Annapolis Peace Talks - Futility in motion
The peace and future of the Middle East has taken centre stage with the summit of Palestinian and Israeli leaders along with representatives of Arab states and other players with a say in the conflict taking place in Annapolis, Maryland under the aegis of the United States. The summit, or as the Bush Administration downplays it as a meeting, will be to give fresh impetus to the unending six decades old conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The run up to the meet has been dimly viewed by most analysts, media houses and by Arab and Israeli populace; nevertheless, it does mark a shift towards some movement towards trying to solve the contentious issue that has been sidelined thanks to the war on terror and more pointedly the war in Iraq. While it would be fanciful to expect any major announcements let alone a defining path to peace, in US President George Bush’s view it does mark a first of many steps needed to bring an end to a conflict which is emotive and necessary to bring stability in the region and the larger world order. So just what should one expect from this conference?
For starters, there is no denying the fact that at the moment the three key leaders who are involved in the peace talks are weak politically both at home and abroad. President Bush enjoys approval ratings that hover at an all time low of close to 30%. The war on terror seems to go on unabated even as there is some genuine progress in Iraq after years of mindless violence brought about by the occupation and internal wrangling amongst Iraq’s ethnic factions. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also finds his authority diminished and low approval ratings over a series of scandals that have wracked his administration and have raised questions about financial impropriety by the prime minister himself. The political crisis reached its nadir earlier this year when Olmert and then Defense Minister Amir Peretz where blamed directly by a government investigation over Israel’s humiliating standoff against Hezbollah last year. The calls for his resignation may have receded but challenges remain for the prime minister to regain the confidence of his political allies and Israelis in general. The case of Palestinian Authority chairman and president Mahmoud Abbas is the most tenuous, having lost the elections in 2006 to Hamas, his Fatah faction has lost hold of the Gaza Strip which is home to close to one third of the Palestinians. With Hamas virtually rejecting the Annapolis peace talks, any agreement that he may sign onto will be largely rejected. Also, his position as a man of peace and moderation is likely to be seen as bending over backwards to the West, whose backing he clearly enjoys. So the Annapolis peace talks are more about photo-ops and a check on the things-to-do list for Bush rather than any meaningful solution that all parties publicly envisage. President Bush has talked about his legacy and the how he will be remembered after his term ends in 2009, fearing that Iraq might take up to much space in his post-presidential resume, he seems keen to show a diverse role he played in world affairs while as president. Also for the president who is widely seen as a man of war, the peace conference will seem to downplay his image as a war monger. But then again, while changing stripes maybe the attempt of Bush personally, there is a larger design behind holding this peace conference now.
The New York Times had correctly pointed out a few months ago that the renewed impetus given to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not only to achieve peace, but rather also to ensure that the Palestinians do not go over to the ‘other’ side. The other side being that of the Iranians. The War in Iraq and the recent war of attrition between Hezbollah-Hamas and Israel have only strengthened the hands of the Iranians, who now seem to enjoy more inspirational support than even the Saudis. The Saudis many have the economic might, but they are seem hand in glove with the US be it politically, economically or geo-politically. It is Iran that has emerged as a nation that has stood up for the pride and rights of the Palestinians and as a country that does not dither from calling a spade a spade. The Iranian nuclear issue had in the past few years isolated Iran amongst its neighbors and the West. But more recently, the right of Iran to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes has become an emotive issue amongst many in the Middle East, who see it as another example of the West trying to meddle in the progress of the Middle East. The sense that America favors only those it is friends with, while punishing any country that chooses not to ally with them is a popular rallying point that has seen Iran turn the tables on the diplomatic front. So much so that while all countries do not want to see Iran attain nuclear weapons they are chary about unleashing sanctions on Iran in its pursuit for nuclear energy. The potential economic benefits of nuclear reactors and the nuclear industry seemed to have put sanctions on hold for the time being. This renewed vigor has given Iran the legitimacy to speak as a major force in the Middle East. The active help the Iranians extend to the Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia factions in Iraq and to Syria means that there is an active Iranian club in the Middle East juxtaposed with the old American club which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon. The fear that the chance to broker peace might be left to the Iranians was alarming enough to ensure that America did all it could to fill a flight full of Middle Eastern leaders and bring them to Maryland. Had the Americans dithered now, the much acclaimed “road to peace” would not be through Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Washington but through Teheran.
Given the complexity of issues at hand and some red lines that neither side wants to cross including stated positions on the final borders of the two state solution, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the contentious future of Jerusalem all of which have the potential to end the process even before it begins. But then for all the negative speak on the peace progress and whatever maybe the intentions to hold the conference now, there is no denying the importance of achieving peace in the Middle East. Most conflicts in the region bear their origin to either the formation of Israel or the treatment being meted out the Palestinian people. The endless cycle of violence and the aggression by both Israel and Palestinian extremist groups has ensured generation after generation of hatred and bigotry. The issue of Palestine has been spoken of by tyrants like Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein to justify anti-Americanism. The peace between Israel and the Palestinians should have been the starting point of the war on terror. When Bush wanted to eradicate the “root cause of extremism” it should have closer to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv not Kabul and Baghdad. For the sake of peace in the region Annapolis must become more than a photo-op, in order to do so it will take courage and understanding by all parties. Only if Teheran and Damascus thought as much too.
For starters, there is no denying the fact that at the moment the three key leaders who are involved in the peace talks are weak politically both at home and abroad. President Bush enjoys approval ratings that hover at an all time low of close to 30%. The war on terror seems to go on unabated even as there is some genuine progress in Iraq after years of mindless violence brought about by the occupation and internal wrangling amongst Iraq’s ethnic factions. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also finds his authority diminished and low approval ratings over a series of scandals that have wracked his administration and have raised questions about financial impropriety by the prime minister himself. The political crisis reached its nadir earlier this year when Olmert and then Defense Minister Amir Peretz where blamed directly by a government investigation over Israel’s humiliating standoff against Hezbollah last year. The calls for his resignation may have receded but challenges remain for the prime minister to regain the confidence of his political allies and Israelis in general. The case of Palestinian Authority chairman and president Mahmoud Abbas is the most tenuous, having lost the elections in 2006 to Hamas, his Fatah faction has lost hold of the Gaza Strip which is home to close to one third of the Palestinians. With Hamas virtually rejecting the Annapolis peace talks, any agreement that he may sign onto will be largely rejected. Also, his position as a man of peace and moderation is likely to be seen as bending over backwards to the West, whose backing he clearly enjoys. So the Annapolis peace talks are more about photo-ops and a check on the things-to-do list for Bush rather than any meaningful solution that all parties publicly envisage. President Bush has talked about his legacy and the how he will be remembered after his term ends in 2009, fearing that Iraq might take up to much space in his post-presidential resume, he seems keen to show a diverse role he played in world affairs while as president. Also for the president who is widely seen as a man of war, the peace conference will seem to downplay his image as a war monger. But then again, while changing stripes maybe the attempt of Bush personally, there is a larger design behind holding this peace conference now.
The New York Times had correctly pointed out a few months ago that the renewed impetus given to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not only to achieve peace, but rather also to ensure that the Palestinians do not go over to the ‘other’ side. The other side being that of the Iranians. The War in Iraq and the recent war of attrition between Hezbollah-Hamas and Israel have only strengthened the hands of the Iranians, who now seem to enjoy more inspirational support than even the Saudis. The Saudis many have the economic might, but they are seem hand in glove with the US be it politically, economically or geo-politically. It is Iran that has emerged as a nation that has stood up for the pride and rights of the Palestinians and as a country that does not dither from calling a spade a spade. The Iranian nuclear issue had in the past few years isolated Iran amongst its neighbors and the West. But more recently, the right of Iran to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes has become an emotive issue amongst many in the Middle East, who see it as another example of the West trying to meddle in the progress of the Middle East. The sense that America favors only those it is friends with, while punishing any country that chooses not to ally with them is a popular rallying point that has seen Iran turn the tables on the diplomatic front. So much so that while all countries do not want to see Iran attain nuclear weapons they are chary about unleashing sanctions on Iran in its pursuit for nuclear energy. The potential economic benefits of nuclear reactors and the nuclear industry seemed to have put sanctions on hold for the time being. This renewed vigor has given Iran the legitimacy to speak as a major force in the Middle East. The active help the Iranians extend to the Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia factions in Iraq and to Syria means that there is an active Iranian club in the Middle East juxtaposed with the old American club which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon. The fear that the chance to broker peace might be left to the Iranians was alarming enough to ensure that America did all it could to fill a flight full of Middle Eastern leaders and bring them to Maryland. Had the Americans dithered now, the much acclaimed “road to peace” would not be through Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Washington but through Teheran.
Given the complexity of issues at hand and some red lines that neither side wants to cross including stated positions on the final borders of the two state solution, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the contentious future of Jerusalem all of which have the potential to end the process even before it begins. But then for all the negative speak on the peace progress and whatever maybe the intentions to hold the conference now, there is no denying the importance of achieving peace in the Middle East. Most conflicts in the region bear their origin to either the formation of Israel or the treatment being meted out the Palestinian people. The endless cycle of violence and the aggression by both Israel and Palestinian extremist groups has ensured generation after generation of hatred and bigotry. The issue of Palestine has been spoken of by tyrants like Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein to justify anti-Americanism. The peace between Israel and the Palestinians should have been the starting point of the war on terror. When Bush wanted to eradicate the “root cause of extremism” it should have closer to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv not Kabul and Baghdad. For the sake of peace in the region Annapolis must become more than a photo-op, in order to do so it will take courage and understanding by all parties. Only if Teheran and Damascus thought as much too.
posted by Karan Thakur @ 12:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home