By Paul Tate
The only possible logic behind former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's appointment as Middle East envoy must be: if you break something then you have a duty to try and put it back together again. How else could a man who has spent the best part of his second term in office waging illegal wars in the Middle East be assigned such a role?
Of course, Blair does have some experience in peacemaking, although arguably much more in warmongering.
He should take some credit for bridging the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and bringing old adversaries into a power sharing agreement, albeit after the groundwork had already been laid by his predecessor, Conservative Party leader John Major.
But in terms of the Middle East, Blair’s track record has been one of failure on a monumental scale. It was his ill-judged adventures in this region and his growing unpopularity with the British electorate as a result that forced him to hand over the reins of power to Gordon Brown in the first place — something he did only begrudgingly after a long drawn out process.
As well as being discredited among his own people, Blair is loathed in every Arab capital from Baghdad to Rabat.
He is loathed for his part in the illegal invasion of Iraq, for his refusal to speak out against Israeli policies in the occupied territories, and for his backing of Israel’s 2006 assault on Lebanon.
And now this same politician — with an arrogance indicative of his ilk —believes he is the right man to finally bring peace to the Middle East and solve the Israeli-Palestinian question once and for all. Blair aims to put right what Balfour got wrong. So what qualifies him for this post?
It is usual practice when applying for a new job to submit a CV of past achievements relevant to the position, together with a covering letter explaining why you are suited to the job.
But even a man of Blair's considerable persuasive talents would have trouble here. A Blair CV of foreign policy achievements in the Middle East would make interesting reading indeed.
One wonders whether he would attempt to omit his role as Bush's cheerleader for the Iraq war; and his use of fake evidence about weapons of mass destruction? How could he explain how he managed to take a stable state and turn it into a hotbed of extremism and sectarianism? How could a man applying for the position of peace envoy explain that his policies over the past four years had resulted in the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians?
It seems the Blair philosophy is that peace can only be obtained through war. He said as much during the Lebanon crisis of 2006 when he refused to call for a cessation of violence on the grounds that it was “premature”. So the bombing continued and hundreds more people died because the new man of peace thought more deaths would increase the chances of a permanent solution.
Of course, we all know now that allowing this conflict to continue merely escalated sectarian tensions in Lebanon which continue to this day.
But the reality is that Blair did not have to submit his CV for his new post as peace envoy. His old master in Washington had already seen to it that the position was his.
And this is the rub of the matter. Blair may have handed over the UK premiership on Wednesday to Gordon Brown, but George W. Bush is not finished with him yet.
Friday-Saturday, June 29-30, 2007
