Blair as a peacemaker in Middle East

HelterSkelter

The Quartet of Middle East mediators is considering naming Tony Blair for a top peacemaking post, diplomats say.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6240060.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_blair_envoy

I can hardly believe my eyes reading this. After his lies about WMD in order to get his hands on Iraq's oil, his support for Israel bombing the **** out of Lebanon and now he is being considered for a "top peacemaking post". Then again this "Quartet of Middle East mediators" are the EU, Russia, the UN and US, I suppose I shouldn't really be that surprised?

What are your views on this?

wes

This must be a very very bad joke. Blair will not be seen as neutral in the ME (in fact he is not neutral).

Really what peace in the ME is a truly neutral party to moderate things. The quartet is not that.

Mick86

He's a non-runner. Nobody will accept his as a mediator.

Last week he was going to be President of Europe. This week he is Middle East Peacemaker. Maybe next week he'll come up with a cure for the common cold.:D

wes

Mick86 wrote:

He's a non-runner. Nobody will accept his as a mediator.

Last week he was going to be President of Europe. This week he is Middle East Peacemaker. Maybe next week he'll come up with a cure for the common cold.:D

He is desperately trying to secure his legacy, if it weren't for the Iraq mess, he'd be the bloke who helped sort out the North.

FYI

wes wrote:

the Iraq mess

Bit of a 650,000+ bodies later understatement there.

wes

FYI wrote:

Bit of a 650,000+ bodies later understatement there.

Not to mention those who died via sanctions, which Mr. Blair did nothing about as well as ignoring the amount of death they caused and even actively denying it at times.

So, yes one hell of an understatement on my part.

Mick86

wes wrote:

He is desperately trying to secure his legacy, if it weren't for the Iraq mess, he'd be the bloke who helped sort out the North.

So he helped finish a war he didn't start and helped start two he couldn't finish. Life's a bitch.:rolleyes:

wes wrote:

Not to mention those who died via sanctions, which Mr. Blair did nothing about as well as ignoring the amount of death they caused and even actively denying it at times.

In fairness, the sanctions were imposed by the UN before Blair came to power.

wes

Mick86 wrote:

In fairness, the sanctions were imposed by the UN before Blair came to power.

True, but he didn't do anything about it. Also, when the news of the effects of the sanctions started to come out, he was in power. He didn't do anything, just ignored it. A lot of people died, because of it. For a guy who likes "Liberal Intervention", I think its fair point to make that he did nothing to save Iraqi lives from sanctions.

FYI

In today's Irish Times Fintan O'Toole had an interesting, though in my view flawed, understanding of Blair's 'legacy' - or infamy if you prefer reality:

"Blair stripped the necessary trace of utopianism from social policy and shoved it into foreign policy. Having lost faith in the idea of reordering British society, he decided to take the easier option and reorder the world instead. Principle morphed into reckless disregard, hope into fantasy, anger at injustice into the naked violence of invasion. Iraq was not an aberration of Blairism, but a consequence of it. In that sense, Tony Blair, the most talented politician of his generation, should be taken not as an example, but as a warning."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0626/1181771861959.html

It seems O'Toole has identified with Adam Curtis' recent documentary 'The Trap' which took a look at Blair's interpretation of Isaiah Berlin's concepts of positive and negative liberty.

Fratton Fred

for the purpose of debate, would the invasion and occupation of Iraq been better or worse for the people of Iraq without British involvement, on the assumption that the US would have done it anyway?

Also, there is a common opinion that the war was over oil, how did Blair, or Britain for that matter, benefit from the war and the "Securing of Oil"?

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

for the purpose of debate, would the invasion and occupation of Iraq been better or worse for the people of Iraq without British involvement, on the assumption that the US would have done it anyway?

Also, there is a common opinion that the war was over oil, how did Blair, or Britain for that matter, benefit from the war and the "Securing of Oil"?

I just heard last week that BAE have a huge contract in the States to supply armored vehicles that are IED "proof". Of course they are being investigated at home and in the States for bribing the Saudis (against the will of Blair of course) .

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote:

I just heard last week that BAE have a huge contract in the States to supply armored vehicles that are IED "proof". Of course they are being investigated at home and in the States for bribing the Saudis (against the will of Blair of course) .

I don't get your point?

BAE is a major manufacturer of arms to NATO, so it is natural they would be tendering for a contact in the US (I think they are actually now an American company, despite their name)

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

I don't get your point?

BAE is a major manufacturer of arms to NATO, so it is natural they would be tendering for a contact in the US (I think they are actually now an American company, despite their name)

I guess that's why the foreign office of the UK is so helpful to BAE.
My point is that British companies are gaining because of Blair's cow towing to Bush...which suggests a motivation on his part. Now that he's served the elite they are rewarding him a cushy post despite his obvious deficit in that area.

The Corinthian

My guess is that he'll be offered and accept the role, spend a few years making noises in the ME, but ultimately achieve nothing.

Unfortunately his involvement in the Iraq debacle has essentially ruled him out from being taken seriously by anyone other than the US or Israel. About the only thing he could do is become more pro-Arab so as to distance himself from the US-Israel, but it's dubious he will or even have the power to do that beyond lip service.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

Blair's cow towing to Bush

I read this and thought...Blair towed cows to Bush? What??? How do you tow a cow, and why the...

Then I got it

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote:

I guess that's why the foreign office of the UK is so helpful to BAE.
My point is that British companies are gaining because of Blair's cow towing to Bush...which suggests a motivation on his part. Now that he's served the elite they are rewarding him a cushy post despite his obvious deficit in that area.

OK, it is an obvious part of any premier's role to promote their own countries industry. I've just checked the BAe website and they have 45,000 employees, of which 36,000 are in the US, so I'm sure the yanks have a vested interest in them as well (As do the large number of generals, admirals and ex CIA chiefs who are part of BAe Inc's board.

Doesn't answer my point though.

lostexpectation

he should offer to swap himself with alan johnson and fix the problem from the inside gaza

The Saint

Since Blair took power in may 1997 there have been nine UN resolutions vetoed by the US on the Israel/Palestine issue. Of those nine the UK abstained from eight of them. The only resolution it voted it favour of that the US vetoed was regarding the killing of UN workers in a World Food Programme warehouse. The only other permanent member of the Security Council to abstain from a US vetoed resolution on the Israel Palestine issue was France on a resolution which called for a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians. Interestingly enough Ireland abstained from this resolution aswell (as a non-permanent member of course).

In the 18 previous years of conservative government the US vetoed 18 resolutions on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Of those 18 resolutions the UK only abstained from two whilst voting in favour of the rest.

This record of the Blair government does not really show an even handed approach to the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians (even in comparison to the Thatcher government).

Iraq war and the Lebanon debacle has been mentioned by others. However, regarding this appointment I think the Lebanon war is of more importance. This is due to clearly siding with the Israelis while they destroyed south Lebanon and south Beirut with the UK refusing to call for a ceasefire even with hugh civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure (a war crime).

If Blair gets this appointment, as I assume he will, it will be a joke. He is in no way seen as an honest broker and will be percieved as doing the donkey work of the Americans. I think there will be a lot of unhappy people on the Palestinian side when he is appointed.


Edit:
On an optimistic note he could surprise everyone and actually be an honest broker as he won't have the pressure of government and state bearing down on him. He might be able to act more independently as he does not have to take the national interest into account with the pressures of other governments and lobbies hounding him. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

OK, it is an obvious part of any premier's role to promote their own countries industry. I've just checked the BAe website and they have 45,000 employees, of which 36,000 are in the US, so I'm sure the yanks have a vested interest in them as well (As do the large number of generals, admirals and ex CIA chiefs who are part of BAe Inc's board.

Doesn't answer my point though.

It does answer your point quite clearly, saying that BAE has it's fingers in America's pie as well doesn't take away from my point.
That it's the permier's role to promote an industry that is largely responsible for making things that kill people is highly arguable...especially when a large member of that industry is quite likely involved in serious crimes...but OT.
The fact that Bair blocked an investigation also suggests he's more than just promoting an industry.

Instant Karma

lostexpectation wrote:

he should offer to swap himself with alan johnson and fix the problem from the inside gaza

post of the day, great idea.

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote:

It does answer your point quite clearly, saying that BAE has it's fingers in America's pie as well doesn't take away from my point.
That it's the permier's role to promote an industry that is largely responsible for making things that kill people is highly arguable...especially when a large member of that industry is quite likely involved in serious crimes...but OT.

I agree with you to an extent, but Blair is accused quite often of only going to war for the sake of oil, not the arms industry. I would also argue that if America had gone it alone, Iraq could ossibly be in a worse state than it is now.

The arms industry is always going to be contentious, but it is a reality of the world in which we live.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

I read this and thought...Blair towed cows to Bush? What??? How do you tow a cow, and why the...

Then I got it

Apologies for the red neck Texan colloquialism.

FYI

Fratton Fred wrote:

The arms industry is always going to be contentious, but it is a reality of the world in which we live.

That's a pretty baffling statement.

Fratton Fred

FYI wrote:

That's a pretty baffling statement.

why? the arms industry sells death and destruction, so there will always be those who are against it. However, until the world becomes a perfect place, we will need an arms industry.

jonny72

Breaking News..

Tony Blair becomes middle east envoy

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

I agree with you to an extent, but Blair is accused quite often of only going to war for the sake of oil, not the arms industry.

I'm suggesting another motivation in addition to oil.

I would also argue that if America had gone it alone, Iraq could ossibly be in a worse state than it is now.

I don't think that's a defense in committing a crime.

The arms industry is always going to be contentious, but it is a reality of the world in which we live.

Because of people like Bush and Blair and the people they serve.

FYI

Petition just started to oppose Tony's appointment here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/27062007/petition.html