THERE is never a dull moment in politics. But it is in international, rather than domestic, affairs that far stranger things take place. Nothing demonstrates the validity of this observation more than last week’s announcement that the Middle East Quartet has appointed former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as its special envoy to the region.

That an appointment of such importance and sensitivity could have been engineered with such ease and efficiency is fresh proof of the manipulative powers of the US and the UK.

During the 10 long years that he was prime minister, Tony Blair enjoyed close and cordial relations with both Presidents Clinton and Bush. In fact, the Clinton White House considered Blair the foreign leader closest to their boss. Regarding his relationship with the current US president, Blair was seen a virtual soul-mate and sounding board on most major foreign policy issues.

The extent of their bonding was such that Blair defied public opinion to join the US in its invasion of Iraq and also contributed troops to an adventure that was to lead to the British electorate’s disenchantment with him.

Smart, intelligent and highly articulate, Blair is also a powerfully persuasive interlocutor. Given his knowledge of and strong interest in the Middle East, as well as his personal relationship with the leaders of the region, Blair would appear to be the ideal candidate for this exceedingly difficult task.

As the leader of the region’s major former colonial power, his role and expertise could be a valuable asset. It was after all Britain that was the strongest supporter and financier of the Zionist movement. It was also Britain that was instrumental in the fulfilment of the Zionist dream, namely the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine. Britain’s commitment in the form of the infamous Balfour Declaration represented a major triumph for Zionist diplomacy.

When the declaration was issued, the Jewish population of Palestine numbered some 56,000 against an Arab population of 600,000 or less than 10 per cent of the total. Considering that the Arabs constituted over 90 per cent of the population, the promise not to prejudice their civil and religious rights had a distinctly hollow ring to it since it ignored their political rights. It was also in violation of the earlier British promise to Hussein, the Sharif of Makkah, to support the establishment of an independent Arab kingdom after the war, in return for an Arab revolt against the Ottoman empire.

It was also against the provisions of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 to divide the Middle East into British and French spheres of influence in the event of an Allied victory. These violations of solemn promises have continued to haunt the British to this day. But to Chaim Weizmann, the father of modern Zionism, these niceties were totally irrelevant, for the Balfour Declaration, despite all its ambiguities and limitations, handed the Jews “a golden key to unlock the doors of Palestine and to make themselves the masters of the country”.

Well-known historian Tom Segev has pointed out in his book ‘One Palestine, Complete’, that “contrary to the widely held belief of Britain’s pro-Arabism, British actions convincingly favoured the Zionist enterprise.” In this, the British believed they were winning the support of a strong and influential ally. British Foreign Secretary Balfour was to later confess in his memoirs: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is of a far profounder impact than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

Even more interestingly, the then British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, explained his support for the Zionist movement on account of it being “a highly influential political power, whose goodwill was worth paying for.”

And yet, Blair’s appointment has been greeted with almost universal derision and ridicule. What explains this contradictory reaction? For one, Blair is perceived as a person who has never hesitated to discard principles in favour of personal predilections, or to jettison inconvenient beliefs and to trim his sails to suit prevailing winds. But 10 years in office have exposed the man behind the mask that Blair had so very assiduously built for himself.

Like most of his predecessors, Blair, too, sought to bask in the reflected glory of the power and majesty of the United States, on occasions oblivious of the views of colleagues and party stalwarts. On the Iraq issue, he involved his government in falsifying and doctoring intelligence reports to strengthen the Bush administration’s accusations against Saddam Hussein. This was done so blatantly that a number of cabinet colleagues were constrained to quit their posts, rather than be a party to this deception.

In all this, his primary objective was not the promotion of democracy and human rights in the Middle East, but the destruction of the region’s only potential challenger to Israel’s domination of the region. How ironic that the Iraq fiasco, planned and executed to demonstrate Britain’s power and influence, should prove to be Blair’s final undoing. This may explain the widespread opposition, including within Britain, to Blair’s appointment.

Few world leaders, with the notable exception of the Israelis and President Mahmoud Abbas, have had anything good to say about it. Russia is reported to have expressed its opposition to it in no uncertain terms, while European leaders have murmured that it was Bush’s reward to his “poodle” for his loyalty. Interestingly, the current EU president, the German foreign minister, was not even aware of his appointment until it was announcement. So much for the claim of consultation with stakeholders.

The media has also savaged what it calls a conspiracy between Bush, Blair and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Robert Fisk calls Blair “totally discredited in the region”. Writing in The Independent, Fisk said he was surprised that “this vain, deceitful man, this proven liar, a trumped up lawyer who has the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is really contemplating being our Middle East envoy.” The Guardian said Blair’s name was associated with catastrophe.

It is, however, the Arabs who view Blair’s appointment as sheer lunacy. With unusual unanimity, all mainstream newspapers in the region have expressed a deep sense of impending doom. Even notables like former Egyptian minister, Ahmad Maher, called it a “mistake” and said that the US should have found other ways to reward Blair for his services. They recalled the fate of the former UN envoy, the respected James Wolfensohn, who could make no headway because of combined US-Israel opposition to any initiative that was even remotely fair and balanced. Similar views were also expressed in traditionally pro-US countries.

Mahmoud Abbas’s endorsement is, however, not surprising, given his increasing subservience to Israeli interests. But Hamas leaders have made it clear that they did not expect anything from Blair, so whatever he did would be of no relevance to them. Even independent analysts have pointed out that although Blair would wax lyrical at the mere mention of the Palestinian issue and talk of a two-state vision for the region, he did all that was possible to strengthen Israel’s stranglehold over the occupied areas.

It was, however, his conduct during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon last year that revealed his true character. Notwithstanding Lebanon’s pro-West government’s desperate pleas for help, Blair opted to join the Bush administration in preventing the US Security Council from calling upon Israel to agree to a ceasefire until such time that its war aims had not been achieved. Earlier, he had joined the US in encouraging Ariel Sharon to place Yasser Arafat in confinement till his last days, thereby depriving the Palestinians of an elected leader, who could have been a credible and effective interlocutor.

Blair’s attitude to Islam, too, has raised many questions. While he has spoken of his respect for the religion, he has joined Bush in waging wars against those he perceives as representing “radical Islam”, a catch-all phrase in which he places all those regimes and peoples who are opposed to Anglo-American plans to redraw the map of the Middle East.

What does Blair’s appointment portend for the Palestinians? Clearly more misery, because Blair’s focus will not be on ending Israeli occupation, but on helping the Palestinian Authority improve governance in the West Bank. If true, then we can expect further measures by Israel, in collaboration with the US and the UK, to perpetuate its occupation.

Admittedly, the occupied territories suffer from corrupt and inefficient administration, but the root cause of violence and turmoil lies in the four-decade long occupation. Moreover, by refusing to bring Hamas into the dialogue process, Gaza is being pushed into economic deprivation and political isolation that will encourage greater violence which will only reinforce the West’s projection of the people of Gaza as “terrorists”.

Is this another piece of evidence of the West’s age-old practice of “divide and rule”? After all, more than any other world leader, it is Blair who has contributed to dividing the Middle East into two hostile camps — the so-called moderates and the so-called radicals. No less disturbing has been the role of the UN secretary-general, who by acquiescing in this Anglo-American conspiracy to appoint Blair, has damaged the world body’s credibility. Difficult times lie ahead for the Palestinians. They need to set their own house in order, but it is also incumbent on major Arab regimes to stand by these long-suffering people.

The writer is a former ambassador