Union of the Mediterranean

PRESIDENT Nicolas Sarkozy of France gathered leaders from 43 countries in Paris to launch a Mediterranean Union (MU). The new forum brings together the 27 countries of the European Union, and states from North Africa, the Balkans and Arab nations along with Israel. Peace with its associated difficulties in one of the world’s most volatile regions was, according to the French President, “a major initiative (of the MU), and now we have to nurture it and go further. Everyone will have to make an effort, as the Europeans did, to put an end to the deadly spiral of war and violence that, century after century, repeatedly brought barbarity to the heart of civilisation.” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso echoed similar sentiments when he stated that “this is a historic contribution for the future of Europe and the future of the Mediterranean,” and urged the Mediterranean states to emulate Europe’s model of reconciliation and co-operation. The undertaking was, however, fraught with controversy. The list of participating countries prepared by Paris initially became a source of contention between Paris and Berlin, the co-sponsors in terms of financing the first gathering of the MU leaders. Paris had initially refrained from inviting Northern European countries, but relented at Germany’s Angela Merkel’s insistence. In addition on the list were sworn enemies Bashar Asad of Syria and Ehud Olmert of Israel who, reportedly, went out of their way to avoid each other. While Olmert claimed that he sent a message of peace through Erdogan of Turkey, yet the Syrian side was quick to refute that it had received any message from the Israeli Prime Minister. The status quo with respect to the Palestinian issue also remained with no mention being made of the two-state solution in the communique.
Many would argue that steps towards peace in the volatile Middle East have failed consistently in the past and the current initiative is hardly likely to bear fruit. Two factors tend to belie this logic. First, America has consistently been perceived by Arabs as not an honest broker in the conflict; therefore there is a void that can be filled by the MU if it can emerge as an honest broker. Second and more importantly, guerrilla warfare has replaced conventional war in conflicts in the Middle East which negates the advantages that a superpower, be it the United States or Israel as the Middle Eastern superpower, would otherwise normally have exercised in terms of human and military resources. The days of the three-day war or indeed of Israeli victories, effortless and swift, appear to be over. The dawn of the new era highlights the need for negotiations leading to an agreement as the most lasting approach to peace. No where is this more evident than in the peace deal between the Irish Republican Army and the British government. The ever rising number of Sarkozy’s domestic critics, have alleged that the idea of the MU was to rejuvenate his flailing presidency through catapulting him on the world stage. But this is not the only objective. According to the French Foreign Minister Kouchner, the MU will focus on climate change, environment, access to water and energy, migration and dialogue between civilisations as key areas of co-operation. Leaders have agreed on a batch of modest projects such as cleaning up pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, improving shipping routes and developing solar energy, co-operating on the prevention, preparation and response to natural and man-made disasters, setting up a Mediterranean University based in Slovenia and supporting Mediterranean business initiatives by establishing a body to assist small and medium sized companies through providing technical assistance and financial instruments from voluntary contributions from members states.

Hezbollah-Israel deal

IT’S history in the making once again in the Middle East. Hezbollah handed over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers to the Red Cross yesterday in exchange for five Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners captured during a daring raid on Israel in 1979. This includes Samir Qantar, the Lebanese freedom icon who has spent more years in prison than the legendary Nelson Mandela. In addition, Israel is to release the remains of some 200 Lebanese and Palestinian fighters, killed in battle over the past three decades. Understandably, the Israelis are not very pleased with the “concessions” they have had to make. And no wonder the Lebanese, Palestinians and Arabs in general are delighted with their symbolic victory. However, the real and clear winner of this deal is Hezbollah. This is a huge political and moral boost for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who had repeatedly promised the people of Lebanon and the Palestinians that their loved ones will be brought home. The Hezbollah leader had cleverly turned the prisoner swap into a matter of personal honour. Coming as this deal does close on the heels of the Doha accord that brought Hezbollah back into the unity government in Lebanon, this political victory will likely be exploited by the Shia party to further expand its base at home and the larger Arab world.
And this is a huge setback to the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East. This administration has gone to absurd lengths to isolate Hezbollah and Hamas and their ostensible allies, Syria and Iran. It has not only discouraged and cautioned its Arab allies against engaging the Hamas and Hezbollah but also resisted Israeli attempts to talk with them even for narrow political gains like the ceasefire in Gaza. Interestingly, if anyone has strongly defied Washington’s diktat on the issue, it is none other than its own trusted ally and friend Israel. While Washington pushes the Arab states to sever all ties with Hamas, notwithstanding the popular mandate it won two years ago, and shun Hezbollah, Israel is quietly doing business with the people the US insists on calling the terrorists. Israel has already entered into a tense but successful truce with Hamas in Gaza. And it has held several rounds of talks with the Syrians in Turkey on resolution of the Golan Heights question. And now it has tacitly recognised and accepted Hezbollah as a legitimate player in the region. Where does all this leave Bush’s America? Not in a very comfortable position, we are afraid. There are lessons to be drawn from the Hezbollah-Israel deal. If there is to be peace in the Middle East, you’ve got to talk to your enemies. This applies to the Palestine-Israel dialogue as well as the Iran-US equation. As Churchill argued, jaw-jaw is better than war-war any day.

—Khaleej Times