Tony Blair’s exit strategy
By Mahir Ali


ISRAEL and the occupied territories must have seemed like a haven of tranquillity to Tony Blair when he flew there following an extraordinary week in British politics. It is even more likely that he relished the opportunity to appear statesmanlike, a posture that would have been hard to adopt back in London amid the growing perception that a substantial number of his own party’s legislators are even more keen than the opposition to hasten his departure from No.10 Downing Street.

The British prime minister has long favoured the idea of playing some sort of a 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 historical responsibility for the mess in that part of the world. Unfortunately, the likelihood of constructive action diminished rapidly once Blair opted for more or less complete subservience to the wishes of the United States, whose present administration hasn’t even pretended to strike any sort of balance in its approach to the Middle East. One almost felt sorry for Blair when, at the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg earlier this year, he was caught begging George W. Bush for authorisation to act as a scout for Condoleezza Rice in the context of the Lebanese crisis.

At the time, Bush, between bites on a bread roll, brusquely told Blair to stay put. Presumably, permission must lately have come through, and the British leader seemed to have achieved some success as a shuttle diplomat: in separate statements on Sunday, following meetings with Blair, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that they were prepared to meet each other unconditionally. That would, on the face of it be a step forward, although it’s far from clear whether it would lead anywhere. It’s hard to see, though, why this relatively minor mutual concession required the British prime minister’s mediatory presence, and it is by no means inconceivable that the announcements were orchestrated as a Blair-booster.

Although Blair expressed his support for the concept of a Hamas-led government of national unity in the occupied Palestinian territories, he did not meet any of the Hamas leadership and insisted that the Islamist organisation recognise Israel and renounce violence. The conditions seem reasonable enough, although any meaningful renunciation of violence must be reciprocal, else it simply wouldn’t last very long.

Of course, neither the besieged Palestinian Authority nor the beleaguered Israeli government considers itself under any obligation to heed the head of 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. At the same time, neither side could have failed to notice that while Blair met the families of the three Israeli soldiers captured in Gaza and Lebanon, the question of extending the same courtesy to the Palestinians — thousands of whom are in Israeli custody, in some cases after having been kidnapped — presumably didn’t even arise.

A few days ahead of Blair’s visit, hundreds of Palestinians put their names to a newspaper advertisement declaring him 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 advertisement. It did not deter the prime minister, not least because he must have desperately needed a break from Britain, where he came within a hair’s breadth of being declared persona non grata by the Labour Party. The protests and snubs he encountered in Beirut on Monday are likely to have made him feel more at home.

Over the past 10 days or so, the British press has, naturally enough, overflowed with detailed coverage of political developments, with some newspapers describing the anti-Blair revolt as an intra-party coup attempt. Beyond the role played in last week’s events by the unfulfilled ambitions of the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, there is general agreement that many of the MPs keen to see the back of their leader are concerned primarily about their own seats: public opinion has turned so vehemently against Blair that they fear his continued incumbency will irreparably damage their chances of re-election. But with the focus on all manner of power plays and other shenanigans, there has been insufficient analysis of why Blair has become so profoundly unpopular.

The ghost at Blair’s farewell banquet (which is expected to be stretched out for six months or more) has, of course, been the Iraq war. He was an overly enthusiastic participant in the myriad deceptions, big and small, that were employed to build a case for a predetermined invasion. He was equally complicit in efforts to rewrite the narrative once the initial lies could no longer be sustained. 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. He could, perhaps, have redeemed himself marginally had he distanced himself from Washington’s implacable opposition to a ceasefire after the Israeli air force began bombing Lebanese cities and villages earlier this year, but he chose to play along. And now British troops are dying in Afghanistan.

Much of the British public has steadily been sceptical about the Iraq misadventure, and a substantial section of the Parliamentary Labour Party harboured strong doubts about the legality and morality of the Anglo-American intervention. Some Labour MPs continued to support Blair out of expediency: he was seen as a vote-winner. That is no longer the case. The party’s majority in the House of Commons was sharply slashed last year: it retained government with the support of one-fifth of the electorate. Since then, it’s showing in opinion polls has slid from poor to dismal, and a rejuvenated Conservative Party under David Cameron has become a serious contender for power — not because the Tories have better policies to offer in any sphere, but because Britons are yearning for a change of face and style, and a transition from Blair to Brown isn’t what many of them have in mind.

Last week’s rebellion — in which one junior minister and half a dozen parliamentary private secretaries resigned after informing Blair that his continued presence at the helm served neither the nation’s nor the party’s interests any longer — had little to do with foreign policy. Although Brown has denied fomenting the revolt, it was clearly linked to his impatience to shift from No.11 Downing Street into No.10. Twelve years ago, when a leadership contest loomed following the unexpected demise of John Smith, Blair and Brown met in a north London restaurant called Granita and reached a pact: Brown wouldn’t challenge Blair at that point, provided the latter agreed to hand over following two terms in government.

The pact wasn’t legally or constitutionally binding, and although Brown has for some time now offered regular indications that he was keen to enforce it, only the downswing in Blair’s fortunes has given him the courage to bring matters to a head. And even then, not quite: more than one British commentator compared him last week with the Grand Old Duke of York, who marched his men to the top of the hill and then marched them down again. At least Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative detractors, once they had picked an opportune moment to unseat her, were prepared to go all the way.

In the process — which included a shouting match with his boss last Wednesday - Brown has succeeded in sharply diminishing the likelihood of a smooth succession. Blair has apparently agreed in private to announce in February his intention of stepping down in May next year, after completing 10 years as prime minister. But he does not plan to endorse Brown as his heir, and a number of Labour luminaries indicated last week that in their opinion the chancellor is unfit to be head of government. Brown will almost certainly face one or more challengers in next year’s leadership ballot (in which, in addition to Labour MPs, ordinary party members as well as members of affiliated unions are entitled to vote), and there is no guarantee that he will win.

Beyond an early expression of concern about the financial aspects of the commitment, Brown has remained silent on matters such as Iraq. A free hand for him in the economic sphere was a crucial component of the Granita pact, and New Labour’s behaviour in that context has been characterised largely by a concerted effort to update Thatcherite policies for the 21st century, with particular focus on privatisation, tax cuts for the rich and the primacy of the profit motive. Although none of the possible alternatives to Brown is likely, as leader, to strive for a radically different direction, last week’s backstabbings raise the tantalising prospect of New Labour’s self-induced collapse and the possibility, thereafter, of a less neo-liberal entity emerging from the rubble.

Blair, meanwhile, is desperate to leave behind a legacy that won’t be viewed with complete disdain by succeeding generations. But it’s much too late for that. His disgraceful attachment to neo-Thatcherism has been one of the more unappealing features of his squalid reign, but even that will be overshadowed by his contributions to the international carnage of the past five years. He will be remembered primarily as an unquestioning 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. He suffered no qualms about the blood on his hands, because half-concealed beneath the veneer of a higher purpose lay the mundane truth that he simply didn’t care.”

Email: mahirali1@gmail.com

The final countdown

DEMOCRATS clearly hold the initiative as the US Congress returns from a month-long recess for the prelude to the ‘November battle’.
With President George Bush’s ratings at an unprecedented low, mounting concern over the Iraq debacle, unhappiness over the Republicans’ energy policy, worry about the soaring federal deficit, and precious little time left for lawmakers to pass legislation to appease unhappy voters, Democrats seem set to retake the House of Representatives and secure significant ground in the Senate.
It is pertinent to note that despite broadly backing the government as the so-called war on terror took centre stage in policy making, popular American opinion seems to have undergone considerable change, with the majority now expressing ‘concern’ about the direction the country is taking. This means, at the very least, that Republicans under Mr Bush have squandered much of the goodwill and public support they engineered and subsequently exploited in the wake of 9/11. Since this erosion has coincided with the US and its allies’ Middle East foreign policy (that formed the crux of the terror-war) falling apart, Democrats’ told-you-so and time-for-change claims have been significantly bolstered.
Should the Democrats claim the 15 House and six Senate seats needed to reclaim majorities, hearings and investigations into the Bush administration’s foreign, energy and military policies will not take long to follow, halting the president’s legislative agenda and effectively taking the wind out of his sails in the last two years of the presidency. Republicans’ brushing aside of predictions favouring Democrats is understandable, but there is little new in their rhetoric, so that too may backfire. As things stand, both on-ground sentiment and historical evidence tip the Democrats as winners (rare exceptions aside, party in power traditionally loses seats during the president’s sixth year). Either way, the decision is not far off, as the final countdown has begun.

—Khaleej Time