Blair – Iraq peacemaker – NO, NO, NO, NO, NO – YES, YES!

• Home Page
• Go to start of original post – “Blair to Iraq – no, no, no”
  

Comment at end

21st July, 2007

HAMAS WARNS BLAIR

Hamas, the militant Palestinian Islamist group, has warned Tony Blair that his credibility will be damaged if he ignores Hamas when he visits Israel & the West Bank at the beginning of the week for his first visit as Middle East envoy.

He will undoubtedly have to watch his back – the USA, Israel & others, the ‘real’ decision makers who have laid down the limits of his powers to negotiate – but he knows that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, and somehow or other he will work to bring opposing factions together. Otherwise there is little point in going out there!

Hamas hard-liner Mahmoud Zahar, said that any attempt by Blair to ‘marginalise the Hamas movement will cost him his credibility’.

Hamas likes to make warning shots across bows and recently slammed President Abbas, accusing him of conspiring with Israel and warning it would scupper the early elections he has called for.

“Early elections are an attempt to bypass the will of the Palestinian people and this attempt is bound to failure. It will fail. We, the Palestinian people, will scupper it,” said Hamas leader, Mahmud Zahar at a press conference in Gaza.

Tony Blair has been instructed by the International Quartet to have no dealings with Hamas, who last month forcibly seized control of Gaza from forces of the Fatah movement loyal to Abbas.

The Quartet refuses to deal with Hamas because it refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence or accept agreements by previous Palestinian governments with Israel.

After his first meeting with Quartet leaders in Lisbon on Thursday, Blair said he will need all the optimism he can muster to make headway in his new task, but that he is ‘determined to try’.

The Quartet of Middle East mediators also threw its weight behind a US plan to reinvigorate the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking and pledged support for all Palestinians, including those in Gaza. This meeting was the first since Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip from US-backed President Mahmoud Abbas’s forces last month, effectively dividing Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank.

At the meeting of top American, Russian, EU and UN diplomats they discussed with Tony Blair his strategy and limits of engagement as envoy. Their hope is that he can help kick-start Middle East peace moves with passion and commitment.

“I hope I can offer something in bringing about a solution to this issue that is of such fundamental importance to the world,” Mr Blair told reporters after the meeting. “I hope I can create the conditions under which this two-state solution can become a reality,” he said, referring to Israel and a Palestinian state existing side-by-side.

“This is an issue I have been passionate about for many years.

15th July, 2007

ROADMAP, CLAPTRAP OR MANTRAP?

An article in today’s Independent purports to show that Tony Blair is constrained by the “narrow job description” in his efforts for peace in the Middle East. Not quite sure how these people KNOW this. I didn’t think he was having the meeting to discuss the extent of his authority until Thursday. After that, don’t be surprised if the job description is wider than we think. EVERYONE wants an answer. Yes, he may well have to “watch his back” with the conflicting egos out there, a point on which I will expand at a later posting, but if anyone can do it, and is motivated to get the roadmap on the straight and narrow, Blair’s your man.

While agreeing in part with the above, the FT also suggests that some international players in Middle East diplomacy fear the high profile of the former UK prime minister will overshadow their own involvement. Others say his limited mandate, focused on Palestinian economic development and governance issues, prevents substantive progress on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Overshadow? Overshadow? So it’s a game of who can win the peace game now, is it? And whoever it is, let’s make sure it’s a country, not an individual. Is that it? Hhmm … come on chaps. None of our countries have managed it yet. Mr Blair won’t even suggest a settlement until you’re all happy. And as for his limited mandate – wait until Thursday. Please. He won’t step on any tender toes, I’m sure.

NEIGHBOURS FROM HELL?

And while we’re on about neighbours rubbing along nicely, Mr & Mrs Blair may already have some such local trouble.

Before the Blairs moved in some neighbours drew up a petition about the possible security risk and inconvenience. They were unhappy with the idea that part of the square could be turned into a gated community policed by armed guards or that some trees might have to be pruned or cut down.

I’m afraid they’ll have to put up with this in the short term, after all it’s for their safety too. After a while, things should settle, and Mr Blair is not going to be there all that much, I should imagine. And think of the rise in the value of their properties!

12th July, 2007

PROTECTING BLAIR WILL COST MILLIONS A YEAR

By John Steele, Crime Correspondent, Telegraph

I think I’m finally satisfied about Tony Blair’s security in his post-PM life. If this report is accurate he has become the most heavily and expensively protected former prime minister in history. A bloody good thing too!

It seems that Scotland Yard is running a multi-million pound operation around Mr Blair, effectively transferring the security he enjoyed as prime minister into his retirement.

I started this page (click here to go to my original points in this post) because of such fears on hearing that he was being suggested for the Peace Envoy job. The laxity around the kerfuffle around his train trip to Sedgefield on the day he ceased to be PM, didn’t ease my concerns.

Now I feel more relaxed about his safety in his new Middle East envoy job, because without this kind of security he would be a sitting duck. What a prize for world terrorism. The Telegraph article continues:

‘He is in the top handful of global terrorism targets and police and MI5 believe he will remain in al-Qa’eda’s sights for years to come.’

His role as a “peace envoy” in the Middle East for the Quartet of major powers will do little to lower his profile.

The running costs of the operation for police are likely to reach at least £3 million a year and involve armed officers for Mr Blair, discreet protection for his wife, fortified houses and bomb-proof and bullet-proof cars. This outstrips protection for Margaret Thatcher when she left office in 1990, when she was still at the top of the IRA’s hit list.

The complexity of the living arrangements of a still relatively young couple with four children is expected to add significantly to the costs, as does the foreign travel involved in Mr Blair’s new role.

The personal protection around Mr Blair and his family will involve armed officers from Scotland Yard’s specialist operations department working with drivers trained in escaping assassination or hijack attempts.’

30th June, 2007

My reasons for the title of this page are detailed below. Original article starts here.

It’s not that I think Tony Blair cannot succeed in his new envoy post; I think he is singularly capable, if anyone is. But is he listening or concerned about the other little matter (click to go to ‘No, No, No’ section below).

PROTECTED?

And considering how he was left seemingly unprotected and unaided at a London railway station on Wednesday afternoon, a few hours after ceasing to be a “protected” PM, and 36 hours or less before two terrorist bombing attempts were made in London, no-one else is listening either.

The security services have said for months that we are on ‘severe’ alert for terrorist attack. We recently had a “Hiroshima” threat for the change-over of PMs and should have been on high alert. Were we? Having failed to guide Mr & Mrs Blair to the right car, had the police checked that car – OR Mr Blair’s train?

No life is arguably worth more than any other, BUT, there are repercussions for all of us in the eventuality of certain events.

I still stand by this concern.

26th June, 2007

PUTIN SAYS:

“Позвольте британскому сну свиньи на этом, товарищах. Заставьте его потеть …”

Translation: “Let the British swine sleep on it, comrades. Make him sweat … “

Our Russian friends are at the spoiling tactics again. Since there has been a ‘pre-announcement’ that Mr Blair will be standing down as a constituency MP tomorrow if he is offered the Envoy job, Mr Putin and comrades are trying to spoil the party!

20th June, 2007

NEWS (again!): Bush and Rice want Blair for Mid East Envoy

That’s code for Iraq, isn’t it (amongst other hotspots)? OK, we know Mr Blair has unfinished business. We know he wanted to see it through before stepping down. We know his party has decided otherwise. And we know that HE is better at this kind of thing than you are, Mr Bush.

He’s Not A Sprat To Catch A Mackerel

But, please, Mr Bush, explain to me how he will be safe out there. The world and his (terrorist) brother knows Tony Blair. These are people who’d kill their own brother if he were on the other side. You’re not using Blair as a sprat to catch a mackerel, are you? I only ask so we can all be reassured! (And remember, I’m on YOUR side, as regards sorting out this great problem.) Read BBC report here

Read The Guardian’s take on Blair envoy story

1st June – SAINT TONY?

---

Original post starts here:15th May, 2007

Click the Tony Blair picture to view video of Blair in the USA on making ‘The Great British cup of Tea’

Osama bin Laden:

“SUGAR WITH YOURS, MR BLAIR?”

THE BLAIR FOUNDATION & THE HIGH ROAD TO BAGHDAD, AFGHANISTAN & THE REST

I can see it now in the British press –

“The Vicar of Dibley meets Mr Bin Laden for afternoon tea and a chat.”

The Blair Faith Foundation

Not only is the Blair Faith Foundation to be a Centre for inter-faith dialogue and understanding, but it’s going to have a world-famous linchpin at its head. When it was first mooted, some saw it as a back door setup to continue Blairism or New Labour, just in case! But it seems not. It’s about tackling the world’s frightening ‘religious’ differences and conflicts which arise from those differences.

I’m ambivalent about the linchpin’s roving ambassador’s status. Stay at home CEO or, what exactly?

Got to be the “what exactly” option, hasn’t it? Tony Blair wants to get his hands dirty. He wants to go where the brave shall not go. Defying the threats, ignoring the fears of others, side-stepping the ongoing and political diplomacy of governments, he is a driven man in a hurry, with something to prove.

Could he yet become a catalyst for change? Combining his two great driving forces – religion and politics – makes sense, when those two are so often intertwined.

The purpose of the Prime Minister’s Faith Foundation, from all accounts, is as a centre to promote inter-faith dialogue and tolerance. Praiseworthy and an idea whose time has come. A kind of religious/political actual and internet gathering of like minds (more or less), with physical and virtual meetings and education sessions and community workshops in tolerance, leadership, religious understanding, citizenship and nationality.

And while it’s operating on the strength of his name and its aims, he can get on with another couple of tasks; the climate, and Africa with its endless problems.

Three big jobs, and it’s not even June! Of course he’d attract much opprobrium – “Who does he think he is? – The Almighty? The Second Coming?” He can ignore that kind of criticism. This man is listened to worldwide. He could well be a catalyst for change.

The Blair Foundation hopes to strive to reach all corners of the globe, in all languages. Sorting out the world and its problems with inter-faith understanding might take a bit of time, but this is Mr Blair CEO. And didn’t he say in Sedgefield, last week – “At least let’s try the impossible”?

Before long he’d be called upon to speak on international platforms on behalf of his Foundation; to use his persuasive powers and religious conviction. And he’d be off like there’s no tomorrow, because there might well not be.

To go, or not to go to Iraq? That is the question.

SO, SHOULD HE AVOID IRAQ OR THE PAKISTAN BORDER MOUNTAINS?

The question: Would he be safe on these travels? Could he be a target for some whose ‘religious’ fervour outweighs its calm. Now, even if you don’t give a damn about the man … this is an important question.

My gut felt reaction to the whole idea of his travels to the Middle East hotspots:

NO! NO! No, no, no!

I do NOT want our future former prime minister to put himself and world peace at risk by entering the lions’ den. I dread the thought of news of his captivity, or worse.

Well, no, in fact there isn’t anything worse than his being taken hostage. Nothing with wider implications for peace in this troubled world than that the number two western politician associated worldwide with Iraq should be held prisoner. Death in comparison would be easy. Final. Eventually; when they’d done with him.

His capture could be the precursor of all-out world war, a terrible, perhaps unforgivable ‘legacy’, since he would have been warned of the dangers, if only here – and from one who supports him.

And that forewarning has a familiar ring.

BLAIR – A HOSTAGE TO FORTUNE?

If this situation arose, what would the US president do? Have no doubt it would be the Americans who would lead any response. Our government would ask parliament what it thought under their stronger influence on the ‘royal’ prerogative. But I can feel the silence and I can guess how many hands would be placed under reluctant bottoms in response! … “Can’t be a**ed”?

So would the Americans do nothing? Or negotiate? Or attack?

To do nothing would mean certain death for a high profile western former leader, after a period of boastful threat, torture, and milking the situation for all it was worth. Then the culmination, and the video to prove it.

Bargaining would be to bow to terrorism. But silent “diplomacy” might be tried. So, to the eyes of the watching world, there would be no evidence of attempts at negotiations (for as long as the captors would play along.)

Or attack? Attack whom? All the mountainous caves and settlements in a thousand mile region – in the hope that you hit the right one? And with which weapons? Weapons of Mass Destruction? Chemical? Nuclear? Fat lot of good that’d do our man in a hurry, or the rest of us.

Now perhaps I’m wrong about this and his peace-making enterprises would not put him in this kind of danger at all. Just a few meetings, quietly held under the protection of the UN or coalition troops. Though since they haven’t been able to insulate themselves, could they guarantee Mr Blair’s safety?

WHAT DIFFERENCE COULD HE MAKE?

Given that by all accounts the Prime Minister is seriously working on becoming a ‘persuader for peace and religious tolerance’ in the Middle East, and that it would not be too dangerous, what could he hope to achieve?

Well, with his own deeply held and sincere Christian beliefs and his understanding and acceptance of other religions, including Islam, he may well be the one who is naturally in tune with the times. He won’t be limited by time constraints of governments. His Foundation could still be operating well into the next century if by then it is still needed.

But to whom would he be acceptable as the bearer of religious tolerance in such war-torn, faction-riven, ideological and religious fundamentalist regions? Not the terrorists, for sure, and yet they are the ones who need to be reached.

CONFLATING NORTHERN IRELAND INTO IRAQ

We know Tony Blair is a peacemaker. Oh yes we do. Consider Sierra Leone, Kosovo – though still controversial, Northern Ireland.

The most recent of these may have given him heart, since its cause was religious intolerance (even though it was the SAME religion!)

But Mr Blair’s successful experience in Northern Ireland has been a whole different game. Its conclusion and settlement is not something that will conflate naturally into the Middle East. Yes, he has trust in people, and a regard for our common humanity. That is NOT universally reciprocal, Mr Blair.

There are disparate elements at play in the Middle East, often working under the ‘false’ cloak of religious conviction. As we have witnessed in recent years there is often little regard for the sanctity of life. There is glory in martyrdom.

In the Northern Ireland situation we had Christian against Christian in a western country where the terrorists would, though not consistently, ring up the local police to warn them of a bomb. That would be treated derisively by the fundamentalists into whose midst Tony Blair would be offering himself.

It’s just too, too risky.

Yet, on the other hand, I expect he’s thought of this scenario, so, let’s look at the “yes, yes” argument.

HIGHLY MOTIVATED BLAIR – PEACE, FAITH, TOLERANCE, RELIGION, LOVE

(And I’m tempted to say – “and the greatest of these is love”. OK, I’ve said it.)

Probably uniquely, Tony Blair has his own motivation for doing this. He is leaving office before he is ready; before this Iraq task is complete. There is no peace there yet, though the war is ‘over’. This is not what he wanted. And at home there are some who believe that Iraq has fomented unrest at home, and terrorism everywhere. I don’t accept this and neither does he. Terrorism has been part of the arsenal of those with destruction agendas for decades.

Yet those who meld cause and effect so effortlessly where it suits their argument will never accept that hundreds of thousands might have died if Saddam had stayed in place. Why accept one premise which suits your cause and not another which doesn’t?

Tony Blair is a man with faith in faith. And he does not see one religion as being exclusively right. Even now, it seems, Mr Blair may be on his own personal religious journey.

He wishes to rescue questions over his own integrity, motivation and ambitions from the annals of future history, from the minds of his voters and detractors, and for the sake of his own family. And why not? Wouldn’t you?

His good character; peaceful intent; love of mankind; belief in God. All of these and other aspects of Tony Blair The Man have been submerged in recent times. He is not content with this.

And much as it would worry some, he may even feel that he DOES have a mission in life. Bringing cross-religious tolerance to this world would be a great feat indeed.

Dismissing his desire to do something positive about the mess in Iraq is easy. Even those who quite admire him accuse him of hubris over Iraq. And those who dismiss him outright, accuse him of perverted religious zeal and, to be blunt, delusion or madness.

I don’t accept these jibes; and he seems peculiarly sane to me, given recent events.

Boris Johnston, the Tory MP, got me going on this post. I know, Boris gets lots of us going. In this “phone calls to Tony“ message, which is worth a listen, he asked him to go to Baghdad. Hmm..mm..

I thought long and hard before writing this, as I realise I may be accused of scare-mongering. But I am surely not the only one thinking in these terms.

Good luck to you, Mr Blair, especially in your travels. We Brits prefer heroes to martyrs, but just in case, leave a video behind with your instructions for how others should deal with ‘unforeseeable eventualities’. Please.

P.S. Thoughts on the above.

1st June, 2007

Pope Benedict XVI has approved recognition of martyrdom for an Austrian who was beheaded by the Nazis for refusing to serve in Hitler’s army. This recognition, it seems, sets the stage for the man to be made a saint.

So perhaps our PM will be tempted to take the martyrdom route in his fight against terrorism (which IS today’s fascism.) Wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books? I mention this because others will, since he is expected, by some, to become a roman catholic after leaving office. And nothing Blair does is accepted at face value by his detractors.

Just a little miracle – say, peace in the Middle East – and it ‘d be a rubber-stamp job.

If you want to avoid sanctification for our prime minister, you know what to do. Get your blindfolds off and give him credit while he’s still with us – just a bit will do – think Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone. Recognise his good intent and genuine desire to create a more peaceful world. For him choosing between being labelled a war criminal or a saint, is a no brainer.

Guardian Article of 10th May 2007 – ‘Can Tony Blair’s Interfaith Foundation Heal The World?’ On the day before Mr Blair’s retirement announcement in his constituency:

“When the prime minister met Pope Benedict XVI last May, they discussed how interfaith dialogue between moderate religious leaders can help with conflict resolution.The foundation also has the backing of Canon Guy Wilkinson, the Church of England’s adviser on interfaith relations, and Sir Sigmund Sternberg, the Labour-supporting Jewish businessman and co-founder of the Three Faiths Forum.”

• Home page
• Retirement Speech – “I did what I thought was right”
• A Leader’s Deathbed Confession?
• Leadership Succession

---

Tags: alastair campbell, baghdad ambassador, bernie ecklestone, blair, boris johnstone, iraq peacemaker, phone calls to tony, Tony Blair Middle East peace envoy