Blair's road map to redemption?
Blair flew into Lisbon last night to begin his new role as Middle East peace person. Yes, I know, it's fairly ludicrous that the man who was schooled on Middle Eastern affairs by Lord Levy - and who joined Bush in invading Iraq - should think he's the man to bring peace to a conflict that has raged for over fifty years, but that is actually the gig that he has accepted.
I personally think that that the very fact that he is blatantly pro-Israeli is why Bush and Israel were so keen to have him appointed to the task.
However, as he has been tasked with achieving peace in the region, and as he has already achieved peace in Northern Ireland through talking to people that governments traditionally avoid, the big question is whether or not he decides to open talks with Hamas. There is already movement within Brown's new Labour government signalling that they are prepared to go down that path, opening the way for Blair if he so chooses.
On the other hand, even Mr Blair's own successor government in Britain, in which his one-time chief policy adviser David Miliband is Foreign Secretary, is among several in Europe tentatively reviewing whether it is really sensible to continue an arguably failed policy of total international isolation of Hamas.
No decisions have been taken but the case for change is that more realistic demands, such as an immediate halt to Qassam attacks on Israel and perhaps a pledge not to renew suicide bombing, might produce bankable results. And those advocating conditional engagement, including some prominent Israeli experts, believe it could strengthen the faction's more pragmatic wing at the expense of hardliners who may in time prefer violent opposition, perhaps including suicide bombings, to Israel as well as to Mr Abbas's new emergency administration in Ramallah.
There is no way that Blair can succeed in the task that has been set for him without enraging Israel and the US, for these two countries are not seriously interested in peace, but rather in how much Palestinian land the Israelis can hold on to.
However, the task that has been set for Blair is finding a meaningful way to peace in the region. He has shown before that he is - under such circumstances - prepared to listen to both sides.
Both Bush and Olmert will be pushing Blair to acknowledge Abbas and ignore Hamas, but Blair must see that no solution is possible without the inclusion of the Gaza Strip - currently controlled by Hamas.
John Ging, the UN refugee agency director in Gaza, and a group of Gaza businessmen directly appealed to Mr Blair and the Quartet to use his good offices to reopen the Karni crossing whose closure they said had triggered the loss of 68,000 jobs since Hamas's bloody takeover of the Strip in June.
Mr Blair is said to have been shocked by conditions in much of Gaza when he visited it as long ago as 1999 and would be even more shocked now. Similarly, will the man who released IRA and loyalist prisoners in the pursuit of peace at a pace that was often criticised heed the persistent calls of Mr Abbas for Israel to go much further than the 250 mainly Fatah prisoners being released tomorrow? For many years Mr Abbas has been vainly pressing for the release of men gaoled before the Oslo accords for taking part in militant missions on which they were sent by those whom Mr Bush and Israel now praise as Palestinian moderates including Mr Abbas.
Blair is on a mission to remove the word "Iraq" from his historical tombstone. And achieving a settlement in the Middle East would do that better than anything else, which is why I think he might take this task more seriously that the people who appointed him would like.
If Blair applies the same rigid fairness that he applied to Northern Ireland to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, then he will enrage the Israelis and the Americans, but he would win the respect of the rest of the planet.
For far too long this dispute has followed a USreali script. Indeed, this very fact has contributed to 9-11 and a rise in anti-Americanism across the globe. Blair can now prove himself a true friend of America. But only if he is prepared to tell them things that they dont want to hear.
His work in Northern Ireland has shown that he has what it takes. But can he overcome the US/Israeli bias that he has always shown in order to carry it off?
I doubt it. But his wish to distance himself from the nightmare he created in Iraq might just be the incentive that he needs.
The US and Israel have - unwittingly - employed the right man for the job. The question now is whether or not he has the balls to carry it off.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment