|
|
Positive Climate in
Washington is Met by a Negative Middle East Reality
Thursday 16 November 2006
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quick to call for some practical
steps to discover the sliver lining in the clouds of the latest electoral
storm to hit President George W.
Bush's ship which was sailing with a broken compass using ancient charts on
which there were no marks to identify some new currents and streams of some
dangerous perils. Blair's diplomacy is subtle and wise. He does not
embarrass his allies nor does he antagonise his adversaries. He used the
traditional Prime Minister's speech during the Lord Mayor's dinner at the
Guildhall in the city of London – an annual event marking the election of
the new Lord Mayor
John Stuttard- to explain British foreign policy. The Prime
Minister outlined the priorities of his policy commencing with solutions to
issues in the Middle East and Iraq, and the war against terrorism.
Using a his video link the next day as he was interviewed by the Iraq Study Group in Washington,
headed by former US Secretary of State James Baker III, Mr Blair emphasised his ideas to find a way out of the quagmire in Iraq. Prior to both events, Downing
Street leaked reports that the British leader had advised the Americans to
change their strategy by search for solutions outside of Iraq as well as
inside the country, especially by focusing on a Palestinian-Israeli
settlement, supporting the Lebanese in reinstating their independence and
stability, and engaging Syria and Iran in a dialogue in light of the role
they can play in the aforesaid three issues.
Blair's strategy has
been clear for the past three years and his latest speech reemphasises the strategy he made in his two speeches in
Canberra (March) and Los Angeles (July) about his foreign policy’s
priorities and the safeguarding of the values of the Free World, which are
the same values shared by the Muslim democrats and the peace advocates in
and out of the Middle East.
The mid-term Congressional election was a referendum in which the American
voters rejected the attitude and the foolish
mistakes of the neo-conservative in their radical approach to world
problems. The Democrats gained control over the House of Representatives,
which includes the committees of International Relations, Armed Services,
Homeland Security, and Energy and Commerce. Blair, however, enjoys a great
deal of respect and admiration among both Republican and Democrats in both
houses. He is a brilliant lawyer who knows how to present his case, and an
eloquent orator who has won the
hearts and the respect of those he addressed when he stood next to
President Bush, and before him next to former President Bill Clinton.
Blair took an immediate
principled stand when declaring that Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with America after al Qaeda’s September 11 aggression
against the American people. Blair often expresses his gratitude by
reminding world of America's role during the Second World War when American
young men spilt their blood on European shores save the Europeans from the
Nazi brutality. This gained Blair a special place in American hearts
especially after many ungrateful European leaders fails to revisit such
history, or to acknowledge how the Marshall Plan helped rebuilding Europe after the war.
The changes in the Capitol Hill helped removing the built-up wax in the
White House ears making it more attentive and receptive to the counsel
given by London, which is more familiar with the Middle East as British diplomats enjoy the trust and respect
of the wise among the Middle Eastern leaders. Donald Rumsfeld's
departure from the Pentagon is more than President Bush’s symbolic
gesture by removing an official associated with accumulated errors and
negative aspects of the US strategy that turned Iraqi people’s
elation at the sight of Saddam's collapsing statue signaling an end to the Baathist dictatorship into a tragedy. Rumsfeld's
dismissal clearly signals the start in search for a new strategy. His
successor, Robert Gates has a long experience in security having had
a long professional career at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He is
also Baker's partner in the Iraq Study Group and his viewpoints on the
region are similar to Mr Blair's analysis of the situation. In his
report to the US Foreign Relations Council in 2004 and in several other
articles, Gates proposed engaging Syria and Iran in a dialogue while
offering incentives and waving sanctions at the same time. He stressed that
dialogue and openness can activate the civil society as an instrument for
change in the two countries. He also proposed a tradeoff in which to
dismantle the Iranian opposition Mujahideen-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) in Iraq in return for Iran's refraining from supporting the Shia militias
in south Iraq. A politician with Baker’s experience, one
who belongs to the pragmatic school of political realism, can profit from
the experience of a man like Gates who has served in the CIA and the
National Security Council by adding him to the Iraqi Study Group. And
Blair's testimony, or rather his advice, to the Baker commission on the
video link Tuesday
emphasised the need to practically implement the proposals made by Gates.
James Baker was one of the most efficient and capable US secretaries of state. However, he and his
colleague, Lee Hamilton and the 13 others in the study group including
Gates, are not magicians who can perform miracles. They hope to be able to
provide the White House with a wider range of options, a list of the
potential risks and dangers, in addition to proposing a budget in order to
set the timetable for withdrawal from the crisis that has become Iraq.
From a realistic point of view, it is not fair to expect Baker and his
group to offer the ideal solution on how to pullout from Iraq when the country is in a state of total
collapse. We may agree with the British prime minister on the need to find
a just solution for the Palestinian Israeli fix, with preliminary steps to save the
lives of Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we may agree with him
on the need to lay the groundwork for a joint dialogue with Iran and Syria. But there are very few, if any, chances for
Blair's initiatives to succeed given the realities in the Middle East.
Hamas, the extreme
Islamists movement which is now the Palestinian government after winning
the general elections, refuses to honour accords signed by the previous government; or to
recognise Israel's right to exist. This dissipates any hope that
the Israelis could accept any negotiations for a settlement with the
Palestinian while Hamas is in power.
In response to Blair's initiative, Iran encouraged the militias it backs in southern Iraq to blow up a British patrol boat in Shatt al Arab, with the loss of four British lives.
Furthermore, intelligence agencies report that Iran was grooming a new leadership for al Qaeda to
take over from Osama bin Laden and
Ayman al Zawahiri, that would be more cooperative and sympathetic toward Iran. There seems to be no indication that Iran is willing to abandon the extremists. Moreover,
it would be hard for the international community to pay the price Iran wants to help bring stability in Iraq; namely the world’s acceptance of Iran's right to develop a technology that would
enable it to make nuclear bombs. It also means that the world will have to
overlook Iran's role in backing Hezballah and other extremist
organisations. Furthermore, Iran is obstructing the peace process between Palestine and Israel and is publicly calling for the destruction of
the Jewish State.
As for Syria, it will not cooperate until it gets an
assurance that it
will come out clean from the investigation of the assassination of former
Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al Hariri is
since the evidence seems to be pointing at Syrian leaders. Syria also wants to regain the Golan heights by resuming its negotiations with Israel from the point at which they had stopped under
the late President Hafez al Asad. The investigation into al Hariri's
assassination is not an Anglo-American one but an international one. Thus,
it would be difficult for Blair to rescue the Syrian leadership from this
predicament even if he wanted to.
On the other side, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in an unenviable
domestic political situation. The rightist opposition led by Benjamin
Netanyahu will exploit any concession that he would make to Syria and will interpret that as “a reward for Syria for backing Hezbullah and Hamas for their
attacks and for igniting the war in the summer.” Thus, Olmert will
not be able to persuade the Israeli voter of a useful outcome of
negotiating with Syria. Moreover, the Israeli voter is traditionally
suspicious of initiative coming from Britain, which is viewed as pro-Arab.
The new political map in Washington has given Blair a bigger chance to convince Bush
of a wiser policy. Unfortunately, the current political map in the region
makes the implementation of his new strategy almost impossible.
Copyright © Mideastnews & Adel Darwish 2006. All rights
reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent
of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the
information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher
cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its
use.
|
