On March 14 last year, six days before the Iraq war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was in ebullient mood. US President George W. Bush had just announced publication of the long-delayed Middle East road map to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
It was a decision Blair had long been urging on the White House. He was convinced progress towards a two-state solution was vital if the west was to demonstrate its "even-handedness" and commitment to security, democracy and human rights not only in Iraq but also in the key cockpit of the Middle East.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
In his attempt to justify Britain's involvement in the looming fight against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, overt American backing for the road map had become almost as important to Blair as obtaining a second UN resolution on Iraq. It was also a test of his influence with the Bush administration.
"I believe the importance of what President Bush announced earlier simply cannot be overstated," Blair said. "The road map represents the will of the international community ... it provides the route to a permanent two-state solution [and] a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005."
This was a prize of enormous value, Blair enthused.
"And what I hope people can do is to take this commitment now and hold us to it ... it is something that we are fundamentally committed to," he said.
What a difference a year makes. If the road map were not already dead in the water, then yesterday's assassination by Israel of the Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, may finally have sunk it. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak certainly thinks so. The killing, he said, has "aborted the peace process."
Condemnation of the assassination by the UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, by Britain's EU partners and other members of the international "quartet" cannot disguise the fact that Blair's high hopes of 12 months ago have again been punctured.
But what is surely also true is that the grounds for optimism expressed by Blair have steadily eroded almost since the moment his press conference ended. The Yassin affair, while momentous, is but the latest blow.
On the American side, Bush's focus on a two-state solution has gradually diminished.
"America is committed, and I am personally committed, to implementing our road map toward peace," he declared on March 14. But then came Iraq and all the unanticipated post-war problems that still plague the Americans there.
By last November, Bush was developing a far broader Middle East "vision" in which Palestine was one issue among many. In a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, he vowed to develop "a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East." In this, Palestine had but a walk-on part.
Since then, Bush's grandiose, non-specific ideas have morphed into an even vaguer reform plan entitled the Greater Middle East Initiative. Many in Washington now believe his aim is merely to contain the Israel-Palestine conflict until the November US presidential election is out of the way.
On the ground, in the embattled occupied territories and in Jerusalem's suicide-bombed streets, the road map has meanwhile been slowly dying. By last month Straw was grasping at the non-governmental Geneva accord as a way to keep hope alive.
"The peace process is at a fork in the road," Straw warned. "There is a real risk that people on both sides become so hardened ... that they stumble down the other road towards more violence, towards unilateral efforts to redraw borders."
Straw's reference to unilateralism was doubtless deliberate. For in the absence of any road map momentum, and left to his own devices by US inaction, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was busy drawing his own maps.
One aspect of Sharon's evolving, alternative path was the accelerated construction of a security fence closing off large parts of the West Bank. Another was his failure, although the Palestinians were also to blame, to launch a substantive bilateral dialogue. The latest plan for talks was cancelled last week.
But most importantly, Sharon proposed what is in effect his own made-to-measure, territorial deal, quite separate from (and at odds with) the road map. By suggesting that Israel may vacate Gaza entirely and close some settlements in the West Bank, he appears to have taken all the remaining steam out of US policy as stated with such apparent conviction by Bush 12 months ago.
Indeed, the Americans have almost stopped talking about a viable two-state solution. Separation and disengagement are the new names of the game - and Washington is playing along.
This as much as Sheikh Yassin's assassination may sound the final death-knell for the road map.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath