New Man On the Job

A former Scandinavian head of state or one from Asia, Africa or another small European country would have been better suited for the job than Tony Blair. That would be a spontaneous reaction to Blair's appointment as Middle East envoy.

Actually, just about anyone who didn't have the colonial past of a Briton in the Middle East, had not driven the Iraq war as a "lap dog" of the American president and not delayed a truce during the Lebanon war last year as Blair did would have been a better person for the job.

Despite these facts, the Mideast Quartet -- which comprises the US, the EU, the UN and Russia -- chose the former British prime minister as the new Mideast envoy.

The quartet didn't seem to have any serious reservations about the appointment. Even the Russians didn't seem to have any doubts about Blair's skills as a trouble shooter despite being at loggerheads with him in the scandal involving the murder of a former Russian agent.

But can the former British premier position himself as a neutral representative and mediator? You have to doubt it in light of his close alliance with the US and Israel.

The question is whether Blair will really mediate in the ongoing trouble in the Middle East. His responsibility largely lies in helping the Palestinian parties lift themselves out of the crisis. He is meant to help the Palestinians build democratic institutions and in the course of that job he will naturally have to often report to Washington to request specific American help.

Given his excellent ties with the White House, that should be easy for Blair as compared with honorable representatives from second-tier friendly nations.

There's no disputing that less mistrust of the Mideast envoy would make his job easier. But in the past even American Jews such as Henry Kissinger or Dennis Ross have successfully mediated in the Middle East on behalf of the White House.

Why should Blair not have the same success on behalf of the Mideast Quartet? Especially considering that it will be the Quartet and not Blair who will decide which direction to take. That decision too will be limited since the direction is long well known; it's that path that negotiators can't agree on.

During his farewell speech to the House of Commons, Blair declared that the Middle East must have place for two states -- Israel and Palestine.

By now all sensible and right-minded individuals accept that formula and it also forms the core of the "roadmap" of the Middle East aimed to resolve the conflict.

The Arab League too is committed to the "two state" solution. Only radical groups continue to reject it. But then again nobody would try to talk peace with them.

That's why Blair might succeed in moving things along. And if he doesn't then he wouldn't be the first to fail at the task.

Peter Philipp is a Middle East expert and Deutsche Welle's chief correspondent (sp)