Who Was More Influential On the Global Stage, And Why: Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair - Essay Example

Who was more influential on the global stage, and why: Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair? Introduction Margret Thatcher and tony Blair have during their tenures in the office of the British premier been highly influential in both foreign policy and domestic affairs. They both served during important periods of British history with Blair leading the nation through the Iraq wars and invasions while Thatcher was in charge during the late years of the cold war in Europe. Both of them are remembered as having been great leaders each to their own merit; however the extent to which their influence and power were wielded on the global scale comparatively speaking is open to debate. However in the light of current evidence, it would appear that Thatcher was the more influential and autonomous leader as far as global affairs were concerned and in as much as tony Blair did play a critical role his part fades in comparison. This paper contends Thatcher’s superiority, not based on the outcome of her leadership but more on the degree of power and influence she wielded in regard to foreign policy decisions. To this end it will examined both of their actions while in power and try to prove that besides Thatcher, irrespective of whether Blair was the better or worse leaders in general terms, Thatcher was indisputably the more influential when it came world politics not only in the eyes of the British but the world at large. In a sense, Thatcher is advantaged in this debate by virtue of her sex, during her tenure, she was indisputably the most powerful woman in the world and her election had broken a pattern of paternalism that had dominated the post monarchy power based Britain. Consequently, it was easy for the world to notice her because as a woman there were expectations of how her leadership style would impact on Britain and the rest of the world. Some had expected she would bring to the table a softer approach to politics due to her gender but they soon realised they were gravely mistaken, on the contrary her leadership was much more abrasive that that of most of her male predecessors and this earned her the title “iron lady” because of her hard-line policies more so in regard to foreign affairs (Fisher, 2013). Soon after her election, she demonstrated her influence when she flew to China for negotiations with Deng Xiaoping on the sovereignty of Hong Kong (Yahuda, 1996); it is worth noting that despite her distrust for communism which she shared with America’s incumbent at the time Ronald Regan, she was the first British prime minister to visit the PRC (Reitan 2002, p.116). Despite the fact that Deng had previously insisted that the sovereignty of China in Hong Kong was not up for discussion, she managed to convince him in their meetings to agree to Britain’s continued presence there and in 1984, she eventually spearheaded he Sino-British declaration in which Hong Kong’s sovereignty was to be handed over in 1997. This is proof that despite her later predisposition for war over diplomacy such as in the Falkland’s case, Thatcher was quite capable of using dialogue and quite effectively at that. Armed conflict was often an overt motif in foreign policy and in many cases a common correlate of certainty in one’s ability to make hard decisions and not only stand by them but also compel others through might or right to acquiescence. Thatches defining moment in this respected was the Farkands war which however still evokes mixed feelings from different parties, to the British, it is seen as a cause of pride while to the argentines the invasion is a reminder of the imperialism that they had come to hate so much (Jackling, 2005). During the talks leading up to the war, Thatcher had been advised, notably by the then US foreign secretary Alexander Haig against taking part in a war where a solution could be obtained through peaceful means. She received this suggestion with considerable hostility and using the retrospective events in Czech Republic where refusal to intervene by the British had in a way contributed to over 45 million deaths, ergo, she insisted that the argentines should be provided, through war, with what they could never achieve vie peaceful means (Allardyce, 2009). Given Blair’s tendency to bend to Americas will, it is doubtful if he would have made such a call against the advice of America. Thatcher on the other hand had no computations about contradicting her allies and while on many occasions she co-operated with Regan and George Bush senior (Raines, 1988), she did it out of necessity rather than the fact that she was coerced or impressed by the Americans. Thatcher’s final greatest influence on global politics was that she signed British up for the Gulf war along with the US and even after she left office this influence lingered in a war which was politically justifiable but whose ends were achieved in a morally unacceptable way. During this war, the British and America troops even after they were guaranteed victory by mere virtue of numbers and techno-tactical advantages proceeded to bomb retreating Iraq soldier on the Basra road. The sanctions imposed upon Iraq as a result of the war are estimated to have resulted to the eventual death of over 500,000 children and the instability in Iraq today can be attributed to the decisions made by Thatcher and the US (Robbins, 2007). It has been argued that Thatcher’s greatest achievement was Tony Blair, this was because in his own way he followed in her footsteps and although he steered the local economy with more finesse and sensitivity than Thatcher who lost her leadership as result aggressive poll tax policies, his approach to foreign relations was modelled on hers. There were however exceptions; among the key differences among them was that Thatcher was a Parochial Englander who was opposed many things she considered foreign to British life and one of them was the idea of the integration of Euro nations. Blair on the other hand was more liberal given his cosmopolitan background and he embraced this changes using is relationship with other European countries such as France to encourage a successful referendum to join a single currency. Although this was later disrupted by his chilling relations with the European powers owing to his support for the US in the Iraq war, it set the pace for the eventual unification of Europeans under the Eurozone. This was by far a more successful and durable affair that Britain joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism under Thatcher an endeavour that proved to be as short lived and it as financially disastrous for the nation. Today Britain enjoys the economic and political strategic benefits of being a member of the Eurozone, a step Thatcher would have been opposed to and one which was only achieved on the basis of Blair’s initial efforts to connect with the rest of the continent. In this regard, it is clear that Blair has one over Thatcher, however his success in the unification front was overshadowed by his allowing America to influence his decisions; during the George Bush Rein he was popularly parodied and his poodle (Sharp 2004, p.60) and this despite the artistic harshness was not altogether unwarranted. Blair’s relations with his European counterparts were soured by his closeness with the US which negatively influenced relationships with the then French incumbent Jacques Chirac. One of the biggest failures of the Bush administration is considered to be the Iraq war which in the eyes of most people was seen as unnecessary and unjustifiable (Smith 2003, p.7). Blair shared in this failure because he acting on fabricated information and ignoring intelligence reports he insisted that the British support the US in the war. This is in spite of the fact that British involvement would have had little or no influence in the war and at best it was only a symbolic one which however reflects badly on Britain today just as it does on the US (Danchev 2007, p.149). Had Blair entered this ware autonomously whether justifiable or not, he may have been seen as exerting his influence on the global affairs albeit in a negative way. However his involvement was only an extension of the US and it was primarily occasioned by US influence on him rather than his having any particular influence or interest in the events. In as much as Thatcher was also seen as being prone to throwing in her lot with the American Agenda, she also distinguished herself in her fierce independence and she only followed them when she agreed with them not just for the sake of doing so. Conclusion At the end of the day, it is unequivocal that despite their similarities, Thatcher stands above Blair in as far as global affairs were concerned primarily because she was more decisive and aggressive while Blair tended to be easily influence by external and internal factors. In addition, Thatcher’s tenure came shortly after the cold war and as the leader of Britain; she was highly influential in the restructuring that followed the institution of a new balance of power. Ultimately, while being cognisant of their individual personalities and leadership style, Thatcher period in power embodies far more influence and forcefulness of the British will on the world than Blair’s ever did. References Allardyce, J. 26 April 2009. "Thatcher: I did right by Scots; Thatcher: I regret nothing". The Sunday Times. p. 1. Danchev, A. 2007, "Tony Blairs Vietnam: The Iraq War and the special relationship in historical perspective", Review of International Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 189. Fisher, M. 2013, Irony Lady: How a Moscow propagandist gave Margaret Thatcher her famous nickname, Washington post. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/08/irony-lady-how-a-moscow-propagandist-gave-margaret-thatcher-her-famous-nickname/ Raines, H., 1988, Thatcher Salute To Reagan Years. nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/02/world/thatcher-salute-to-reagan-years.html Jackling, R., 2005. "The Impact of the Falklands Conflict on Defence Policy". In Badsey, Stephen; Grove, Mark; Havers, Rob. The Falklands Conflict Twenty Years On: Lessons for the Future (Sandhurst Conference Series). London: Routledge. Reitan, E, A. 2002. The Thatcher Revolution: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, and the Transformation of Modern Britain, 1979–2001. London. Rowman & Littlefield. Robbins, J. 2007. “Assessing Blairs foreign policy; Iraq...Iraq...Iraq...Tony Blairs fateful decision to invade will overshadow everything else when history judges his conduct of foreign policy”. BBC NEWS. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6601097.stm Sharp, J.M. 2004, "Tony Blair, Iraq and the special relationship: Poodle or partner?", International Journal, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 59-86 Smith, A. 2003, "Tony Blair, the Iraq War, and a sense of history", Historian, no. 79, pp. 6-8. Yahuda, M, B.1996. Hong Kong: Chinas Challenge. London: Routledge. Read More