Annapolis opportunity

NO ONE expects miracles to happen in Annapolis, the venue of the US-hosted Middle East Peace Conference. Yet the world has seldom awaited any meeting and its outcome with greater eagerness in recent times. This is a historic opportunity in every sense of the word as this is the first meeting that sees the Arabs and Israelis sitting down for some real and frank talks. That Saudi Arabia, among other key players is attending the talks says something about the path-breaking nature of this meeting. Time is now for America, the host and the real player in the Middle East, to demonstrate its strength as a well-meaning mediator. The urgency of finding a solution to the crisis — that has inflicted untold suffering on the Palestinians and bloodletting of the worst order for over half a century — is there for everyone to see. That the efforts in the past, including the high-pitched meetings at Madrid, Oslo, and Camp David in the past, or the laying out of a US-backed road map for regional peace five years ago, have helped little in realising the dream of Palestinians for statehood, is a fact. The past seven years of the Bush administration have been a period when the issue just hanged fire with no serious efforts being made to resolve the issue. And, now, the administration is left with just about a year before a new dispensation takes charge. Scepticism about the current initiative is anchored essentially in this fact: why now? But, better late than never.
On the positive side, despite its genuine reservations and past history of such initiatives, the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, has joined the talks with a rare sense of hope and optimism. In fact, by participating in the Annapolis meeting, the Arabs have demonstrated a sense of purpose that must be appreciated from all sides. It shows they are looking to the future, rather than the bitter past. The exclusion of the Hamas from these talks is unfortunate and unrealistic. This could do more harm than good. An effort should have been made to get them on board. After all, it won a massive mandate of the Palestinian people in elections that were truly free and fair. This is not to lose sight of Hamas’ own aversion for dialogue with the Israelis. They treat it an attempt by the Jewish lobby to buy time. Dialogue, however, is the only way forward; and, a final settlement is in everybody’s interest. As a footnote, there have been apprehensions that Annapolis is aimed at isolating Iran. All the more reason why America should push for concrete outcome at Annapolis. It must prove its credentials of being an impartial mediator. Making Israel see reason and grant the Palestinians what belongs to them wouldn’t be easy. But, having finally taken a step forward, it is time the Bush administration pushed the matter to its logical conclusion. Peace in the Middle East is not only a historic necessity; it will also be the foundation on which a new world order can be built.
 

Sarkozy in China

PRESIDENT Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to China is proving highly profitable for French industry, with deals worth $32 billion announced, including two nuclear power stations and 160 Airbus passenger planes. Many contracts have of course been a long time in negotiation, but have been bundled into a single, dramatic announcement for this trip. Yet although French business will be rubbing its hands with satisfaction, there is a notable difference in the tone of Sarkozy, as he spoke of the deals. Had it been his predecessor Jacques Chirac, there would have been a considerably more chauvinistic tone, and some snook cocking at the Americans. Sarkozy by contrast seemed to be speaking first as a European — the Airbus consortium is after all Pan-European — and then as an internationalist. This mirrors the changes he has brought to French foreign policy, which no longer appears so opportunist. Chirac rightly condemned the Iraq invasion, but largely for the wrong reason — an inherent anti-Americanism. Sarkozy’s approach is altogether more embracing. He is not prepared to set France apart from the stream of events, either in Europe or wider afield. We can anticipate therefore that Paris will be playing a more constructive role in the Middle East, both within the EU component of the quartet and independently: The emergence of a more realistic French foreign policy ought to have a significant impact on the EU. Britain, despite the cooler attitude taken by its increasingly accident-prone new Premier Gordon Brown, remains closer to Washington than Brussels in foreign policy terms. Germany’s position has been ambiguous. Now that France has ceased to be the prickly presence in the European corner, it can offer effective leadership to a European partnership, which it has always been uniquely placed to do.
The Chinese of course are happy to do business with EU member countries because they need to spread their commercial relationships. They know that Washington once hoped to tie up Beijing in trade deals and investments as a way of preventing the Chinese from challenging American global economic dominance. No such agenda exists among EU planners in Brussels. Unfortunately for Sarkozy, the success of his China trip has been slightly marred by the re-eruption of violence in the streets among angry youths, largely of Algerian origin. The death of two young teenagers in a collision with a police car has so far sparked two days of violence, which Monday night saw five police officers seriously injured. When he was interior minister in 2005 Sarkozy call similar rioters variously “rabble,” “gangrene” and “scum.” Such a reaction will not do this time. Whatever criminal element may lie behind these riots, they also clearly represent a deep social and economic malaise, which has still not been addressed by the French authorities. Sarkozy should make this task a priority. Foreign policy triumphs are no good if, back home, part of your country is on fire.

—Arab News