A foreign policy that went astray

Tony Blair's legacy is a more social democratic Britain than the government has often admitted. But Iraq means that he leaves British foreign policy in flux as rarely before. How will Gordon Brown respond?

How will Gordon Brown respond to the controversial Blair foreign policy legacy? This commentary piece appeared in the International Herald Tribune on Friday.

Display: Sort:

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#1)

The case for intervention in Iraq was never convincing. Incidentally it also failed his 5 tests that he set out in his Chicago speech

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#2)

Tony Blair's five tests as set out in his Chicago speech certainly were met, but I think debates about Iraq have been thoroughly exhausted. I am not at all enthusiastic about Gordon Brown but, like all good party members, I will publicly talk of him in glowing terms once he becomes leader. The one thing he could do that would turn me from a very active member to a disaffected and unsympathetic one is announce a new direction in foreign policy. I was heartened this morning by the way Brown distanced himself from Helena Kennedy's view of Iraq. But this is just a beginning; distancing oneself from Helena Kennedy is merely a minimum requirement for anyone looking to be taken seriously in foreign policy debate.

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#3)

I guess there'll be some kind of commission set up - the outcome of which will be a steady withdrawl of troops. Brown has also been talking about an economic package to encourage Sunni-Shia reconciliation. If handled right, he can re-cast the terms of debate and come out shining.

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#7)

Yes, the economic "bribing" model might work in Iraq as it helped in Northern Ireland (a la Brown's own allusion during Brighton Q&A session). But: 1. Fortunately for us, because of the huge US Irish population, most cash for Northern Ireland came from the US. Brown should try to persuade the US that instead of spending their half-a-trillion dollars on war, they should use it for the peace (and thus also save their own soldiers' lives). 2. However, very likely the cost in Iraq (for the above model to be effective) will be much more than that in Northern Ireland because, being an oil exporting country, Iraq's erstwhile financial/social condition (albeit under a dictatorship) was already much more affluent than Northern Ireland's, and it may take a while to make the Iraqi people feel good again; particularly since its devastation is also more thorough than in Northern Ireland. 3. Surely the British government can't afford to pay for all this; and it's highly questionable whether morally we should divert our funds to rebuild Iraq when we're withdrawing money from NHS provisions like nursing or family planning! 4. But since we're party (with the US) to breaking Iraq, we do have the responsibility now to fix it. So Brown should apologise to the British people for our engagement in this unnecessary and illegal war, and just say that we now HAVE TO pay the price for our mistakes (by spending more social/war money in Iraq). 5. Fortunately for the Labour Party, even this open admission may not be fatal because the Tories also voted for the war and the LibDems are still not strong enough to form a government.

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#4)

What annoys me is that in the US, candidates were being asked, 'What are you going to do about Iraq?'. Why wasn't this question being asked 4 years ago?

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#5)

'candidates are being asked'

Re: A foreign policy that went astray (#6)

"What annoys me is that in the US, candidates were being asked, 'What are you going to do about Iraq?'. Why wasn't this question being asked 4 years ago?" The Democrats were asked, during the last race. John Kerry had lots of different policies. Everyone could see what George Bush was doing.