The most formidable enemy British Prime Minister Tony Blair faces in the election is neither Conservative leader Michael Howard nor Liberal-Democrat leader Charles Kennedy. All the opinion polls agree that the majority still regard him as the superior candidate for the job of prime minister. The toughest opponent that Blair is running against is himself. He has to overcome all the other Blairs who are disliked, often intensely loathed, by those voters who have had enough.
He is up against "Greyer" Blair, the man who bears all the accumulated and inevitable scars and mistakes, discontents and disillusionments of eight years in office. He is running against "Warrior" Blair, the man who some will never forgive for the Iraq conflict, the great argument reignited again by the furore over the attorney general's advice about the legality of the war.
And he has to overcome the "Liar" Blair that the Conservatives are promoting in the final frantic burst of campaigning before polling day.
He tries shrugging at that: "I always think when people resort to personal abuse, it's because they've lost the argument." Then he suggests contempt for Michael Howard. "I don't care about his campaign -- other than that it doesn't succeed."
But for a man who doesn't care, he returns rather often to this subject and whether it is hurting. He doesn't sound entirely sure that he knows.
Backdoor approach
The Conservative campaign is not intended to improve Tory support, but "designed to demoralize our vote, push it off anywhere, even to the Liberal Democrats, in order to get back in by the back door."
Later in the interview, he is back on the subject. He hopes people will "see through" the Tory tactics and understand that the election is not a referendum on him but a choice between Labour and Conservative governments.
"The question is whether, nonetheless, some of the mud sticks? The honest answer is, I don't know," Blair said.
He has also come under some friendly fire. Former advisers who worked at senior levels in Downing Street have recently been gnawing over whether he has made the most of the opportunity presented to him back in the sunny days of May 1997. Geoff Mulgan, who used to be the head of the strategy unit, has written that New Labour has been too timid, and better at winning elections than it has been at transforming the UK.
What Blair will acknowledge is that he "underestimated" the challenge of reform in health and education and regrets not pressing "radical" and "fundamental" change earlier in the life of his government. "I would have liked to push that further and quicker."
How can it be acceptable that, after eight years of Labour government, thousands of children still have not got a place in secondary school for this September, a particularly acute problem in London. He contends the problem is diminishing. But he concedes -- how could he not, really? -- that this is unacceptable.
"There is a lot of improvement that needs to happen there," he says.
He shrugs off the broader critique that he has squandered his opportunity to transform the UK.
"Labour has never been in this position before. It's the longest period of consecutive government Labour has ever had," Blair says.
And this, he contends, is part of his difficulty with people who should be natural Labour supporters. "The problem with progressives is that they tend to judge their governments against perfection. It's not like that. You are going to have difficult decisions and disappointments in government."
"If people really sit back and think about it" he is confident that they will conclude that the country is "better than the one we inherited in 1997."
He means not only in "the big-picture terms" of a successful economy and investment in public services, but also in cultural shifts that have occurred while he has been at Number 10.
"You look at the change that has happened in terms of discrimination. Take discrimination against gay people. OK, it's not a central issue at this election. It's just an indicator of a different type of society. You get the Conservatives back in and the type of attitude they've got to immigration and asylum, you get a change in the political culture of the country," Blair says.
It is indisputably true that he has had a record stretch of power for a Labour prime minister. If he keeps to his declared intention to make a third term a "full term," he will be in Downing Street for over a decade. His stated plan could have him at Number 10 for a dozen years.
When asked how the transition is supposed to work, he airily declares that "you can work out the details at a later time."
Jose Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister with whom he had a close relationship, is said to be his model for how to manage it.
Doing an Aznar
Aznar remained as prime minister even after his party had selected a new leader to take them into the next election. When we suggest to him directly that he's likely to do an Aznar, he doesn't quarrel with the idea.
It has very often been the case that long-distance leaders produce increasingly diminishing returns. They run out of energy and fresh ideas. Why should he be any different? Can he name a third term prime minister anywhere that has been a success?
He thinks he can and comes up with a provocative example: "I am not saying that I agree with her policies, but I would say the [Margaret] Thatcher government's third term was, in the first three years, probably as radical as the first two terms."
Many would regard that as a dangerous role model. Her third term produced the disastrous poll tax which was one of the biggest contributory causes to her involuntary removal from Number 10.
Blair smiles: "We're not going to do that." His pledges for a third term "are far more ambitious" than they were in 1997 and 2001, he says, citing reducing waiting lists to a maximum of 18 weeks and affordable child care for all. Compared with the Tories and Lib Dems, Labour is the only party with "a serious program for government."
There are people -- including a lot on the left -- who think he has already committed his equivalent of the poll tax by joining US President George W Bush's invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
"I know how people feel," he responds. While flatly refusing to accept that it raises any issues about his integrity, what he will accept is this: "There is a question about the judgment of the decision. Whichever way we went, it was not going to be easy."
With so few days left to the moment of national decision, he now has to concede that there are people who will never be persuaded to forgive him. He does not deny that there is a section of the electorate who do not want to vote Labour because they simply hate him.
"They've got to make up their minds whether that is enough for them to reject the whole government," Blair says.
The electoral maestro who once invited people to vote Labour because of him now has to ask at least some of the people to vote Labour in spite of him.
Though he is attempting to talk up the threat of a sneak Tory victory in order to galvanize votes for Labour, he does not look like a man expecting to be looking for a new job on 6 May. He does sound like a man unsure about just how securely he will be returned to Number 10.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath