Athough readers are generally correct when they spot errors in the press, there's one topic in US politics which brings a torrent of false corrections. Write that Richard Nixon avoided impeachment while Bill Clinton suffered it and correspondents will protest the reverse. This occurs because of confusion between impeachment and resignation. Dick and Bill each got away with one but not the other.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be about to add a little British footnote to this area of American constitutional studies by becoming a British leader who sidestepped both impeachment and resignation during a legislative attempt to unseat him.
A Plaid Cymru (Welsh nationalist) Member of Parliament, Adam Price, is attempting to use an almost defunct statute to bring impeachment proceedings against Blair on charges of misleading the British public about the case for war in Iraq and, in effect, of conspiring with US President George W. Bush behind the backs of parliamentarians.
US Senator Hillary Clinton famously claimed that the trial of her husband in 1999 was the culmination of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." If Cherie Blair wants to make a similar defense, then, on current evidence, she can point to a "small regional conspiracy."
Other comparisons between the two processes are equally to Blair's advantage. The evidence against Clinton was gathered by Ken Starr, who seemed to regard himself as prosecuting counsel. In Blair's case, the paper trail was shaped by Lords Hutton and Butler who, if they ever formed a rock band, would call it Status Quo. In the US, the impeachment process had seen off Nixon only 25 years before; in Britain it was last used against Lord Palmerston in 1848.
Purely Personal
One difference disadvantageous to Blair is that Clinton was helped by the fact that he was being investigated for an affair on state property rather than affairs of state. Blair can't complain that the question of whether he sucked up to Bush in the Oval Office is purely personal.
Like Nixon, he would be tested on the question of what he knew and when he knew it on questions of true constitutional importance, although Blair would be helped by Britain's lack of a Constitution.
In 1974, there was documentary evidence of wrongdoing against Nixon, including witness testimony and tape recordings. But the case against Blair consists largely of his claims about Iraqi capabilities being proved wrong by subsequent events. Short of the discovery of secret tapes at No. 10 Downing Street, any trial of Blair would be a foreign policy equivalent of a sexual harassment case: turning on interpretations of words and events.
And, realistically, even a trial on impeachment charges seems unlikely. Clinton's enemies had a strong process but weak charges; those hostile to Blair have compelling allegations but dusty and probably useless instruments. Labour's huge Commons majority would almost certainly vote down any trial.
Level of Anger
Yet the impeachment attempt is interesting because of what it reveals about the level of anger against Blair: it's likely that many Labour members of parliament would support the move if they had the courage or it had the plausibility. At the time of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment attempts, it was a commonplace of political commentary that it was easier for the British to get rid of their leaders than it was for the Americans. This assumption was based on the vulnerability of leaders in a parliamentary system to party maneuverings and slipping majorities.
Blair's survival despite huge legislative and public disquiet shows that this comparison collapses after a landslide. The nearly forgotten British Conservative politician Francis Pym was once rebuked by his leader, Margaret Thatcher, for warning that large majorities were dangerous. Although the Conservatives largely created Blair's vast lead in seats by the visible exhaustion and tawdriness of their last administration, the Pym doctrine is certain to be one of the lessons which history takes from the current government.
Labour's 1997 parliamentary avalanche turned Tony Blair into a freelance prime minister and has allowed him to remain immune from rebuke through the biggest political controversy in generations. It is this apparent indomitability that has
provoked the imaginative, but
surely doomed, attempt at impeachment. Blair's enemies hope to rattle him: drop a little more bird-dirt on the already splattered statue of his reputation. The big risk is that they will further burnish his inner mythology of dignified survival against all comers.
With the public likely to vote on Blair in less than a year, parliamentary intervention feels presumptuous. The Republicans who pursued Clinton without having the necessary votes -- and that in a system which had a recent precedent for the process -- had the effect of consolidating the enemy's position.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS