Blair as Envoy

I feel like Tony Blair would have to be insane to take a job as special envoy for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Obviously, bringing about a peace agreement there would assure Blair's legacy, but the odds are not only dim, but would to a large extent be left hostage to George W. Bush. Unless Blair is completely addled he surely must have learned the lesson that putting himself in the middle of risky, speculative endeavors involving Bush in a crucial role isn't a good idea.

What Blair needs to do is find himself a nice, fairly uncontroversial issue to work on. HIV/AIDS is always a solid choice, but I think Bill Clinton's cornered that market. Access to safe drinking water would probably be a good idea.

Comments

Yes!

Water is probably the most under-considered global problem.

Ask the Palestinians, for example.

Posted by Mellifluous | June 21, 2007 12:52 PM

What's crazy about all of this is that Blair is tied up in the whole Bush vision of the Middle East. I can't imagine he'd be trusted to be an honest broker. I mean, I'd love it if he could. Plus as you say it seems insane.

Climate change is uncontroversial in Europe. He could do that.

Or something relating to Africa policy.

I agree that safe drinking water is probably the best bang-for-buck at this point.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 21, 2007 12:59 PM

Blair by all accounts is a religious man, and probably believes working for peace is the most noble work he can do, even if the work is quixotic.

Posted by Jasper | June 21, 2007 1:01 PM

Isn't this post a little cynical? I mean, I don't hold Blair in any high regard, but shouldn't his next career move reflect what he genuinely sees as the most pressing issue that he is equipped to deal with? Despite Blair's many faults, I do think he has a strong moral compass, and it points to the Middle East.

That said, you can make a strong case that Blair sold out the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace when he backed the invasion of Iraq, meaning that he is not the right man for the job.

Still, while we're assigning world leaders causes to deal with once they've left office, I'd like to suggest that George W. Bush abolish the designated hitter rule.

Posted by Philly | June 21, 2007 1:08 PM

"Access to safe drinking water would probably be a good idea."

Don't bet on it. That's probably the biggest potential source of conflict in the world today, and the likeliest to kick off another large scale mid-east war.

Posted by wiredog | June 21, 2007 1:08 PM

Isn't this post a little too cynical? I mean, isn't Blair entitled to chose his own cause without a whole lot of cautious positioning? While I would agree that his role in the invasion of Iraq actually makes him a particularly bad candidate for the job of Middle East peacemaker, I don't doubt his sincerity.

Still, while we're assigning world leaders "a nice, fairly uncontroversial issue to work on" after they leave office, I'd like George W. Bush to get on abolishing the designated hitter rule.

Posted by Philly | June 21, 2007 1:15 PM

sure, Blair advocating for safe drinking water will more than make up for his role in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in this filthy war he was instrumental in lying us into.

to some people anyway.

Posted by ran | June 21, 2007 1:45 PM

This post wasn't "a little" cynical. It was defeatist snark.

Posted by Pithlord | June 21, 2007 2:35 PM

"sure, Blair advocating for safe drinking water will more than make up for his role in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in this filthy war he was instrumental in lying us into.
to some people anyway."

Actually the mass murder is being committed by your beloved "insurgents," "ran."

Blair and Europe are way to the left of Bush on the Middle East and global warming. If Blair takes it, watch Peretz's reaction (for example).

But of course to people like ran, Blair will always be the bloody imperialist, who framed up their beloved Saddam.

Posted by Peter K. | June 21, 2007 2:37 PM

Anyone with the Bush imprimatur who tries to do anything in the Middle East is doomed to failure. Because Bush makes breathtakingly bad decisions; add his sheer incompetence to the already boiling anti-U.S. sentiment in much of the region and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Surely Blair knows this. More than anyone else, Blair should know this.

Posted by Woody Bombay | June 21, 2007 3:09 PM

I don't understand the complaints that Matt is being too cynical here (leaving aside Peter K's contributions from under the bridge). The point is that few rational people can expect Blair to achieve positive results on mideast peace - he is rather too well identified with mideast war - so however sincerely he desires mideast peace Blair should that understand his working for mideast peace would not be the best way he can help the world in ways he cares about.
On the other hand, there are issues, such as the suggested one of drinking water, that are crying out for someone of high profile, eloquence, and perceived sincerity to take them up. Another, more comfortable (if possibly less effective) cause might be press freedom and electoral rights, which seems to get less attention than it deserves (if more than water). If Blair were to target, say, Zimbabwe, Russia, and the 'Stan's, this could be a useful cause for the world that (not incidentally) might help Tony's reputation with Britons.
I do think Blair is a largely discredited man, but still fairly young and highly ambitious, and he is far more likely to try to spend the next several decades attempting to make contributions that revise his legacy along the model of Jimmy Carter or Robert McNamara than he is to slink around the world collecting paychecks and lying about his legacy along the model of Henry Kissinger.

Posted by Warren Terra | June 21, 2007 3:11 PM

The post is part and parcel of the Yglesias-style. I'll call it "know-nothing world weariness". Others have called it a "hang-out-at-the-coffeeshop" feeling.

Either way, Yglesias, who doesn't get out of his pajamas all day, writes incessantly about things he knows nothing about, e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian mess.

Please, will someone give this kid a scholarship to study in Israel/Palestine. Something so that actual, you know, "knowledge" informs his posts.

Posted by ILP | June 21, 2007 3:22 PM

ILP, since you apparently feel you are in the possession of superior information that refutes the position taken in the post, perhaps you'd care to share it with us, rather than simply expressing contempt?

Posted by Warren Terra | June 21, 2007 3:28 PM

Warren,

Sure. here you go -- http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001445.html

Posted by ILP | June 21, 2007 5:15 PM

ILP,
You linked to a portrayal of the recent history of Gaza that puts a different interpretation on it than did Yglesias. I'm not going to try to get involved in that debate, especially because it has nothing to do with this post. Matt bascially said Blair has no reasonable chance of making progress towards a negotiated Mideast peace as Bush's envoy to the region. Do you really disagree?

Posted by Warren Terra | June 21, 2007 5:23 PM

I think Blair should move to America and star in TV commercials.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 21, 2007 6:53 PM

Blair should also know that peace could readily be achieved if the US were to lean on Israel to abide by UN resolutions, but that the US can't do so because of the power of the Israeli lobby. So he should take the water job.

Posted by Don Bacon | June 21, 2007 6:58 PM

Blair is very much his own man -- not Bush's poodle. Geez.

Posted by Belle | June 21, 2007 7:04 PM

Blair could probably contribute a great deal to the continuing cuteness of puppies. I'm not 100% on board with that, but I think we could probably trust him on the issue.

Posted by El Cid | June 21, 2007 7:04 PM

GW is going to need someone to help him on and off his mountain-bike after this whole Presidency thing blows over. Tony can place his hand betw the hard seat and George's tiny balls. then George can offer him a reach-around. ease into retirement...

Posted by scorpio | June 21, 2007 9:00 PM

Blair possibly could make a very positive contribution to a peace process, if there was a peace process.

It would be an excellent gig for Tony since he could end up spending a lot of time here in the US, getting plenty of press in his quasi governmental/political role. Hanging out with the best of people, networking , and getting his payoff.

You can take it too the bank that Blair will be a fixture on the edges of the financial world in London and Manhattan The Blair's are going to do very very well. They will be set for generations to come. That's been my view since the day he signed on to the crew of SS Bush.

Posted by rapier | June 21, 2007 10:20 PM

Warren,

First, my firm admiration for being a civilized voice on the comments to this blog. It's refreshing to actually have a decent conversation with someone.

Second, I find criticism of Bush II's lack of attention to the Israeli-Arab dispute generally to lack historical knowledge. I.e, what really could be done after Arafat refused Barak at Oslo and either started a second intifada or rode the back of the tiger he could only somewhat control?

However, in certain respects -- and especially since Arafat is now dead and Hamas in power in Gaza, it's not the worst idea in the world to have someone manage the inevitable crises. Tony Blair is a pretty good choice to do it. That's not to say he'll succeed. He won't and can't. But if he can contribute at least a smidgen to helping reform Fatah so that it is less corrupt and better able to dole out public services -- and to provide security such that rockets do not rain down on Israel from the West Bank -- then he may actually accomplish something important.

If the West Bank falls into Hamas' hands - and rockets fall down into Israel from the West Bank, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, Israel will lash out and -- Russian-in-Grozny style - completely demolish all 3 places. We need to look around the curve and at least manage the crises in order to avoid that eventuality.

Blair is a better choice than Bill Clinton and I'm glad he may be game enough for the job.

Posted by ILP | June 21, 2007 10:48 PM

Blair would report to the Quartet overseeing Middle East peace efforts -- the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- and focus on issues limited to the internal workings of a future Palestinian state. Political negotiations involving Palestinians, Israelis and the Arab states would be left to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the officials said

So Mr. Blair will be a paper-pusher, in charge of making ever important reports to ever important Quartet, leaving non-negotiations to Ms. Rice. Wow! The boldness of vision! Wow! More occasions for plagiarizing student's papers downloaded from WWW!

Posted by piotr | June 22, 2007 2:15 AM

He and Cherie bought a 7 million pound sterling house in London for which the mortgage is enormous. This job won't pay him enough.

On the other hand, he's converting to Catholicism and may enjoy continuing to wear the hair shirt.

Posted by desertwind | June 22, 2007 4:36 AM

It's pretty confusing. Nothing could be done by Bush for all these years yet the crisis needs to be managed and we need to look around the bend, now.

None the less I'm not in the camp that Bush has been inattentive to the issue. They have in fact been sharply focused on the Israeli Palestinian issue, and have gotten the results there that generally conform to what they wanted. Well not the final result but rather furthered the process. That would be making any Palestinian state an impossibility and enabling the slow process of making the dream of Greater Israel a reality. They know it is going to be a slow process.

Posted by rapier | June 22, 2007 7:47 AM

ILP, Clinton and Barak did not offer Arafat that good a deal at Oslo. That's widely recognized.

Having said that, over the years Arafat has been way too corrupt and an awful leader.

ran:
"sure, Blair advocating for safe drinking water will more than make up for his role in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in this filthy war he was instrumental in lying us into.
to some people anyway."

right....

rapier:
"That would be making any Palestinian state an impossibility and enabling the slow process of making the dream of Greater Israel a reality. They know it is going to be a slow process."

How does withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza further the cause of creating a Greater Israel?

Abbas and Sharon were for putting off the elections that led eventually to Hamas in the government. Bush made it go forward. How does this further the cause of greater Israel?

Posted by Peter K. | June 22, 2007 10:23 AM

ILP, Clinton and Barak did not offer Arafat that good a deal at Oslo. That's widely recognized.

Having said that, over the years Arafat has been way too corrupt and an awful leader.

ran:
"sure, Blair advocating for safe drinking water will more than make up for his role in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in this filthy war he was instrumental in lying us into.
to some people anyway."

right.... I was reacting to this and yet "sober" Warren Terra feels I'm the troll.

rapier:
"That would be making any Palestinian state an impossibility and enabling the slow process of making the dream of Greater Israel a reality. They know it is going to be a slow process."

How does withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza further the cause of creating a Greater Israel?

Abbas and Sharon were for putting off the elections that led eventually to Hamas in the government. Bush made it go forward. How does this further the cause of a Greater Israel?

Iran will evetually get nukes and the demographics of the area aren't in the Likudnik's favor.

And yet some of the wised-up feel that the all-powerful Bush administration and its neocon backers have everything running right on schedule.

Posted by Peter K. | June 22, 2007 10:28 AM

Blair as Honest Broker? Are you shitting me??!!!

Having graduated from being a US poodle to being the chief Fellator of the US Member, there is no chance that the parties involved in the ME mess will take this guy seriously.

Posted by beyondcynical | June 22, 2007 2:22 PM