|
Being
a columnist can be taxing. The relentless search for interesting
topics to waffle on about is never ending. However, now and then,
a week comes along where so much happens that it is difficult to
decide where to start. The week starting May 7 was one such week.
In
that week, the Northern Ireland peace process reached a decisive
climax. Ian Paisley, of the DUP, and Martin McGuinness, of Sinn
Fein, were sworn in as First and Deputy First Ministers of the Northern
Ireland Assembly. The DUP, which had said that it would never sit
down with Sinn Fein because it considers Sinn Fein a terrorist organisation
because of its links with the Irish Republican Army, agreed to share
power. In turn, Sinn Fein set aside the likelihood of a united Ireland,
at least in the foreseeable future, and agreed to participate in
a devolved administration within the UK.
If
that was not enough, in the same week, Tony Blair took the plunge,
which had been pending for months, and announced his resignation
date June 27. Of course, the two events are related. Blair
chose the date for announcing his departure because it was close
to the Northern Ireland deal. With his legacy literally bombed to
pieces in Iraq, Blair was desperate to link his exit with something
positive.
This
is not to say he simply jumped on the Northern Ireland peace train
at the last minute. He had played a significant role in it. He kept
the peace process high on his agenda, more so than any other British
Prime Minister. Shortly after coming to office, he agreed to face-to-face
talks with Republicans in 1997. The last British Prime Minister
to do that was Lloyd George, some time after World War I.
While
Blair was waging war in the rest of the world, he visited Northern
Ireland a remarkable 37 times to help ensure the peace. McGuinness,
who, no doubt, still feels the British have a lot to answer for
in Northern Ireland, was quoted in the Guardian earlier this year,
saying: Tony Blair and Iraq is almost like a total contradiction
of Tony Blair and Ireland.
So
why the split personality? And why did he become Bushs lackey
over Iraq?
My
theory is that, after nearly a decade in power, he became more concerned
with his global legacy than bottom-up change. I am not sure if he
even saw the full significance of Northern Ireland in his own backyard
until it was all he had left.
The
destruction of the Twin Towers gave him an opportunity to cement
his place in history. He felt this was his Churchillian moment to
be heralded a saviour of the so-called free world. He misguidedly
backed the wrong horse.
In
Africa, his record is mixed. He showed concern, calling the continent
a scar on the conscience of the world. He set up the
African Commission and pushed debt relief. This has had an impact;
for example, debt relief in Mozambique meant half a million children
were immunised.
Yet,
as much as things moved under his premiership, they have also fallen
short and poverty certainly aint history. The G8 committed
itself under his leadership to a $5,4-billion increase in support
to sub-Saharan Africa; since 2004, it has increased by $2,3-billion.
This
is no small contribution, but it typifies his leadership style
a style emblematic of many politicians. He came to power with a
populist mandate, but, over time, he lost the common touch. Blair
is about vision over capability and rhetoric over delivery, and
his biggest weakness is that he believes his own hype. Sometimes
this pays off, as it did in Northern Ireland but, mostly, over time,
it belly-flops. If you dont believe me, just ask the average
Iraqi, or next time you are in the Middle East, try to find your
way with the so-called road map he helped broker.
Brandon
Hamber writes the column "Look South": an analysis
of trends in global political, social and cultural life and its
relevance to South Africa on Polity, see http://www.polity.co.za/pol/opinion/brandon/.
To get "Look South" by email each week click
here.
"Look South" published by

|