Hasbeens attack the Prime minister and Bush (and Israel) with an open letter which is vague, whiney, short on any solutions and downright wrong. Plus it was mis-reported by many. Here is my summary based on the text of the letter:
Paragraph 1: The ambassadors express concern about “policies which [Blair has] followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States”
Paragraph 2 - After the recent Washington press conference, they felt it was time to express their anxieties which they hope will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment of the said polices.
Paragraph 3 - They note that the Middle East Road map raised hope that the great powers would resolve the Israel/Palestine problem which they say “more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds”. They do not note that it is in fact an Arab-Israeli conflict with the entire region having tried on 5 separate occasions to destroy Israeli by warfare and unceasingly by terrorism.
Paragraph 4 - They assert that the “legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established” and that former US president Clinton tried to help and that ” the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved”. They fail to note that Israel voted in the most pacifistic left wing government ever under Barak, made concession after concession and offered the Palestinians 95% of their requests by Arafat STILL launched the second Intefadah. The Arabs walked away from the peace process and back to war NOT the Israelis. Ever since the Israelis have been continuing their 60 year fight for survival and security.
Paragraph 5 - They moan that “nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence” and that the world has waited in vain for American leadership. The whole problem is that there is no “other side” with which to negotiate or discuss peace. The PLO are sidelined and utterly corrupt and terrorists like Hamas have it in their charter that nothing less than the annihilation of Israel will suffice. Furthermore, Israel and America are fighting the same Islamist enemies. They are opting for the destruction of those enemies, not negotiation with them.
Paragraph 6 - They claim worse has come and that the international community has been” confronted” “with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.” This grossly imbalanced and vague to the point of being bunk. What policies are they talking about? How are they illegal - by whose authority? Is it the security wall? Is it the fact of the settlements exist and cannot now be removed. By all expert accounts the wall Israel is building has been extremely effective in curbing suicide bombings and increasing security. It saves Israeli lives and as it is Israelis who are the targets of Islamist aggression, it is legitimate for them to take whatever measures are necessary to protect themselves.
Paragraph 7 - They are dismayed by “backward step” which they interpret as an abandonment of “nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land”. Might I point out that over those four decades no peace or security has been secured. On the contrary, all appeasement has invited attack. Lauding four decades of failed diplomatic efforts is proofing of nothing but the failures of those unrealistic proposals.
Paragraph 8 - They are particularly worried about this because we are “rightly or wrongly…portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq”. Where is the statement of support for the efforts of the coalition? Do they agree with Al Jazeera’s portrayal? Would the like to see Saddam back in charge? Or maybe they honestly believe someone like Al Sadr will make a good dictator for the Iraqi people.
Paragraph 9 - Here the diplomats assert that “there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement” I would like to see them defend this assertion. They refer to their predictions of serious and stubborn resistance to the occupation. Many predicted resistance but so what? That is not a reason NOT to depose Saddam, it simply means that the resistance must be crushed. This smacks of their frustration at not being able to stop the war so now they are saying “I told you so”. There is no I told you so. The millions of refugees and tens of thousands of dead simply did not materialise.
Paragraph 10 - They reject the assertion that the is “led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners”. Whereas the involvement by Syria and Iran in recent events is well known, there is little evidence of any genuinely popular resistance or will to return to the status quo ante. They imply that the policies of the US and UK take no account of the nature and history of Iraq “the most complex country in the region”. They then make an extraordinary defeatist claim: “However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the Coalition is naive.” So these esteemed diplomats are suggesting that Iraqis are doomed to dictatorship or worse, UN rule regardless of their desire for democracy? What exactly is their alternative to the current efforts? I am sure the people of Iraq will confound this bleak assessment.
Paragraph 11 - They want the UN to “clear up the mess”. Firstly, what mess? The 300,000 bodies of murdered Iraqis killed by Saddam’s regime? The Iranian and Syrian insurgents? Evidence of the WMD smuggled to Syria? Are they to “clear up” the shocking corruption, thievery and collusion with a mass murderer that the UN participated in with its Food for Oil program?
Paragraph 12 - They state the obvious, namely that “military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them.” They assert that “it is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders.” It is. They assert that “heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Vallejo, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition.” Military commanders decide what weapons are necessary for “the task at hand”. When fighting heavily armed insurgents, one must use heavy arms oneself. In both Najaf and Fallujah all bloodshed could be stopped immediately of insurgents stopped waging war on the coalition. Whilst they continue, they must surrender or be destroyed.
Paragraph 13 - They lament the loss on Iraqi lives. They should direct this at the insurgents and bombers who continue to slaughter innocent Iraqis and attack collation soldiers. They say it is “a disgrace” that the Coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate of the number of civilians killed in Najaf or Fallujah. I am sure, like the Al Jazeera propagandists, the Coalition could make up some numbers. They may even have relatively accurate estimates but they cannot know because they are not present in these cities. They are besieging them and the only reports coming out about casualties are almost certainly blatant lies.
Paragraph 14 - They mock tributes to fallen soldiers because they only refer to coalition fallen. Do they expect the US military to give tribute to the Insurgents they kill? Is it not enough that they express sorrow and regret for any civilians killed (unlike the Islamist foes who slaughter schoolchildren and anyone else they see fit.)
Paragraph 15 - An appeal to Tony Blair to expert “real influence as a loyal ally.” But what are they suggesting he do? What are they suggesting Bush does other than what they are doing already? What “urgent” changes do they want?
Finally, paragraph 16 - They say in a roundabout way that of Bush were to reject Blair’s prompting Blair ought to withdraw his support for “polices doomed for failure”.
It is a stupid letter. They suggest nothing. They offer nothing constructive and they are unjustifiably negative. I am glad these are former diplomats as I would be horrified if this lot were in office today.
{ 0 comments… add one now }