In Focus: High commissioner Blair Tony Blair is now the Quartet's special envoy to the region. It is a cynical and partisan appointment, writes Galal Nassar That President George W Bush nominated former UK prime minister Tony Blair to serve as the Quartet's envoy to the Middle East says a great deal about the underpinnings of US policy in the region. The Quartet quickly accepted the nomination, assigning Blair an office in Jerusalem, just as the representative of His Majesty's government used to have an office in Jerusalem during the British mandate in Palestine. That, as everyone knows, ended in the 1948 war and the creation of Israel. One might have hoped that the Quartet would have searched high and low for a representative who could play a pivotal role in reactivating peace exchanges between the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as between Israel and the Arabs. What, one wonders, are Blair's qualifications for such a job? If the Quartet wants to see justice prevail in the region it needs an envoy who can be fair, unprejudiced and unbiased. Does Blair fit such a job description? Let's see what Blair said in 1998, on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish entity. Blair then delivered a speech in which he lashed out at Labour leaders who criticised Israel, saying they made him feel ashamed, as he put it, of being a "friend of Israel". Blair promised to change this state of affairs so that Israel's friends in the Labour Party could declare their friendship publicly and forcefully. Blair fulfilled his promise. Indeed, he exceeded it. Not only did he let Israel's friends within the Labour Party speak out without embarrassment, he turned such friendship into a prerequisite for advancing within the ranks of the Labour Party and the government. Blair made a point of harassing those Labour leaders who dared to take a fair-minded stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict, including former foreign secretary Robin Cook. Blair acted against Labour members who publicly supported the Arabs, first expelling them from the party and then trying to drive them out of public life. He appointed his friend, Lord Levy, a zealous Zionist, as his personal envoy to the region. Levy, who had Blair's full backing, took Israel's side in a crude manner. When Levy said he would leave his position once Blair left his post, many of those who want Britain to maintain its credibility in the Middle East and the Arab region heaved a sigh of relief. Richard Spring, foreign affairs spokesman for the Conservative Party, said Levy's conduct had been an embarrassment, adding that the UK government, if it wanted to restore its credibility among the Arabs, should avoid making the same mistake Blair made when he appointed Levy as his envoy. Blair has sided with Israel in all aspects of its conflict with the Arabs, over the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon. During Israel's summer assault against Lebanon Blair, like George Bush, opposed an early ceasefire, hoping that Israel would succeed in destroying Hizbullah. Blair didn't change his position until Israel and the US administration changed theirs. In the wake of such policies it became common in British Zionist circles to speak of Blair as an "international Zionist leader". Indeed, when Blair left office, the Israelis, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, gave him a standing ovation, expressing gratitude for the help he, as Israel's friend, had provided throughout his term in office. The Quartet's envoy should be knowledgeable about affairs in the region and closely in touch with its people, their interests, sentiments and aspirations. He should have sufficient experience and knowledge to propose appropriate steps and policies. This is a basic qualification for anyone who wants to be involved in regional matters, irrespective of their aims. Such knowledge and experience is as necessary for someone who seeks to promote the interests of the region as it is for those who seek to exploit it. Does Blair possess such qualifications? As a confirmed friend of the Israelis he may have knowledge of Israel but that doesn't make him an expert on the region. It doesn't qualify him to speak about the region's people, culture and preferences. The most damning proof of Blair's lack of knowledge of the region and most of its people is the fact that he was one of the key supporters of the invasion of Iraq. Outspoken in his support of the war, he helped in its planning and execution. The US and the UK have paid a heavy price for this absurd war, and are not done paying yet. Should the occupation end and nationalists, Islamists or pro-Iranian groups emerge at the helm, things may not turn out as the US and the UK had hoped. All of these groups pose a greater threat to the US and the UK than the deposed government of Iraq. Any one who placed the future of Iraq, and by extension the whole region, in harm's way cannot be an expert in regional affairs. Such a person should not assume a task that impacts on the region's future. He can only harm the interests of the countries of the West, imperilling their security and stability. Decision-makers in Washington, London or Brussels did not need exceptional insight to know that Blair's Middle East policy had made him unqualified to make plans for the region. Throughout his term in office Blair has taken consistently hostile position towards the Arabs. It had been hoped that Blair's policies would end when he left 10 Downing Street. His appointment as representative of the Quartet dashed such hopes. Now the former prime minister will be able to pursue his old aims through new means. George Bush wanted to reward Blair for his hostility to the Arabs, and also to humiliate and hurt the Arabs through his nomination of the former UK prime minister. In backing Bush's nominee the Quartet has endorsed a disastrous choice.
