yet.

I admire him.

He transformed the Labour Party from old-left obsolescence to center-left dominance, a New Labour for a dynamic new Britain. He invested in health care and education. He sought to reduce poverty both at home and abroad. He worked for real solutions for Africa's ongoing plight. He brought Britain closer to Europe even as he reached out to America. He was a leader in the fight against global warming. He was the liberal interventionist who brought moral purpose to foreign policy, providing leadership in times of struggle on Kosovo and Darfur. He was, I once thought, the world's leading statesman.

Here's E.J. Dionne: "What Blair built in his pre-Iraq days was not the Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land imagined by the poet William Blake but something more workaday: generally competent government, steady growth built on reasonably orthodox economic policies, fiscal responsibility, some expansion of public services, a rather serious war on poverty."

Yes, Iraq. Along with devolution -- the establishment of regional parliaments in Scotland and Wales -- it is Iraq that could form the core of his legacy. And yet.

He didn't support the Iraq War for the reasons Bush and the neoconservatives did. He didn't support it out of a naive belief in the benevolent hegemony of America. He didn't support it because of oil. He didn't support it because he had some messianic vision for the Middle East. No, he supported it because removing a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, a tyrant who had gassed his own people, who was still committing heinous atrocities against his own people, who would never accept the terms of U.N. resolutions, who continued to pose a threat to the region.

This is why I supported the war. Not because of George Bush but because of Tony Blair.

But that was Blair's downfall. He trusted Bush. He allowed himself to be taken in by Bush. Whatever he may have thought in private, he acted as if he believed that Bush knew what he was doing, that he could work with Bush, that he could check and balance Bush. And then everything went wrong.

Remember, though, that the British have controlled the relatively peaceful southern region of Iraq. (Basra, as violent as it may be, is not Baghdad.) Remember, too, that the British are already withdrawing their troops from Iraq. Blair is getting out, Bush is refusing to get out and pushing for more.

What else was Blair to do? His moral purpose intact, he has admitted fault. He knows that the war to which he attached himself, his legacy, his party, and his country has been a disaster.

Still, I cannot forgive him entirely for Iraq, just as I cannot forgive him for devolution, which has weakened the United Kingdom as a sovereign state governed with justice and equity from Westminster.

And yet, with Dionne, I come to this: "We may be done with Blair, but his influence will long outlive his tenure -- and the war he embraced." His party, now firmly Blairite, will carry on under his rival, Gordon Brown. The opposition Conservative Party, under the Blairesque David Cameron, is Blairism of the center-right. The Third Way is broad and vague, but it is a way that the vast majority of Britons support.

Whatever happens from here will happen in Blair's shadow. And that, I would argue, is good for Britain, good for Europe, and good for the world.

The Blair announcement

By Michael J.W. Stickings

British Prime Minister Tony Blair will "make an announcement" today regarding his future plans (i.e., resignation and departure date), the BBC is reporting (as are many others). He "will tell Cabinet colleagues of his intentions [this] morning, before making his plans public in a speech in his Sedgefield constituency".

Which means that the Gordon Brown era will soon be upon us.

With no Cabinet-level challenge for the leadership, and only a backbench challenge if any at all, his "coronation" is all but assured.

**********

Update: Well, it's done.

Après moi, Gordon Brown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Au revoir, Tony Blair.

As the The Guardian is reporting, "Blair began the final countdown to his departure [yesterday] by promising a resignation announcement next week and anointing Gordon Brown as his successor". Said Blair: "Within the next few weeks I won't be prime minister of this country. In all probability, a Scot will become prime minister of the United Kingdom, someone who has built one of the strongest economies in the world and who, as I've always said, will make a great prime minister for Britain." (Yes, Brown is a Scot.)

Blair and Brown, who don't like each other, are making nice (in a phony way), and Blair is doing what he can, so it would seem, to ensure a smooth transition of power (for fear of David Cameron's Tories, one suspects), but in some key ways and on some key issues a Brown premiership will be much different than the Blair premiership. Start with the Iraq War, which, as Kevin Drum rightly notes, Brown has never much supported -- which means that "the British withdrawal from Iraq will proceed, if anything, on an even quicker pace than before" -- for my comments on that withdrawal, see here and here. Needless to say, there won't be quite as much warmth between London and Washington as there has been in recent years.

Anyway, get ready for a seven-week leadership campaign -- which Brown is almost certain to win. And get ready for the retirement of a still-youthful and -energetic Blair. Whatever will he do with himself?

For my recent thoughts on Blair, see here. For more on Brown, see my brother's post here.

The liberal interventionist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Tony Blair, that is.

See this revealing piece on the soon-to-be ex-PM in The Guardian by Timothy Garton Ash.

Being something of a liberal interventionist myself, I've always been sympathetic to Blair -- I've even considered him one of the world's leading and most credible statesmen -- even if he'll largely be remembered for his unflinching support for the Iraq War. Which is what he deserves, perhaps, but which is also rather unfair. Consider his -- and Britain's -- leadership on such issues as Kosovo, Darfur, global warming, and poverty.

There has certainly been much more to him and his premiership than "froth and miasma".

British leadership on global warming

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's an impressive initiative from across the pond (from where I am):

Britain on Tuesday became the first country to propose legislation setting binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions as it stepped up its campaign for a new global warming pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

In its draft Climate Change Bill, the government said carbon dioxide emissions had to be cut by at least 60 percent by 2050, set out five-year carbon budgets to reach the target and created an independent monitoring committee to check annual progress.

I haven't yet looked into the details of the legislation -- both opposition parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, find the bill flawed but generally approve of it -- but it seems like a good start. And possibly more. Possibly the start of an international effort to follow Britain's lead.

Conservative criticism has focused on the timing of the targets, not on the essence of the legislation. Conservatives prefer annual targets to "five-year carbon budgets". But Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth still expressed his support: "We have been calling for a Climate Change Bill and today's publication is a welcome step forward." And his party is with him: "[Conservative Leader] David Cameron has pushed climate change to the top of the political agenda."

Yes, there is consensus not just in the scientific community around the world but across the spectrum of British politics as well.

The right-wing, business-friendly Telegraph was not amused, but see The Independent and The Guardian:

Something of the spirit of 1997 surrounded yesterday's publication of the climate-change bill, a sense that politics can still hope to change the world for the better. A government whose confidence is rotting after a decade in power, that is stuck in Iraq, worried about public-service performance and today facing a big parliamentary rebellion over nuclear weapons, is putting forward legislation of tremendous potential and ambition. It is doing so partly on grounds of crude politics. It has to compete with a Conservative party determined to make the issue its own, as well as Liberal Democrats who say that it was always theirs. But the government also knows that attempting to limit climate change is the right thing to do. The bill represents a response to a threat which is real and growing, and which will change human existence as people now understand it. There can be no nobler challenge for politicians than this.

Brilliantly put. I could not agree more.