Tony Blair’s attempt at a new world order

 Carl Gerken

The rules-based world order is gone. The era dominated by multilateral institutions and at least a pretext of international law has been ended by US President Donald Trump. The question now is what order, or lack thereof, will replace it. Trump himself has not yet stated a coherent policy, but rather echoed the visions of close advisors and other influential actors. Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller has declared in an interview that America will “behave like a superpower" and ruthlessly pursue its interests, including a confrontation with Europe, under the assumption that stronger states have a right to exert their power. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revived the Monroe doctrine, claiming the whole American continent as a sphere of influence. Trump is also clearly influenced by Russian and Chinese talking points of a multipolar world order. Then there is Tony Blair. 

The former British Labour Party leader and prime minister's ability to gain the trust of American presidents is well known. He was a close ally of Bill Clinton, greatly influencing him during his intervention in Kosovo. Blair continued his close alignment with america under George W. Bush, even gaining the moniker “Bush’s poodle” because of his support for the American war in Iraq, the unpopularity of which made Blair resign. Since then he has tried to broker a peace in the Israel-Palestine-conflict, founded a think-tank and been called “a very good man” by President Donald Trump. Blair was originally proposed by Trump to preside over the board being put in charge of Gaza, an idea which according to sources was proposed to Trump by Blair. 

The former PM was temporarily dropped from the board, seemingly following Trump realizing just how unpopular Blair is among the Palestinians but the idea of a US-led Board of Peace was reused by Trump on a larger scale. Trump’s Board of Peace is, according to most analysts, to be seen as a competing institution to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), seeking to prevent and end conflicts without the UNSC’s complex legal frameworks. This fits well into Blair’s view of foreign relations.

Neither of Blair’s interventions in Kosovo or Iraq were sanctioned by the UN and thus considered illegal by international law. His support of the latter destroyed his image as a humanitarian and the lies about weapons of mass destruction used by the Americans to justify the war without a UN resolution shredded his once sky high public trust. Although apologizing for the Iraq war Blair has remained an avid interventionist and has on multiple occasions voiced his support for America to be the guarantor for human rights and global stability.

Ideologically this makes him Trump’s polar opposite. The US president has campaigned on a strictly isolationist foreign policy, the opposite of the one Blair proposes and this is not their only, or even largest, ideological difference. The former Labour leader was one of the most socially progressive prime ministers in British history, an enthusiastic supporter of free trade and migration as well as a NATO loyalist to the core. So although Trump may be persuaded by the idea of a world order with a militarily and diplomatically active US at its centre, he and Blair have radically different views on what role the US should play in it. Trump’s newfound interest in interventionism has been clearly steeped in American self interest, far from Blair’s advocacy for protecting civilians and spreading democracy.

With Marco Rubio’s faction within the Republicans gaining traction we are seeing a return of American interventionism. Trump will likely continue this policy and at least make an attempt at establishing The Board of Peace as a counterpart to the UN. If he follows through with it we may have a world order in no small part fashioned by Tony Blair. It will however almost definitely look different than he intends. Blair, once again, relies on influencing an unpredictable American president with ulterior motives by enabling him with narrative and institutional frameworks. He will likely be held responsible for what they are used for once he loses control of them and the president does as he pleases. Just like with Iraq.