|
Why a poll now?
WHO, may we know, is spoiling for a fight at the hustings in Britain?
Not the Tories, not David Cameron, of course, though for effect they are
seeking one now, and are finding fault with Prime Minister Gordon Brown
for “foot-dragging” on his early-election hints. And, probably, not the
ruling Labour, too. What, after all, should give Tories the hope for a
win? Those who know the ABC of politics or elections should also know an
upswing in just one opinion poll is not necessarily reflective of the
general mood. In all probability, the pro-Tory result, as was reported
the other day, was a casual swing. Its longevity and sustainability are
in serious doubt, given the track record of the opposition. Neither
should the Tories be amused, nor the Labour be unduly worried. It might,
however, be safe to assume that Britons’ honeymoon with Brown appears to
have ended; if only for the fact that it cannot in any way be a lasting
phase. Yet, In the past few months after he took over the reins of
governance, Brown has had a windfall of public support; support that cut
beyond anybody’s expectations. So much so, he catapulted the Labour lead
to astounding highs, pushing Tories, and the youthful Cameron, to
ever-dismal levels. In reality, the Tories should, in private, be still
licking the wounds.
Why a poll now? Are general elections to be held at the whims of
someone, without sufficient reason? Is it not incumbent upon political
parties or leaderships to see through the full duration of an elected
term before calling voters to the booths again? Brown has a point when
he says he does not want a poll now based on his proven competence, and
would rather wait and “show people the vision that we have for the
future of this country in housing and health and education, and have the
opportunity to deliver on them”. He has time until 2010, and why hurry?
For whose sake? Brown has acquitted himself well so far, going by his
excellent record as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the
efficient handling, as premier, of crisis situations like the thwarting
of a car bomb attack by terrorists, the flooding and the foot-and-mouth
disease. He has proven himself to be a cut above the rest, something
that Cameron hasn’t had the opportunity yet to prove. To his credit,
Brown has not slipped, so far; and, both on the domestic and foreign
policy fronts, he has risen to public expectations. Likely, the problem
with the Tories, who have faced only electoral reverses over the past
many years, is that they’re far removed from the realities of Britain.
That they were virtually rudderless until David Cameron came along, and
yet are trailing, is proof there’s something seriously wrong with
Britain’s Opposition. Rather than wasting their time on chasing Brown,
Tories would do well to come up with an alternative agenda: and not
simply stop with the tax-reform proposals.
Boycott call
HAMAS’ call on Arab countries
to boycott next month’s Middle East summit raises more question marks
over the conference’s success, for if the Palestinians, as divided as
they are, cannot agree among themselves on the best course of action
toward a resolution, then the prospects of reaching a common conceptual
framework for any prospective peace agreement with Israel dims
considerably. The Hamas boycott call expressly means they are opposed to
the conference and will reject any of its outcomes — not a very good
start even before the meeting begins. Israel and the US are not overly
concerned by the Hamas stand; in fact, Hamas’ absence would be welcome
considering that the US designated it a terrorist organization and Gaza,
the piece of land it rules, enemy territory. It is clear that the US and
Israel want to isolate Hamas, but there should not be any preconditions
on excluding them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinians.
Many Palestinians subscribe to the political perspective of Hamas, and
the world cannot exclude Hamas and their considerable constituency of
sympathizers among Palestinians. Hamas should be there, to participate
in the deliberations, to object when necessary, to express their
viewpoint — which is that of many Palestinians — and to at least be part
of the process rather than its failure if that’s the way it ends up.
The conference already faces huge obstacles. While Mahmoud Abbas and his
aides insist that any peace agreement with Israel must include the
creation of a Palestinian state on 100 percent of the West Bank, Ehud
Olmert is insisting that the guidelines for a declaration of principles
must include George Bush’s letter of guarantees to Ariel Sharon in 2004
as well as the road map. Bush pledged that in the context of a
final-status peace agreement with the Palestinians Israel would have the
right to retain major Jewish population concentrations in the West Bank,
a clear reference to Jewish settlements built on occupied Arab land.
That pledge is incompatible with international law and underscores
Washington’s bias toward Israel. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
is due to visit the region next week to add her weight to the
preparations but the upcoming conference lacks the preparatory
groundwork necessary for success, vindicating reservations voiced
recently in the Middle East, particularly by Saudi and Egyptian leaders.
The Israelis are hoping for a broad declaration of principles, without
committing to a timetable for final-status talks. However, Palestinian
officials want a framework and possibly a timetable for making decisions
on some of the most sensitive issues in the conflict, including the
final borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the
return of Palestinian refugees. A declaration of principles is
nonbinding, general and vague. It would specifically suit Olmert who
simply does not want to commit himself to anything concrete with regard
to ending the occupation. However, a boycott is not the answer. All Arab
parties concerned are urged to go and do their best, so that if the
talks fall short, the blame is put squarely elsewhere.
—Arab News
|
