Offering his influence
What, said some, was the point of Tony Blair staying in office now that he's said he's going. On this trip to the Middle East he's tried to come up with one answer. He's presented himself, and seems to be accepted, as an envoy promoting Middle East peace.
To those who say that's impossible given his support for America and for Israel, Tony Blair replies that's precisely why it is possible. He's offering to use his influence to secure American backing, and an Israeli signature, on any future peace deal.
First in the Palestinian territories, then in Lebanon, he was accepted on those terms, despite angry public protests at Britain's role in the war on Lebanon.
Cynics will say they remember the prime minister, soon after 9/11, claiming that the kaleidoscope had been shaken, that the world could be remade, starting, he said, with bringing justice to the people of Gaza. His reply is a simple one: You can only keep trying.
I'm 
Comments
Nick,
You little tinker, fancy upsetting some of the Blairites who respond to your blogs – well done!
Real peace in the Middle East requires two concurrent events: Israel to accept a viable Palestinian State and the Arab world to accept the State of Israel. A wounded Blair cannot do either, but for that matter neither can Brown or Cameron.
Playing the 'what if' game with the post-9/11 world, I wonder what it would have been like if Blair had opposed the war in Iraq, and demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon right out of the gate.
How has this tactic worked for the French and the Germans?
One way of looking at it is that the French and Germans need to be doing what they're doing, and Tony needs to do what he's been doing: Avoiding Dr Strangelove (or how I learnt to stop worrying and love brutal arab/israeli conflict).
This entry in your blog seems to indicate that you to some extent buy that point of view. Is this a slipping of the veil of cynicism? Are you, like me, really an idealist in a world that has taught us to hide it?
:-)
Call me cynical but he can keep trying for as long as he likes it won't make the slightest bit of difference. I never knew what intractable meant until I started following the Middle East peace process.
I think, you’ve touched on, perhaps, the single most interesting aspect of Prime Minister Blair’s leadership. As any Zen Buddhist will tell you, in trying to find enlightenment you reduce the chances of finding it. However, if you let go enlightenment will emerge. As with related difficulties on the home front, the drive to promote understanding and compassion is as much a process as it is a goal.
The founder of Aikido stated that war is another means to peace. Stubbornness, or closed and inflexible minds, will not achieve a result. Persistence, or a positive and flexible way, will achieve a result. By remaining engaged, the Prime Minister and other stakeholders are moving their boats into a stream which is bigger than themselves and, hopefully, means a positive consensus is inevitable.
When the fire is lit, the rice is already cooked.
And that is what makes him such a tremendous asset to his Party but more importantly to his Country.
Given all the turmoil of the last couple of weeks, and the tremendous pressure personally thrust upon him, he stays resolutely committed to trying to negotiate peace.
An unrivalled conviction politician who will be sorely missed when he finally decides to step down.
Those who blame him for everything because of his decision over Iraq will one day feel just a little embarrassed I think.
I said in an earlier post that Blair's prime responsibility is to the British public. Will his meddling in the relationship between Israel and her neighbours serve us any benefit?
The news today that the democratically elected Hamas government has been forced to form a coalition is completely unacceptable. Palestine isn't a nation we're trying to force democracy upon, she already has it - if it weren't so sad I'd be laughing. We've had regime change by invasion (which, understandably, has made us more unpopular with the Muslim world) and now regime change by aid blockade (which will make us even more unpopular). Whatever next?
Islamic terrorists already think the War on Terror is a war against Islam. I'd be more than a bit ticked off if my democratically elected government was forced to change its face due to international pressure.
IF ONLY - but where on foreign policy has he got the US to sign up and deliver (as opposed to paying lip service)
well I guess the guy can just keep trying...
But this is exactly what Clinton did: grandstanding as a peacemaker without making any serious attempt to achieve what is necessary for peace - namely, justice for the Palestinians.
Blair needs to tell the Israelis and the Americans that the idea they have that Arafat rejected peace at Camp David in Clinton's last days is simply not true. Israel's 'generous' offer was not of a viable Palestinian state, but ever since everyone has said it was. Until the US and Israel accept that, there will be no peace.
Is Blair seriously prepared to say that and push for that? If not, then this is (yet again) all about building the Blair brand - with at least one and a half eyes on the 'elder statesman' lecture circuit. Which is all the occupied Palestinians need.
well, as an arab Im not surprised at blairs attitude .. with his weak character , low principles and blind submission to Bush.. he just keeps on smearing Britains pic across the arabic world..
"He's presented himself, and seems to be accepted, as an envoy promoting Middle East peace."
Lord Levy, presumably, is keeping his head down?
Blair seems more a conduit of American opinion than an honest broker. Fiddling around on the fringes of the American aura of diplomatic power is hardly edifying, even if it gives Blair something to do. And it is hardly any reason to keep him.
Maybe it is time to echo Winston Churchill’s plea to Neville Chamberlain.
Promises! Promises! or The Longest Goodbye
By Phil Linehan
Tony promised us that he’d step down
and leave the stage to Gordon Brown.
But that was then, and this is now
and there are no signs he’ll keep his vow.
He will cling right on to the bitter end
and no matter the pressure, he will not bend.
He simply refuses to understand
that now is the time to throw in his hand.
No Italian tenor has taken so long
to sing his final farewell song.
The Labour ranks are now rebelling
and for his quick departure are loudly yelling.
What can it be that he is thinking
as he stands on the ship that’s quickly sinking?
That no-one else can take the helm
and govern an exasperated realm?
Or perhaps he cannot bear to part
from the chum who’s closest to his heart?
What will he do when he no longer hears
the tones that are music to his ears?
No more yo-yo’s or come to heels,
or intimate Camp David meals.
Of course he’ll miss the barbecues
and their praying together in White House pews.
We should try to be more understanding,
refrain from being so demanding,
and ease the pressure even though
we must echo Churchill’s “For God’s sake go!â€
Thank You Nick,
This is more like the journalism we deserve - this is the kind of journalism you deserve too.
It does seem that pragmatism is the only way forward, and if dialogue is the agreed way forward - and Blair has moved this agenda on - then I think it is a job well done.
The difficulty for Israel, Palestine and Lebanon leaders now will mainly revolve around resisting extremist pressures to re ignite the fire and reopen old wounds.
The USA must back off. Europe must be prepared to embrace all sides.
This high wire act needs no distractions and I fear Blair will be distracted by events at home.
Of all the leaders Blair is the one with the skills and experience to navigate the way ahead but whether he has the support and goodwill of his own party and the country at large is very much in question.
Dare we give him the space and encouragement?
I hope so... it is worth pursuing.
"Use his influence to secure American backing" - so basically you are hinting that TB has lost his tenuous grip on reality and this is his reason for staying on as PM? You could perhaps ask his majesty what the weather is like on his planet!
You know I can understand Bush not calling for a ceasation of hostilities in the recent conflict, the man has the IQ of a bowl of plastic fruit, but Blair has no such excuse. Even his own party disagreed with this Blairism, so much for democracy.
Perhaps someone should suggest that TB work on another of his many unfinished projects. In the 12 months that remain of his tenure he could perhaps complete the revamp of the House of Lords otherwise his legacy will be limited to eliminating fox hunting (which will likely become a problem in the coming years).
I would greatly appreciate TB staying in the UK for a while, the number of countries I cannot visit is growing at an alarming rate!
David Cameron declares himself a "Liberal Conservative". Last week it was a gaggle of morons, this week, an oxymoron.
DC says the UN confers ultimate legitimacy and then sites the Balkans (Kosovo was without a UN mandate); He names the great past Prime Ministers who 'knew' how to deal with America -- none of whom publicly criticized the US while in power; he supports preemption and military intervention but says democracy 'takes time' to build institutions -- presumably, he'd invade and then immediately leave until the natives got their democratic act together. This sort vacuous mish-mash, 'simple and unrealistic' if you will, only makes Gordon Brown look better.
So, why should Tony Blair stay on? Because he's the only one with any sense left.
Nick...how can you make such an outrageous statement that Tony Blair has been 'accepted' as an envoy promoting peace in the Middle East? Who exactly has accepted him as such? You were in Lebanon with him today and must have seen the protests - so how can you make such a disgracefully sycophantic statement? A load of old spin, you should know better!! I can assure you that NOBODY in the Middle East would agree with you.
Hi Nick,
So is he trying to secure his "legacy"? But I thought he was supposed to be the British Prime Minister, not some supra national character like Kofi Annan. Surely he was elected to sort out pressing issues at home like immigration, crime and making public services fit for the 21st century. As you can see, I am not impressed by his globe trotting - it is the UK which requires leadership - that is what his government was supposed to provide.
So Tony Blair's 'presenting' himself as a Middle-East peace envoy? Is it just me or is the PM overtly personalising any foreign or domestic policy issue he thinks he can hastily stitch into his so called 'legacy' within a year? Considering how long US and UK foreign policy makers have placed the Israeli-Palestinian crisis on the back-burner I'm not sure its going to wash. A case of too little too late perhaps...
Sorry, but can you say what "Britain's role in the war on Lebanon" was exactly. I must have missed that.
It is a pity TB was not back in England to meet the returning coffins of the latest victims of his failed foreign policies.
I agree with TB - you can only keep trying, and I also believe that he HAS been trying.
But he has failed, and other circumstances now suggest that he is more likely to fail than to succeed.
If, as I believe, he's serious about all this, he might consider taking a back seat, getting off the telly (sorry Nick, less fun and fewer airmiles for you), and providing moral and political support from the deep background to those less contaminated with history.
kim
Like Clinton, Blair is reaching for the apple of Middle East peace as his mandate comes to an end. But we may have cause to doubt his seriousness. It seems that Italy has been front and center on the latest initiative.
Nick
I am beginning to think that those who say that you fawn in the presence of the PM may be right. Of course the PM has an answer to what the point of him is now. Who thought that he didn't. The question I thought you commentators were supposed to be asking is "is the reason he gives credible?" and "who believes him" and "does he have the support to deliver?" etc.
Otherwise all you are doing is telling us what he wants us to hear - which is fine but that that is the function of the news reporter and not the job of an august commentator who is supposed to enlighten us.
Offering influence, oxymoron, or is that just moron.
Each person has to face bad times as much as he/she is previledged to have good times. This is the rule of the nature. And this holds good for Tony Blair aw well.
There was a time when a young and charismatic person by the name of Tony Blair had emerged like a dazzling phenomenon in the British political sky and had mesmerized the entire nation and the world with his words and dees, so novel and revolutionary and untraditional in its content. He ruled the hearts and minds for a long time. But as with everything, he too had to come down the pinnacle he had achieved.
Presently, he is facing these tough days. But no one can deny the fact that Mr. Blair has made a permanent place for himself in the modern British history and his impact will be felt for a long time to come. Whether one likes him or not, one can't ignore him so easily.
Amitabh Thakur
Lucknow,
India
From what I understand, Blair is simply going to take a leaf out of his friend Bill Clinton's book: in his last two years, knowing that he was pretty much a lame duck in terms of domestic policies due to the Lewingsky scandal and to his mandate expiring, Clinton concentrated his efforts on foreign policy. He was deeply involved in the Irish peace process and was said to have really wanted to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict before he left office, but unfortunately failed.
Foreign policy, despite being the downfall of Blair, is ironically the domain where he has the most power left. He doesn't need the backing up of his MPs to do whatever it is that he thinks will bring peace to the region (though I highly doubt he will succeed). Unlike, say NHS reform, where he would need the votes of his MPs to pass any policy, he is now more free than ever to pursue whatever doctrine he has in mind. He will probably relish this opportunity and pursue it to its full extent.
But Tony Blair has a Middle East envoy, Lord Levy. Who is Blair envoy for? Bush? It certainly clarifies the open mic session at the G8.
TB already has a middle east envoy. is Lord Levy no good, or has he had his passport confiscated?
Tony Blair has excellent credentials to be a Middle East envoy. Let us sincerely hope that when he leaves in the autumn of next year, he will continue to push the peace process forward. Perhaps he should be given a UN role. Back at home he should be allowed to use his time and efforts to give the weaker sections of British society a better deal. He should be allowed to rein in the unions who are unfortunately trying to turn the clock back to the days of old Labour. This will surely result in the Tories trouncing Labour at the next elections. Tony has so many talents and it is a real pity that Labour turncoats are trying to engineer a coup against him.
Just who does TB thinl he is going to influence? Friends and foes alike know that his succesor will not be bound to continue any long term policy initiative that he starts now. And lets face it there isn't one single major initiative at home or abroad that he has delivered on time, on budget to the originally agreed quality standards. So why does anyone expect that what he starts now will be better conceived or efficiently expedited?
Unfortunately when you look at The Treasury with its numerous failed IT projects, ludicrously inneficient tax rebate "money go round" schemes that have brought misery to thousands, wrecked private pension system, the vast hike in taxes and cost of taxation compliance for business & individuals alike its difficult to imagine that GB will be any more effective.
The inevitable conclusion is that this government knows how to tax and spend(mostly on bureaucracy) but hasn't the vaguest idea how to deliver. Just who is a record like that going to influence?
He's offering to use his influence to secure American backing, and an Israeli signature, on any future peace deal. ...starting, he said, with bringing justice to the people of Gaza.
Not that our PM is a fool, but any fool would have no problems getting signatures from people who are getting everything they want, and from America under Bush Israel gets just that. Whatever our PM says, he has never interfered wih that, yet. So what does he mean by "justice for the people of Gaza", as such a friend of Israel, I wonder? And what about the people of the West Bank, and of Eastern Jerusalem? Don't they count? It is simply impossible to imagine anything that would truly be justice for their sufferings since 1967 ever being accepted by the other side.
Just for a start, whilst he has been right there, the issue of "recognition of Israel" has been to the fore. A coalition government of the PLO and Hamas is based on a document including recognition of Israel's 1967 borders, which is what the UN officially recognises. Yet Israeli spokespeople simply said, this week, that doesn't count as recognition. So borders seem at issue for the Israeli side; apparently they want undefined borders. Which doesn't seem something the people the other side of those borders can reasonably be expected to accept. Has our PM, right there on the spot, and someone who has himself often referred to the imperative for "recognition of Israel", pointed out that is unreasonable, or clarified what he has meant all these years, in that context?
Asking questions about something like that might have been more useful, Nick, that asking about Brown, when you had a chance whilst out there.
I cannot find the link to send email to the newsroom but I hope this will not stop my question being asked. Tony Blair is very fond of repeating the line of how many more people now work for the NHS etc. since his government came to power in 1997.However he fails to mention how many more people now reside in the UK since that same time which, if published, would probably work out to be a far higher percentage needing those services, hence the hypocrocy of him and his words.
"He's presented himself, and seems to be accepted, as an envoy promoting Middle East peace."
PR service before he leaves. This is politics!
Tom
In my humble opinion Blair is trying to get himself out of the corner he pained himself into. By declaring an indeterminate date for his departure he sought to prevent himself becoming a lame duck. Surely he must have realised he would not be allowed to get away with that! His options of escape are limited but he has sought to build on his success with Northern Ireland to use the world stage in a move to help broker some sort of deal over Palestine, helped of couse, by the little local difficulty that Israel had in Lebanon. With one bound he was free.
Well maybe.
Nick, it is a sad day when we have to temper our understanding of Tony Blair's and his motives for doing anything right now. For whatever the reasons, Blair has lost his credibility and his persona as honest broker, which is where he started. He has shown his belief, his faith and his judgment on many issues is less than he suggested, and quite contrary to our National Interest overall.
Mr Blair has courted super powers across the waters, he has made himself less than he was in the process and lessened our independence and thoroughly cheapened our integrity in the eyes of the world.
That he still trots around belligerent, and wielding warnings as to what this way comes at the TUC, he actually shows his true petulant nature, and that he is a spoiler and not a builder. I wish he'd just slither away now!
Mr Blair is still trying to confirm his legacy, or perhaps he is simply trying to find a job that Gordon doesn't covet. Either way, he intends to do what he has always done which is follow his own path, be it right or wrong. Whatever public opinion states, Tony looks inward and decides he was right all along. Occasionally, he requires dodgy dossiers to help him to get to where he wants to be, but since there are no consequences to such action, he carries on regardless.
As to whether he means what he says with regard to peace in the middle-east, ask the Israelis and the Palestinians. Luckily for them, and us, he will soon be gone (unless he gets another job on the International front).
Where is Blair now using his full concentration? It seems to change where ever he is!
BTW why the delay in comments to this blog?
Remember Blair's promise to save Africa? So many ideas, so little actual delivery. Yes it's hard to deliver a better society, but start with the little things here in the UK and prove you can do that before you embark on bigger issues. Fair bank charges and clearing within the same day, affordable land to build a house on, a population policy. How can a piece of farmland priced at £1000 become £250000 with planning permission? Blair lost any credibility by his action over Iraq and he is the last person to sort out the middle east. Or he could prove us all wrong and stand up to George W for once - that would be a legacy !
What a pity Mr Blair cannot promote peace in his own government first. If he can't do that what hope hase he got of promotoig peace anywhere else. Not much I would guess.
Oh, please gimme gimme gimme, go on let me do the job, oh please let me avva bash and I'll do a better job than the rest of them especially JP the Deputy Prime Minister, in more ways than one... wink wink.
What a bunch... I certainly hope things will get better at the next election or we just might have no National Health Service at all, as a matter of fact where is he? JP is certainly elusive these day's.
Dave
Leigh, Lancs
As can be seen throughout the history of politicians,when they are in trouble on the homefront they immediatly instigate new foreign policy concerns(or wars).Blair is just following the trend,but that is nothing new to him as he has been doing that all the time.
where have you gone nick?
Rather like an aging sports star who has played for on too long, it's growing somewhat embarrassing to see Tony Blair's latest Middle East 'offering'. Does anyone really listen to him anymore, when they know he's a 'here today gone tomorrow' politician?
What hasn't been said is that one minister who has a great track record on international development and cooperation and who might offer a better bet of restarting much needed peace moves is...
Gordon Brown.
I can't see any other ministers (Johnson? Clarke? Reid?) being able to step up in this respect. People also seem to have forgotten the dog's breakfast of a Higher Education Act that Johnson left in his wake as Higher Education Minister.
And yes, let's have a leadership contest and a debate on the future of the party but please, let's get on with it soon. Why wait any longer?
It is astonishing just how out of touch with the mood of ordinary people you are Nick. For a man earning the kind of money you do one would think you would have a little more insight. I campaign every weekend for peace and against the imperial slaughter taking place in the Middle East,in a white working class town in Essex, and I can can tell you with absolute certainty that Tony BLair is HATED, truly hated, his war is hated, his Blairite yes men M.P.'s are hated too. The rich and powerful around the world may recognise one of their own in Tony Blair but one thing is clear, ordinary people both in the Middle East and at home hate him as an imperialist warmonger and will never accept him as anything else.