embattled British prime minister, who was forced to quit before completing his third term.

Diplomatic dead end

Blairism led to disaster when it was introduced into Britain's foreign policy, especially its policy on Iraq. In fact, Blair's public support plummeted precisely because of his adherence to U.S. foreign policy. Unlike other major powers in the EU, Britain closely followed in the footsteps of the United States in 2003. It not only supported the United States in waging the Iraq War but also sent its own troops to Iraq. Blair paid a high price for this bold political risk. The reputation of he and his Labour government were severely damaged among the general public. Many political parties and media outlets considered the London bombings in July 7, 2005, as the terrorists' revenge against Britain.

When Blair won his third term in 2005, the Labour Party failed to secure a majority in the Parliament as it did in the last two elections. It also lost many seats in the local parliamentary elections in 2006 and 2007. The primary reason for these failures was also believed to be Blair's foreign policy. In mid-July last year when military conflict broke out between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, Blair took sides with U.S. President George W. Bush again, apparently tilted in favor of Israel. This stance aroused widespread criticism from the general public. Parliamentarians and even Cabinet members showed disapproval. As a result, Gordon Brown's supporters gained clout in the Labour Party, forcing Blair to leave office.

Blair's foreign policy in 2003 was derived from his diplomatic practice during his first term and the theory of "new interventionism" he developed in the Kosovo War. Under the pretext of "humanitarian intervention," he stressed that the NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was aimed to stop a "humanitarian crisis" and was a battle to safeguard "civilized values."

Speaking before the Chicago Economic Club on April 22, 1999, Blair unveiled his "new doctrine of the international community." Among other things, the doctrine emphasized that state sovereignty was less important than human rights and the prevention of genocide. It called for military intervention in the domestic affairs of "dictator states" such as Iraq and Serbia, while indicating that non-interference was conditional. Blairism was widely applauded in the West because of the Kosovo War.

The new interventionism Blairism celebrates was set in the international security environment shortly after the Cold War. At the time, it was a common belief in the West that as the U.S.-Soviet rivalry came to an end, the security of most Western countries was no longer under imminent threat, with the United States being the only super power. In order to address regional hotspot issues caused by ethnic and religious conflicts, believed to be the major threat to international security, the West adjusted its security strategy. Blair's new interventionism was an essential part of this adjustment.

After the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Britain was ready to offer support to the U.S.-led war against terrorism. They first defeated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Then they went further with the invasion of Iraq, a war based on false intelligence. Blair and Bush believed that they could take this opportunity to topple Saddam Hussein's regime and rebuild "democracy" in the country at the same time, thereby putting an end to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians that has haunted the Middle East for years. However, it has been proven that foreign intervention in a country's sovereignty makes no difference and that any attempt to export values based on hegemony and unilateralism will only hit a dead end. It turned out that both leaders ended up with what they deserved. Blairism's failure in the diplomatic arena provides evidence that it is still an uphill battle to ensure democracy in international relations. Countries should respect each other's sovereignty and independence before a just and equitable multilateral international regime with the UN at the center is established.

Blair first assumed office in 1997, the year Britain returned Hong Kong to China. With the proper settlement of the Hong Kong issue, a major obstacle to the development of the two countries' relations was removed. As the two governments make unremitting efforts to boost bilateral relations, Britain has become the second largest trading partner of China in the EU only next to Germany. Bilateral trade volume reached $36 billion last year. The Blair government witnessed how Hong Kong recovered from the financial chaos in the early days of the handover and how clashes between the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the existing legal system were resolved. More importantly, it witnessed Hong Kong's extraordinary efforts to sustain the advantages of its free market economy, seek prosperity and integrate itself into the burgeoning economy of the Chinese mainland.

What Hong Kong has achieved is comparable to Blair's economic success at home. Moreover, it has been powered by China's economic takeoff in the recent 10 years. Over the past decade, doubts about Hong Kong's future frequently raised by Britain and other Western countries have been dispelled as Hong Kong continues to forge ahead.

The author is deputy director of the Department for EU Studies, China Institute of International Studies