Blair on 'The leader as principled negotiator'

I must confess that when the former British Prime Minister defended his decision in Parliament to actively support the US war in Iraq, he was mesmerizing. He was eloquent, in command of his facts and delivered his speech with impeccable logic.

He was given a standing ovation for that speech but alas, it was very soon forgotten. Although he defended his position well, the British public was in no mood to put the country in what they considered a questionable American enterprise. One critic found a glaring inconsistency between the treatment of Iraq and of North Korea when the latter should have been of more concern.

* * *

Anthony Charles Lynton “Tony” Blair became the British prime minister when my family and I were about to end our life in Europe, 20 years spent in exile in London and another 3 years in Brussels when my late husband, Alberto A. Pedrosa served as Philippine ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU.

Blair was prime minister from May 1997 to June 2007. As a labor politician at the time he was all the rage — admired as young and brilliant — just what the UK needed for a change. He would be the fresh air the British needed after the series of lackluster Conservative prime ministers who came after the inimitable Margaret Thatcher. Some British watchers credit him with modernizing the Labour Party. He called it the “New Labour” when he moved it to more centrist policies to the consternation of more leftist members who said the party they belonged to had become unrecognizable. But if members of the Labour Party were critical of “New Labour” so were traditional Conservatives when it came to power with a curious doctrine they called “people’s capitalism”.

All this is to say that even in parliamentary politics that pits strong parties with ideological leanings, it is never wise to be doctrinaire. As a Labor Prime Minister Blair increased public spending on health and education but at the same time introduced market-based reforms. He introduced a national minimum wage, tuition fees for higher education and constitutional changes that devolved Scotland and Wales.

It might be good to be reminded that the Labour party was in opposition for a good 18 years. In mature parliamentary systems, the majority party is given a chance to fulfill its program as long as the electorate wants it to continue. The ballot box is the term limitation. After Conservatives’ golden years the people tired of it and found it had run out of leaders. That was how Blair came into power with a landslide victory in the 1997 general election.

But as with all things, Blair’s popularity soon fizzled out as well, his fall accelerated when he became too close to buddy, George W. Bush. To the world they were a team as far as the Iraq war was concerned and this was fatal for Blair. More disenchantment came with poor support for the Labour Party in 2005 general elections, brought about no doubt by increasing opposition to the Iraq war. From then on it was downhill for Blair with frequent back-bench rebellions, the Cash for Honours scandal and a questionable multi-billion pound arms deal with Saudi Arabia. With consistent low approval ratings for Blair, he was forced to resign in June 2007 and was replaced by Gordon Brown.

* * *

But as with most Western leaders as prominent as Blair, he did not become jobless after he resigned as Prime Minister. He was soon appointed official Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East on behalf of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. He has also been teaching a course at Yale University regarding faith and globalization for the 2008-2009 academic year.

I would think it was his contribution to the Northern Ireland Peace Process and the Good Friday Agreement after 30 years of conflict that has brought him here to Manila. That seems to be the raison d’etre of speaking on the chosen topic of a leader in principled negotiation. I do not think he will go very far in the Middle East with his Bush friendship in the memories of many Arabs.

Therefore, a wise-crack suggested to me that I ask him what he knew of the Philippines and the conflict in southern Philippines. Or to put it on an even wider context, I should ask what the image of the Philippines was to the ordinary British who are fed exclusively from sensationalist media when it comes to developing countries like ours?

It is indeed puzzling that Manila should be chosen for a lecture tour of the former British prime minister if the topic is about principled negotiation. I would expect him to know a little more of this country other than Western media caricatures of violence and corruption.

I am told he will be staying only for one day and this will be exclusively for two lectures, the main one being in Sofitel at 2 o’clock and another for the Ateneo MVP Center Sesquicentennial Leadership Forum, at the Rev. Henry Lee Irwin Theater in Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

In Ateneo he will speak on “”The Leader as Nation Builder in a Time of Globalization,” a topic which is the theme of the Ateneo’s sesquicentennial or 150th anniversary celebration this year of “Building the Nation.”

It will be good to hear how he will relate the Mindanao conflict and Philippine nation-building in the context of themes like principled negotiation and globalization.

* * *

On a personal note, the former Prime Minister now lives on Connaught Square in central London just around the corner from where my family and I lived. Home to us then was on Connaught Street for more than 20 years. Friends and neighbors who still live there say it is a bit different now with security guards assigned to Mr. Blair. From time to time when I visit London, I see no changes. (London is very strict about protecting its old buildings.) The houses on Connaught Village were built at the turn of the 19th and the façade of these buildings cannot be changed. The only refurbishing allowed is inside the houses. I noticed a Jimmy Choo shoe shop, though, which was not there when we lived on Connaught Street.