Has Tony Blair done anything worthwhile?
July 5, 2010 11:03 AM Subscribe
Has former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair actually contributed at all to Middle East Peace? I mean this in his capacity as "Middle East Peace Envoy".
I was wandering around Wikipedia the other day and came across Tony Blair's page. It then hit me that he has the title (and presumably job to go with it) of Middle East Peace Envoy. Thing is, I haven't personally heard of "The Blair Plan" or "Tony Blair's New Peace Initiative" or indeed anything at all that suggests he's done anything to forward the issue of peace in the Middle East. I began to wonder if the title is just that. Title without substance.
Can anyone provide any examples of where his action has had any measurable positive effect upon the situation in the Middle East?
I was wandering around Wikipedia the other day and came across Tony Blair's page. It then hit me that he has the title (and presumably job to go with it) of Middle East Peace Envoy. Thing is, I haven't personally heard of "The Blair Plan" or "Tony Blair's New Peace Initiative" or indeed anything at all that suggests he's done anything to forward the issue of peace in the Middle East. I began to wonder if the title is just that. Title without substance.
Can anyone provide any examples of where his action has had any measurable positive effect upon the situation in the Middle East?
Can anyone provide any examples of where his action has had any measurable positive effect upon the situation in the Middle East?
The effect one person is going to have on thousands of years of unrest is hardly going to be measurable or public. I mean in May 2008, he unveiled this, but without the clout of a military behind him, what kind of enforcement power does he have?
You'll have to keep in mind that even showy, public displays of "we're working on it" like that require countless hours of meetings, talks and compromise. That's measurable; what effect it has is largely impossible, not to mention thoroughly out of his control.
He's a diplomat.
posted by Hiker at 11:58 AM on July 5, 2010
The effect one person is going to have on thousands of years of unrest is hardly going to be measurable or public. I mean in May 2008, he unveiled this, but without the clout of a military behind him, what kind of enforcement power does he have?
You'll have to keep in mind that even showy, public displays of "we're working on it" like that require countless hours of meetings, talks and compromise. That's measurable; what effect it has is largely impossible, not to mention thoroughly out of his control.
He's a diplomat.
posted by Hiker at 11:58 AM on July 5, 2010
without the clout of a military behind him, what kind of enforcement power does he have?
To be fair, even if he had the clout of a military behind him, intervention by a foreign military wouldn't exactly be a sure-fire way of ensuring peace and stability in the middle east.
posted by Mike1024 at 12:54 PM on July 5, 2010
To be fair, even if he had the clout of a military behind him, intervention by a foreign military wouldn't exactly be a sure-fire way of ensuring peace and stability in the middle east.
posted by Mike1024 at 12:54 PM on July 5, 2010
Blair's sole advantage over you and me is that he can get into see the right people. But, in the end, he can't change the players' minds about what is or is not in their best interests. No one can, really.
posted by justcorbly at 5:13 PM on July 5, 2010
posted by justcorbly at 5:13 PM on July 5, 2010
From the minimal reading I have done on the subject, I think he had a bit to do with the relaxing of the blockade, specifically the idea of having a list of banned items, rather than a list of allowed items. Other than that, I haven't seen much of him since he has taken up the post.
posted by chromatist at 6:48 PM on July 5, 2010
posted by chromatist at 6:48 PM on July 5, 2010
thousands of years of unrest
This media trope really isn't something we need to regurgitate. The instability in the Middle East may have cultural origins that date back thousands of years, but the basic conflict between Israel and Palestinians dates to 1948, and more specifically to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 war.
Back to Blair. His role is not to miraculously solve all the problems of the region. As the BBC put it,
Observers point out that Mr Blair's mission, as defined by the "Quartet" of international mediators which appointed him, is narrow.
His brief includes Palestinian governance, economics and security rather than the wider conflict between Israel and Palestinians - at least initially.
His role here is as representative of the interests of the Quartet powers, who are not always on the same page but agree on a baseline of conventional wisdom issues. Among these are that a stable Palestinian Authority as implemented under Oslo and other subsequent accords is a good thing. Perhaps he can't bring about an ideal peace, but he can work with the PA to identify points of conflict and resolve them, and insofar as the PA is an instrument of Israeli policy as well, this isn't actually a hard job most of the time -- at least since Gaza has gone independent.
Then you have to look at his position as a representative of a quartet of interested parties, two of which are actually themselves international institutions. The job of somebody in this position is not going to be as focused, direct, flexible, or creative as, say, George Mitchell of the US.
Finally, the efforts of a broker diplomat are wholly dependent on the willingness of the parties themselves to bargain. The Israeli government is now run by people who as a policy position are unwilling to meet with Hamas or Hezbollah let alone give them any sort of concessions. The options for someone in Blair's post, then, are more limited than you imagine.
posted by dhartung at 8:31 PM on July 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
This media trope really isn't something we need to regurgitate. The instability in the Middle East may have cultural origins that date back thousands of years, but the basic conflict between Israel and Palestinians dates to 1948, and more specifically to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 war.
Back to Blair. His role is not to miraculously solve all the problems of the region. As the BBC put it,
Observers point out that Mr Blair's mission, as defined by the "Quartet" of international mediators which appointed him, is narrow.
His brief includes Palestinian governance, economics and security rather than the wider conflict between Israel and Palestinians - at least initially.
His role here is as representative of the interests of the Quartet powers, who are not always on the same page but agree on a baseline of conventional wisdom issues. Among these are that a stable Palestinian Authority as implemented under Oslo and other subsequent accords is a good thing. Perhaps he can't bring about an ideal peace, but he can work with the PA to identify points of conflict and resolve them, and insofar as the PA is an instrument of Israeli policy as well, this isn't actually a hard job most of the time -- at least since Gaza has gone independent.
Then you have to look at his position as a representative of a quartet of interested parties, two of which are actually themselves international institutions. The job of somebody in this position is not going to be as focused, direct, flexible, or creative as, say, George Mitchell of the US.
Finally, the efforts of a broker diplomat are wholly dependent on the willingness of the parties themselves to bargain. The Israeli government is now run by people who as a policy position are unwilling to meet with Hamas or Hezbollah let alone give them any sort of concessions. The options for someone in Blair's post, then, are more limited than you imagine.
posted by dhartung at 8:31 PM on July 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
The instability in the Middle East may have cultural origins that date back thousands of years, but the basic conflict between Israel and Palestinians dates to 1948, and more specifically to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 war.
- Requoting dhartung for emphasis.
Every time I hear some armchair expert go off on how "they" have been fighting for centuries, I have only two things to say:
1. Who hasn't?
2. Shut up. It isn't helpful to protest that it's always been this way, so why bother trying to change it.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:40 AM on July 7, 2010
- Requoting dhartung for emphasis.
Every time I hear some armchair expert go off on how "they" have been fighting for centuries, I have only two things to say:
1. Who hasn't?
2. Shut up. It isn't helpful to protest that it's always been this way, so why bother trying to change it.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:40 AM on July 7, 2010
(Sorry, Hiker. "Shut up" wasn't aimed at you, because you weren't advocating doing nothing. You were pointing out how one man is unlikely to change a huge problem like this alone.)
posted by IAmBroom at 9:41 AM on July 7, 2010
posted by IAmBroom at 9:41 AM on July 7, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by proj at 11:33 AM on July 5, 2010