Foreign Policy on Blair

There is a very thoughtful brief essay, by James G. Forsyth, on Tony Blair that has just been posted on the web site of Foreign Policy magazine. In raising the question "why has this left-wing British Prime Minister become the closest ally of a right-wing American president?", it gives a better answer than any I have seen in the British press. Forsyth additionally concludes that Blair has characteristics that would make him a far more effective US President on the global stage than either Bush or Clinton:

It is on foreign policy that Blair would have shone as an American president. Even before September 11, Blair had come up with a theory of where and when the West should intervene, called the “Doctrine of the International Community.” Unlike Clinton, Blair is prepared to use ground forces when necessary. Indeed, his insistence that they must be an option in the Balkans stretched his relationship with Clinton to the breaking-point. Blair has a broad vision that the leader of the sole superpower needs. He simultaneously—and passionately—pushes for democracy in the Middle East and an end to poverty in Africa. Perhaps the most striking example of his foresight is that Blair was raising the need for action over Afghanistan with Bush as early as February 2001, seven months before America was forced to turn its attention to that country. Blair is also a consummate alliance builder; it is hard to imagine that America would have gone into Iraq with so few allies under a President Blair.

Forsyth also concludes that Blair is accurately described as a neoconservative. I tend to avoid this term at all times, and would in any case distinguish between Blair's position, with its stress on international institutions, and neoconservatism. But the common thread of a belief in global democracy is there, and is best described not as neoconservatism - a term of abuse that was adopted by its recipients - but as liberal internationalism. It's a belief I strongly endorse.