Oliver Miles, a former head of the Near East and North African department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, writes:
If we are embarking on yet another Middle East war,
we should start by reflecting that it is likely to be long – the Syrian war is
only in its fourth year, but the Lebanon civil war lasted 15 years, and we have
been in Afghanistan for 13 years – and that the end is likely to be different
from what we now foresee.
The blitzkrieg of the so-called Islamic State (Isis) across Syria and Iraq required a military response and has had one. But the war will end with a political and not a military solution.
Isis is above all a threat to Syria and Iraq, and after them to the other near neighbours: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait.
Barack Obama has done a good job mobilising support from some of them, but the political pressure on him to be leader risks allowing them to make token contributions only.
That is exactly why Isis staged the monstrous beheadings that have mesmerised us all.
If they can provoke the west into what they will call a crusade they can count on growing support from marginalised Muslims both in the Middle East and in countries such as Britain and France.
It is depressing that the government seems to be following the example of Tony Blair, who ignored consistent advice from the Foreign Office, MI5 and MI6 that our Middle East policy – and in particular our Middle East wars – has been a principal driver in the recruitment of Muslims in Britain for terrorism here.
The prime minister has quite rightly referred to a duty to confront the threat on the streets of Britain; but not by actions that will make it worse.
Our first aim should be to look for ways to place the responsibility where it belongs – with the people of the region.
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan have made a military contribution, but what is needed is a political contribution from the heavyweights – Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Egypt.
The Conservative MP Rory Stewart made an eloquent plea in the Commons two weeks ago for adequate resources to be given to the Foreign Office and the other agencies responsible for analysing the Middle East and developing our policy there.
If, for instance, we are looking for Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who may be able to stand up to Isis as they stood up to al-Qaida, it can’t be done by searching on the internet or by a couple of special advisors in No 10.
Syria is a dilemma.
It is not simply the next step for parliament to authorise war measures, once operations in Iraq confirm what is already obvious – that a military solution for Iraq without Syria is impossible.
The legal situation is very different. Intervention in Iraq at the request of the legitimate government has a sound legal basis, but finding any legal basis for action in Syria is problematic.
We are probably going to have to accept the fact that we backed the wrong horse, misled by the honourable hope that the opposition of the Syrian people would put an end to a very unpleasant regime. Compromise and negotiation will be needed.
It is precisely in these political questions that Britain may still have something unique to offer. Certainly many people in the region believe that we do.
We are told that the US is very keen to have Britain onside. That is good, and gives us an opportunity to use our influence with America. What should we do?
First, we should reinforce and insist on respect for international law.
As a medium-sized power and a major trading nation, we have more at stake in that than the US. Obama will not be against; he is no George W Bush.
Next we must always hold the door open to negotiation. It may be unthinkable now, but eventually talking will be needed with whatever develops from Isis in its present form, or from its fragments.
The experience of Northern Ireland is relevant; “no talking to terrorists” may be a good slogan, but it delivers deadlock.
Third, we can help through our diplomacy to mobilise support in the region. Iran, for example, is almost as tricky a problem as Syria.
It shares our objective of bringing Isis under control; it has military assets that are probably the most effective and, other than those of Iraq and Syria themselves, the most available in the region; but it has only just begun to climb out of a generation-long feud with the US. Each finds it difficult to see the other as anything other than a bloodstained monster.
We have helped and can help more to bring Iran back into the fold.
Last and most important, we should cash in some of our hard-earned American goodwill and take a step for which we have waited too long: we should recognise Palestine, preferably bringing with us the few remaining EU refuseniks and aligning them and us with most of the rest of the world.
Sir Vincent Fean, former British consul general in Jerusalem, made the case eloquently in an article in a newspaper last week.
The way is prepared.
Fean points out that Britain noted at the UN three years ago that “the Palestinian Authority has developed successfully the capacity to run a democratic and peaceful state, founded on the rule of law and living in peace and security with Israel … Palestine largely fulfils the legal and technical criteria for UN membership, including statehood, inasfar as the occupation allows.”
This step would be a reaffirmation of our policy, which is based on the two-state solution. What is a two-state solution without acceptance of two states?
The effect on our standing in the Middle East and our ability to influence events would be extremely positive. It would do us no harm in Europe.
As for America, it would be idle to look for public agreement, since the administration’s hands are tied by Congress (although Obama himself has been treated with contempt by the Israeli prime minister and would probably see the point).
Such an initiative would be similar to the Venice declaration of 1980, when Britain and a group of other leading European countries defined a negotiating framework for Israel and the Arabs based on land for peace (which turned into the idea of a two-state solution).
America didn’t like it, but in the end picked it up and ran with it. Any decent poodle owner likes a dog that barks once in a while.
Meanwhile, in Iraq and Syria, we should leverage our readiness to use force to get the new Iraqi government to develop its inclusive approach, in contrast with the ruthless imposition of Shia hegemony by its predecessor.
Only the Iraqi government can win back the loyalty of the Sunnis, whose despair has driven them into the hands of the men in black. Only through Iraqi boots on the ground can our force and American force prevail.
Then, after the next shake of the kaleidoscope, we must find a way to do the same in Syria.
The blitzkrieg of the so-called Islamic State (Isis) across Syria and Iraq required a military response and has had one. But the war will end with a political and not a military solution.
Isis is above all a threat to Syria and Iraq, and after them to the other near neighbours: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait.
Barack Obama has done a good job mobilising support from some of them, but the political pressure on him to be leader risks allowing them to make token contributions only.
That is exactly why Isis staged the monstrous beheadings that have mesmerised us all.
If they can provoke the west into what they will call a crusade they can count on growing support from marginalised Muslims both in the Middle East and in countries such as Britain and France.
It is depressing that the government seems to be following the example of Tony Blair, who ignored consistent advice from the Foreign Office, MI5 and MI6 that our Middle East policy – and in particular our Middle East wars – has been a principal driver in the recruitment of Muslims in Britain for terrorism here.
The prime minister has quite rightly referred to a duty to confront the threat on the streets of Britain; but not by actions that will make it worse.
Our first aim should be to look for ways to place the responsibility where it belongs – with the people of the region.
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan have made a military contribution, but what is needed is a political contribution from the heavyweights – Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Egypt.
The Conservative MP Rory Stewart made an eloquent plea in the Commons two weeks ago for adequate resources to be given to the Foreign Office and the other agencies responsible for analysing the Middle East and developing our policy there.
If, for instance, we are looking for Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who may be able to stand up to Isis as they stood up to al-Qaida, it can’t be done by searching on the internet or by a couple of special advisors in No 10.
Syria is a dilemma.
It is not simply the next step for parliament to authorise war measures, once operations in Iraq confirm what is already obvious – that a military solution for Iraq without Syria is impossible.
The legal situation is very different. Intervention in Iraq at the request of the legitimate government has a sound legal basis, but finding any legal basis for action in Syria is problematic.
We are probably going to have to accept the fact that we backed the wrong horse, misled by the honourable hope that the opposition of the Syrian people would put an end to a very unpleasant regime. Compromise and negotiation will be needed.
It is precisely in these political questions that Britain may still have something unique to offer. Certainly many people in the region believe that we do.
We are told that the US is very keen to have Britain onside. That is good, and gives us an opportunity to use our influence with America. What should we do?
First, we should reinforce and insist on respect for international law.
As a medium-sized power and a major trading nation, we have more at stake in that than the US. Obama will not be against; he is no George W Bush.
Next we must always hold the door open to negotiation. It may be unthinkable now, but eventually talking will be needed with whatever develops from Isis in its present form, or from its fragments.
The experience of Northern Ireland is relevant; “no talking to terrorists” may be a good slogan, but it delivers deadlock.
Third, we can help through our diplomacy to mobilise support in the region. Iran, for example, is almost as tricky a problem as Syria.
It shares our objective of bringing Isis under control; it has military assets that are probably the most effective and, other than those of Iraq and Syria themselves, the most available in the region; but it has only just begun to climb out of a generation-long feud with the US. Each finds it difficult to see the other as anything other than a bloodstained monster.
We have helped and can help more to bring Iran back into the fold.
Last and most important, we should cash in some of our hard-earned American goodwill and take a step for which we have waited too long: we should recognise Palestine, preferably bringing with us the few remaining EU refuseniks and aligning them and us with most of the rest of the world.
Sir Vincent Fean, former British consul general in Jerusalem, made the case eloquently in an article in a newspaper last week.
The way is prepared.
Fean points out that Britain noted at the UN three years ago that “the Palestinian Authority has developed successfully the capacity to run a democratic and peaceful state, founded on the rule of law and living in peace and security with Israel … Palestine largely fulfils the legal and technical criteria for UN membership, including statehood, inasfar as the occupation allows.”
This step would be a reaffirmation of our policy, which is based on the two-state solution. What is a two-state solution without acceptance of two states?
The effect on our standing in the Middle East and our ability to influence events would be extremely positive. It would do us no harm in Europe.
As for America, it would be idle to look for public agreement, since the administration’s hands are tied by Congress (although Obama himself has been treated with contempt by the Israeli prime minister and would probably see the point).
Such an initiative would be similar to the Venice declaration of 1980, when Britain and a group of other leading European countries defined a negotiating framework for Israel and the Arabs based on land for peace (which turned into the idea of a two-state solution).
America didn’t like it, but in the end picked it up and ran with it. Any decent poodle owner likes a dog that barks once in a while.
Meanwhile, in Iraq and Syria, we should leverage our readiness to use force to get the new Iraqi government to develop its inclusive approach, in contrast with the ruthless imposition of Shia hegemony by its predecessor.
Only the Iraqi government can win back the loyalty of the Sunnis, whose despair has driven them into the hands of the men in black. Only through Iraqi boots on the ground can our force and American force prevail.
Then, after the next shake of the kaleidoscope, we must find a way to do the same in Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment