Tony Blair's "friends in Europe" did little to support his bid for the top job
President Kennedy once envisioned the void he would face when he stood down thus: “I will find myself at what might be called the awkward age, too old to begin a new career and too young to write my memoirs.” Kennedy never faced that dilemma. But Tony Blair did. And as he comes to terms with his failed bid to be EU president, he will have another chance to solve the problem of retirement.
The British are not usually impressed by their former prime ministers. Few have added to their stature in retirement. Several, like Thatcher, Heath and Churchill, detracted from it—the latter is lucky to have escaped opprobrium for the hospitality he enjoyed from the likes of Aristotle Onassis. Since 1945 most have gone quietly into their dotage, seeking little more than memoirs, self-justification and the money their political careers denied them.
But since 2007 Blair has been the exception. Unlike Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher he avoided commentary on his successor, and instead threw himself into a hectic series of projects—hoping to continue work unfinished from his premiership (from which he believed he had been prematurely rushed). And no former leader has been more criticised, especially by a media obsessed with his lucrative consultancies and speaking slots. Indeed, it is rare to come across praise for the charitable work on which he spends half his time, almost all of it unpaid, and through which he employs 80 staff.
His most significant role is “quartet envoy” to the middle east, where he spends about ten days most months. He carved out the job in his final months in Downing Street, following conversations with President Bush and Gordon Brown. No achievement was more important to him than peace in Northern Ireland, and he wanted to find similar success in the middle east, an area that took up more time in No 10 than is commonly realised. Blair is criticised for achieving little in the position, although his work largely focuses on economic development, not the peace process. Here he takes pride in 2009’s 7 per cent GDP growth in the West Bank (see Nathan Shachar’s “The good cops of Nablus,” p46), and more specific successes like the launch in October of Wataniya Palestine—the area’s second mobile phone service and the largest foreign investment for a decade—as well as the reopening of the Jalameh car border crossing. Nonetheless, Blair must be disappointed not to have seen more political progress and a larger role for himself in it. As prime minister he learnt too often that the keys to unlocking peace—be it in Belfast or Jerusalem—lie in the Oval Office, where he now carries little clout.
African development was a common theme of Blair’s foreign policy, most notably in his 2005 Commission for Africa and military intervention in Sierra Leone. Liz Lloyd and Kate Gross, close aides from his Downing Street days, runs Blair’s second foundation, the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI). It mostly helps Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Sierra Leone’s President Koroma improve their governments, though its remit may expand to other post-conflict African nations with “non-corrupt” leaders. The work of the AGI has been solid, if neither dramatic nor high profile.
The Faith Foundation, run by Ruth Turner (another No 10 aide), is a cause equally dear to him: the only one of his activities he says that he will work on until the end of his life. His religious beliefs were muted in Downing Street, but his desire to build harmony between different faiths is deep and genuine; you cannot spend five minutes in his company without realising this. Critics find this difficult to credit given his role in the Iraq war, but that conflict’s bloody course has tugged on his conscience, reinforcing his desire for meaningful dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews in particular. And the foundation does well-meaning work promoting interfaith dialogue in British schools and universities
Leaving aside his consulting and smaller activities (for instance a sports foundation in northeast England), climate change is the last of Blair’s priorities. Not a green warrior while in office, he was converted by the G8 meeting at Gleneagles in 2005. Here his work has involved meetings with officials in China and India, issuing reports like 2009’s “Technology for a Low Carbon Future,” and drawing heavily on his contact book to lobby privately in the run up to Copenhagen.
In each of these four areas he has made reasonable (if not spectacular) progress. Yet his work has achieved little recognition. Here perhaps Blair himself is partly to blame. Picking four big projects, rather than concentrating on just one or two, has eaten into his limited time. Part of his problem also comes down to finance: running high-profile charitable foundations is expensive, and he decided early on that he wouldn’t try to emulate the celebrity fuelled fundraising exploits of his friend Bill Clinton. A lack of glitz may go some way towards explaining why the British press largely ignores his work, although hardly why it often belittles his efforts as self-seeking. This uneasy media relationship isn’t helped by Blair’s refusal to give many interviews. But this decision is driven by a desire not to be drawn into commenting about his successor, and now of his successor’s likely successor too. If Brown falls, Blair does not want to be blamed.
There is an element of self interest here too, for Blair both wanted and needed Brown’s backing for his European presidency bid. In Downing Street he was often frustrated with European inaction, most obviously over Kosovo in 1999. He believes that the EU needs a “big hitter,” such as himself, to reach its potential. To him, the post represents an opportunity to round off more unfinished prime ministerial business: making the EU into a cohesive power bloc. It’s a role for which he would happily bin his paid activities, and likely put his charitable projects on hold too. So he will surely be disappointed that many of his friends in Europe, and a number of fellow countrymen, didn’t do more for his cause. He has an especially jaundiced view of the Conservatives’ tribalism in not backing him, a move that will surely rebound in their faces if a more federalist president prevails, as seems likely.
Blair still keeps a keen interest in British politics. He will campaign in the general election if Brown asks him, but is adamant that he is not waiting by the phone. Losing the presidency will only whet his appetite further for another big international role. But what? Top level jobs for former premiers are not in abundance. Something in the UN or World Bank could be attractive, as might a more niche role bringing together the disparate parties working on the problems of Africa. But for now, with the EU job behind him and no other position on the horizon, his priority will again be to push forward his foundations, after their (understandably) slow starts.
It has been a sobering 30 months for a man who has never lost an election. He was, he admits, naive about the realities of coming to power in 1997. Similarly, he had naive expectations about his influence after stepping down: he had only a vague sense of his post-premiership aims and how he could best achieve them. Lacking the platform of a former US president, he needed to create an equivalent “office.” This is easier said than done, and the task remains incomplete. Yet Blair is still only 56, with 20 years of work ahead of him. If anything he is more hungry for influence than in 2007. He could yet become the only postwar prime minister to increase their stature in retirement—and the first to emerge triumphant from his awkward age.
President Kennedy once envisioned the void he would face when he stood down thus: “I will find myself at what might be called the awkward age, too old to begin a new career and too young to write my memoirs.” Kennedy never faced that dilemma. But Tony Blair did. And as he comes to terms with his failed bid to be EU president, he will have another chance to solve the problem of retirement.
The British are not usually impressed by their former prime ministers. Few have added to their stature in retirement. Several, like Thatcher, Heath and Churchill, detracted from it—the latter is lucky to have escaped opprobrium for the hospitality he enjoyed from the likes of Aristotle Onassis. Since 1945 most have gone quietly into their dotage, seeking little more than memoirs, self-justification and the money their political careers denied them.
But since 2007 Blair has been the exception. Unlike Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher he avoided commentary on his successor, and instead threw himself into a hectic series of projects—hoping to continue work unfinished from his premiership (from which he believed he had been prematurely rushed). And no former leader has been more criticised, especially by a media obsessed with his lucrative consultancies and speaking slots. Indeed, it is rare to come across praise for the charitable work on which he spends half his time, almost all of it unpaid, and through which he employs 80 staff.
His most significant role is “quartet envoy” to the middle east, where he spends about ten days most months. He carved out the job in his final months in Downing Street, following conversations with President Bush and Gordon Brown. No achievement was more important to him than peace in Northern Ireland, and he wanted to find similar success in the middle east, an area that took up more time in No 10 than is commonly realised. Blair is criticised for achieving little in the position, although his work largely focuses on economic development, not the peace process. Here he takes pride in 2009’s 7 per cent GDP growth in the West Bank (see Nathan Shachar’s “The good cops of Nablus,” p46), and more specific successes like the launch in October of Wataniya Palestine—the area’s second mobile phone service and the largest foreign investment for a decade—as well as the reopening of the Jalameh car border crossing. Nonetheless, Blair must be disappointed not to have seen more political progress and a larger role for himself in it. As prime minister he learnt too often that the keys to unlocking peace—be it in Belfast or Jerusalem—lie in the Oval Office, where he now carries little clout.
African development was a common theme of Blair’s foreign policy, most notably in his 2005 Commission for Africa and military intervention in Sierra Leone. Liz Lloyd and Kate Gross, close aides from his Downing Street days, runs Blair’s second foundation, the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI). It mostly helps Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Sierra Leone’s President Koroma improve their governments, though its remit may expand to other post-conflict African nations with “non-corrupt” leaders. The work of the AGI has been solid, if neither dramatic nor high profile.
The Faith Foundation, run by Ruth Turner (another No 10 aide), is a cause equally dear to him: the only one of his activities he says that he will work on until the end of his life. His religious beliefs were muted in Downing Street, but his desire to build harmony between different faiths is deep and genuine; you cannot spend five minutes in his company without realising this. Critics find this difficult to credit given his role in the Iraq war, but that conflict’s bloody course has tugged on his conscience, reinforcing his desire for meaningful dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews in particular. And the foundation does well-meaning work promoting interfaith dialogue in British schools and universities
Leaving aside his consulting and smaller activities (for instance a sports foundation in northeast England), climate change is the last of Blair’s priorities. Not a green warrior while in office, he was converted by the G8 meeting at Gleneagles in 2005. Here his work has involved meetings with officials in China and India, issuing reports like 2009’s “Technology for a Low Carbon Future,” and drawing heavily on his contact book to lobby privately in the run up to Copenhagen.
In each of these four areas he has made reasonable (if not spectacular) progress. Yet his work has achieved little recognition. Here perhaps Blair himself is partly to blame. Picking four big projects, rather than concentrating on just one or two, has eaten into his limited time. Part of his problem also comes down to finance: running high-profile charitable foundations is expensive, and he decided early on that he wouldn’t try to emulate the celebrity fuelled fundraising exploits of his friend Bill Clinton. A lack of glitz may go some way towards explaining why the British press largely ignores his work, although hardly why it often belittles his efforts as self-seeking. This uneasy media relationship isn’t helped by Blair’s refusal to give many interviews. But this decision is driven by a desire not to be drawn into commenting about his successor, and now of his successor’s likely successor too. If Brown falls, Blair does not want to be blamed.
There is an element of self interest here too, for Blair both wanted and needed Brown’s backing for his European presidency bid. In Downing Street he was often frustrated with European inaction, most obviously over Kosovo in 1999. He believes that the EU needs a “big hitter,” such as himself, to reach its potential. To him, the post represents an opportunity to round off more unfinished prime ministerial business: making the EU into a cohesive power bloc. It’s a role for which he would happily bin his paid activities, and likely put his charitable projects on hold too. So he will surely be disappointed that many of his friends in Europe, and a number of fellow countrymen, didn’t do more for his cause. He has an especially jaundiced view of the Conservatives’ tribalism in not backing him, a move that will surely rebound in their faces if a more federalist president prevails, as seems likely.
Blair still keeps a keen interest in British politics. He will campaign in the general election if Brown asks him, but is adamant that he is not waiting by the phone. Losing the presidency will only whet his appetite further for another big international role. But what? Top level jobs for former premiers are not in abundance. Something in the UN or World Bank could be attractive, as might a more niche role bringing together the disparate parties working on the problems of Africa. But for now, with the EU job behind him and no other position on the horizon, his priority will again be to push forward his foundations, after their (understandably) slow starts.
It has been a sobering 30 months for a man who has never lost an election. He was, he admits, naive about the realities of coming to power in 1997. Similarly, he had naive expectations about his influence after stepping down: he had only a vague sense of his post-premiership aims and how he could best achieve them. Lacking the platform of a former US president, he needed to create an equivalent “office.” This is easier said than done, and the task remains incomplete. Yet Blair is still only 56, with 20 years of work ahead of him. If anything he is more hungry for influence than in 2007. He could yet become the only postwar prime minister to increase their stature in retirement—and the first to emerge triumphant from his awkward age.
