The recent war in Iraq changed the dynamics not only between continental Europe, the U.K., and the U.S., but also between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Party. To survive politically and ensure the U.K. is a vital player in the European Union, Blair must affirm his country's European identity.
Steven Philip Kramer, currently a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is Professor of Grand Strategy at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University. The views expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
A NEW GRAND STRATEGY
When Tony Blair became prime minister of the United Kingdom in 1997, he took on the great unresolved issues of the second half of the twentieth century and defined a fairly coherent grand strategy to face them. At stake was how to sustain economic prosperity and increase social equality, how to respond to the decay of traditional British national identity and British political institutions, how to develop a new relationship with Europe in which the United Kingdom would play a central and self-confident role, and how to balance ties to Europe and the special relationship with the United States.
Blair's efforts seemed to succeed until the Iraq crisis drove Washington in the opposite direction from Paris and Berlin. The crisis challenged the cornerstone of Tony Blair's grand strategy -- that the United Kingdom could act as a bridge across the Atlantic. It damaged the new relationship with France established by Blair in 1998. It raised questions about the wisdom of the special relationship with the United States. And it even threatened the survival of Blair's premiership. Although the military phase of the intervention in Iraq is now over, the long-term implications of Blair's stance remain unclear for his project and for the future of the United Kingdom, Europe, and transatlantic relations.
BLAIR'S BALANCING ACT
The Blair government came to power under exceptionally favorable circumstances. Elected at the beginning of a long economic upswing, for the first time Labour won a big majority in a time of prosperity. The international and European situations were also propitious. Blair had strong affinities with President Bill Clinton, who had also steered his party to the center in search of postmodern "Third Way" progressivism. In Europe, the dominance of the Franco-German relationship had declined; France and Germany were not providing European leadership together or separately. The interventionist model of economic development they espoused -- and that the United Kingdom generally opposed -- had run out of steam. This seemed the moment for the United Kingdom to seek a larger role, even leadership, if it could shed its traditional ambivalence toward Europe.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
A Change of Government is as good a time as any other for a national stocktaking-especially when, as now, the change takes place after 13 years of leadership by one party. The new Ministers are busy learning the facts of life which for all that time they have been ignoring in opposition. After a preliminary bout of Paradise Lost, Book One, the fallen Ministers are stiffly climbing out of the strait jackets imposed by collective responsibility and beginning to air personal opinions, so far as they can do so without breaking their Privy Councillor's oath.
As the leader of Britain's Labour Party and the leading contender to become the next prime minister, Tony Blair has stirred excitement in Europe with his promise to reinvent the left. But who is he, what would he do once in power, and where is "left" in a post-Thatcherite Britain and a post-communist Europe? Blair has made his own personal break with socialism, but lacks a replacement. His strategy has been to offer proposals, then retreat at the first sign of criticism. He can talk like a Tory, and sometimes borrows from their playbook. He may be the harbinger of the new left, but he must establish exactly what that means.
Mr. Harold Wilson has been leader of the Labor Party for nearly a year; in 1964 he may well become Britain's first Socialist Prime Minister in 13 years. Around his aims and methods, and in particular his expressed belief in the possibility of a new society created by technological as much as by political change, have gathered much speculation and comment. However, he is by nature cautious, anxious to nourish growing party aspirations rather than initiate controversial debate, and therefore unlikely to be hasty in making innovations in either domestic or foreign policies. It is the latter which will be considered here.
