Blair's woes

Presumably with that authorization, Tony Blair flew to the region where Israel and the occupied territories of the Palestinians must have appeared to him like a haven of tranquility after a tumultuous week in British politics, when his reluctant commitment to finally quit his job was extracted by a rebellious Labour Party.

While his announcement already unleashed a barrage of vitriol in the bitter battle between the dwindling rank of Blair loyalists and those convinced that he must pack up immediately if the party was to win the next general election, he relished the opportunity to appear statesman-like in war-torn west Asia.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The British leader has long favoured the idea of playing some role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which can arguably be construed as a commendable impulse, regardless of whether or not it is related to any sense of Britain's responsibility for the mess in that part of the world. Unfortunately, Tony Blair quickly lost such credibility once he opted for complete subservience to the wishes of the United States whose present administration has not shown even a semblance of any balance in its approach to the whole crisis.

However, consequent to Blair's self-imposed role as a shuttle diplomat -- in separate statements Mahmood Abbas, the Palestinian Authority (PA) president and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that they were prepared to meet each other unconditionally. It's hard to understand though, how this relatively minor mutual concession required the British prime minister's mediatory presence. But the observers view it more as an pre-arranged Blair-booster.

Tony Blair, during his visit, also expressed support for the concept of a Hamas-led government of national unit without meeting, however, any one of the Hamas-leadership and insisted that the Islamist outfit recognise Israel and renounce violence although any renunciation of violence must be reciprocal. Of course, neither the besieged PA nor the beleaguered Israeli government considers itself under any obligation to heed the head of the government of a small European island that continues to harbour delusions about its significance on the international stage on account of its past as a formidable colonial power.

But then, look also at the partisan character of his mediatory role, if any! He met the families of the three Israeli soldiers captured in Gaza and Lebanon but failed to extend the similar courtesy to the Palestinians, thousands of whom are in Israeli custody. No wonder, prior to Blair's visit hundreds of Palestinians put their names to a newspaper advertisement declaring Blair persona non grata and advising him to stay away. "He is coming here in order to wash his hands that are dripping with Lebanese blood with Palestinian water," read the graffiti.

It did not, however, deter the British leader who desperately needed a break from Britain where he came within hair's breadth of being declared persona non grata by none other than his own Labour Party. The revolt within the party may be, to an extent, catalysed by unfulfilled ambition of Gordon Brown, Blair's chancellor of the exchequer, with whom the prime minister had an undocumented power sharing agreement, although the albatross around Blair's neck has actually been Iraq.

Notwithstanding his youthful and dynamic style of leadership winning an unprecedented three terms in office, it was Blair's unswerving support to Bush's hawkish stand on Iraq invasion and the war's disastrous consequence that have led to the current disillusionment with Blair.

His paranoid insistence that Iraq possessed WMD and posed a threat to the West turned out to be a ruse intentionally created to justify the invasion. It couldn't but fuel anger and revulsion in the ranks of his left of centre party on a massive scale. Blair was an overly enthusiastic participant in the myriad deceptions that were employed to build a case for a predetermined invasion. He was justifiably ridiculed for his surreal claim that last year's nasty acts of terrorism in London were unrelated to the situation in Iraq.

Much of the British public has steadily become sceptical about the Iraq misadventure and a substantial section of the parliamentary Labour Party harboured strong doubts about the morality and legality of the Anglo-American intervention. Yet some Labour MPs continued to support Blair out of expediency -- thinking him to be a vote winner.

That's no longer the case. The party's majority in the House of Commons was sharply slashed last year. Since then it's showing in the opinion polls and the opposition Conservatives are waiting in wings with David Cameron, a young and charismatic leader, at the helm. Britons are yearning for a change and a transition from Blair to Brown isn't what they have in mind. It's not surprising that the Labour, as a last ditch effort for survival, wants to dump Blair before it's too late.

Blair, in the meantime, is desperate to leave behind a legacy that won't be viewed with total disdain by succeeding generations. That, too, looks unlikely. His disgraceful attachment to neo-Thatcherism has been one of the more unappealing features of his squalid rule but even that will be overshadowed by his contributions to the international carnage of the past years.

He will be remembered more as a collaborator with arguably the most obnoxious US administration in living memory. His political epitaph may as well read: "Here lies Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, sidekick to Dubya, Murdoch's minion, and Maggie's heir."

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.