Patching things up with the neighbours
Rime Allaf, November 16, 2006
Tony Blair's sudden drive to reconcile the US with Syria and Iran is not as spontaneous as he would like us to believe.
Tony Blair would have us believe he can solve the Iraq fiasco, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East problem (all of which Britain so negligently helped create) by first "convincing" the US to speak with Syria and Iran. He also claims to have come up with a brilliant Middle East strategy, whereby solving the Palestinian question would - surprise, surprise - make Muslims hate the west less and cooperate with it more. Given Blair's repeated false promises on the subject, one shouldn't expect Palestinians to be ecstatic by this sudden revelation for a lame duck prime minister with Clintonian aspirations. As for Syria and Iran, they should beware desperate men bearing no gifts, and - even worse - liberally making accusations.
Indeed, while Blair pretends that his persuasive efforts will soften the White House, he is clearly not concerned with "convincing" Syria and Iran to accept the same proposal, as if the latter should be grateful for the mere Anglo-American recognition of their importance in the region. Blair, as usual, is being badly advised and should have been more tactful in his approach, as it's not good manners to speak of reconciliation while dubbing the projected helpers an "arc of extremism" (the speech writers must be running out of metaphors). Nor is it sensible to speak threateningly and condescendingly to countries whose support Iraq's occupiers urgently need. Having endured years of insults and accusations, Syria and Iran probably imagined a more civil and less aggressive approach; Blair, however, was patronising, reciting that they must help the Middle East peace process rather than hinder it, stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon and Iraq, and, most ironic of all, abide by and not flout their international obligations ... or else.
Even if they're not willing to rejoin the world of diplomacy, London and Washington should at least become more level-headed and factually think of Syria and Iran as the "axis of inevitable partners". They should also acknowledge that these two countries have their own interests to protect, and that tangible help in Iraq - if and when it comes - will fall within parameters suited to Damascus and Tehran first. Regardless of America and Britain's notions of superiority, they will get nowhere if they don't respect the rights of the neighbours (or, in this case, of the occupied Iraq's neighbours).
James Baker's Iraq Study Group is wisely advocating talking to these "enemies", having realised that blaming every problem in Iraq on these two "rogues" was neither accurate nor helpful. How is it then that most media credit Blair with an admission that has clearly taken root in the US? Sooner or later, all British media will have to face the fact that Blair has little clout in Washington (and little more elsewhere), as we've all recently had the occasion to confirm for ourselves during the "Yo, Blair" conversation.
It seems that no matter how many sweaters he knits, the British prime minister's travel plans must first be approved in Washington (or Texas), and his foreign policy (especially in the Middle East) requires the endorsement of the White House before that of the Foreign Office. In fact, the last time Blair tried to take an initiative for the region, he was publicly humiliated by both the US and Israel as they openly ignored the peace conference he was planning for January 2005 in London.
Even assuming that Blair had the slightest bit of influence, his dismal performance and limited accomplishments in the Middle East so far would render the whole persuasion exercise futile, resulting with the blind leading the blind. In fact, if Blair were truly concerned about peace in the Middle East, Britain would not have abstained in the security council resolution condemning last week's Israeli massacre of 19 civilians in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, nor would have Blair adamantly refused to even call for a ceasefire in July as Israeli bombs ravaged Lebanon, killing and maiming indiscriminately.
So with no influence and no record of peacemaking, why this feigned air of initiative, and why this particular pretence that Blair is pushing the Syria line on the US? Last week's trip to Damascus by Nigel Scheinwald, Blair's (and not the FO's) envoy, was marketed as being an independent Blairite endeavour to find out whether Syria would play a constructive or a destructive role, which is rather rich coming from a government which has done so much damage to the region already.
Here's a more plausible reading of Blair's behaviour: the US has finally recognised (partly through the persuasive skills of James Baker who is fed up with the stupidity of the present administration) that it needs Syria and Iran's help in order to come out of Iraq with even a tiny speck of dignity. But the Bush administration will be damned if it ever admits it's been wrong about something; therefore, it needs to show that it is being brought back to engagement kicking and screaming, only agreeing reluctantly because of the good offices of a trusted ally. Enter Tony Blair, who obligingly plays the part of the friend (shoulder-to-shoulder, let's not forget) who "convinces" the US to patch up with the neighbours in Iraq for the greater good of all.
Blair's matchmaking serves several purposes. It allows the US to grudgingly "overlook" its enemies' real or supposed offences, for the sake of the region. It allows, or so the administration probably hopes, a friend (Blair) to request a comprehensive dialogue (specifically with Syria) so that the varying Anglo-American goals in Iraq (stopping WMDs, or bringing democracy, or fighting the global war on terror, etc.) can be approached more realistically. It also allows Blair to appear important and buys him (or so he hopes) some much needed credibility and esteem. It makes him appear diplomatic, as if his efforts were the reason why the US refrained from more aggression in Iraq or elsewhere.
Blair the pacifier would be a good moniker if it weren't so ridiculous; indeed, if anything, Blair has been a recruiter of force rather than a persuader of peace. It is Blair who made the rounds as Bush's roving ambassador in the weeks preceding the invasion of Afghanistan. And it is Blair's connivance with the dodgy Iraq dossier, and his ad nauseam repetition that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that facilitated the invasion of Iraq, an invasion which Bush had been more than willing to conduct without Britain's support. While he pretends to be a calming influence on the war-mongering Bush, all Blair has ever done was follow his American ally's instructions. Therefore, the idea of Blair as the peace broker is just an illusion, and the thought of his Syria-Iran initiative is highly suspicious.
Of course, there is always the slight possibility that Blair did, for once, try to break out of the neocon hold and have an independent thought or action. He may have decided to throw caution to the wind, putting his mentor in front of a fait accompli and risking his ire to be broadcast worldwide. If this is the case, and given that altruistic deeds aren't really his forte, worrying questions arise: why does Blair need such an entry on his CV, and what position is he eyeing exactly? Whatever it is, it can't be good news for the Middle East.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/blairsbizarreoverture
