The release of an abducted BBC journalist in Gaza is being seen by some as an attempt by Hamas (which denies any part in the kidnapping) to curry favor with Tony Blair, who on stepping down as Britain's prime minister was appointed international envoy to Israel and Palestine. Blair has the thankless task of helping Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas build institutions for a viable state, following Hamas' military takeover of Gaza.
Given the stakes, this is a task worth undertaking despite the high risk of failure. But unless Blair gets a lot of unexpected support, failure is what will happen.
Four basic facts govern Blair's role:
■ No peace is possible unless the Palestinian government becomes master in its own house;
■ Nothing is possible if Gaza remains a virtual charnel house;
■ Abbas cannot succeed and Hamas cannot be politically weakened unless there is massive external economic assistance;
■ It is imperative to limit the damage caused by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to everything else that has to be done in the Middle East.
Blair isn't the first statesman to try helping the Palestinians. James Wolfensohn, former head of the World Bank, tried earlier in Bush's term. Wolfensohn made some progress, but it was not enough, especially when the US, Israel, and the EU chose to starve the Palestinians financially after Hamas won its unexpected victory in last year's Palestinian elections. Wolfensohn quit in frustration.
Blair is the most senior out-of-power statesman ever to get engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict. He cannot be dismissed as a functionary with no political base. His role has been blessed both by Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He has a long history of engagement in Arab-Israeli issues, and for years pressed for effective outside efforts to move the Palestine problem toward resolution.
At the same time, Blair won't just take orders from the US. That would be the kiss of death, following Blair's controversial mimicking of US policy in Iraq. Instead, at least on paper, Blair will work for the so-called Quartet, which also includes the EU, the UN and Russia. Also, his formal role is limited to helping the Palestinians sort out their economic and political affairs, not trying to negotiate a peace settlement -- a task reserved for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But Blair's high political profile means that what he does can't be divorced from the broader politics or quietly played down if things don't go well.
At the least, Blair must press for a radical increase in funds provided by the outside world to the Palestinian government as well as to the 1.4 million Palestinians trapped in Hamas-run Gaza. So far the US has pledged US$40 million in humanitarian funds for Gaza (just US$30 a person) and about US$86 million in security training money for the West Bank. These sums will be added to Palestinian tax receipts that Israel collected but refused to hand to over to a government that included Hamas; Israel is now releasing about half of the approximately US$700 million. But total funds pledged by all sources are only a small fraction of what is urgently needed.
If Abbas is to compete with Hamas and its well-developed social-welfare structure and to avert human catastrophe in Gaza, he needs billions rather than millions of dollars in aid. Along with a major increase in US funds, the EU needs to increase its aid dramatically. But if outside money is to flow, Blair must get the Palestinian government to rein in its rampant corruption.
All this requires clear thinking. At the RAND Corporation, for example, a team of researchers has laid out a comprehensive approach to building a successful Palestinian state, covering governance, security, education, health, water, investment -- as well as long-term economic relations with Israel and the outside world. RAND's practical ideas have drawn praise from some Palestinian as well as Israeli leaders, precisely because they are about people more than about politics.
But even if Blair can get the economic development issues right, he can't stop there if Abbas is to have a chance to succeed. Blair will need to gain Israel's assurances that life for Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, will become better. That includes greater freedom of movement, both within the West Bank and between it and Gaza. Blair will also likely press Israel to prove its intentions by stopping all settlement activity in the West Bank -- no new settlements, no expansion of existing ones.
By the same token, Blair will need to press the Palestinians to deliver a virtual cessation of attacks on Israel from Palestinian territories, including by Hamas, lest all peace efforts be blown apart by renewed fighting. As always, such a cessation would be at the mercy of extremists competing for power or bent on making peace impossible.
In the process, Blair will have to talk to all parties, including Hamas -- an Israeli and US sticking-point.
These are all needs to be met even before the US can try again to broker a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. In the end, the obstacles may cause the "Blair option" to fall short. But everyone committed to a positive outcome for Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East should wish Blair good luck.
Robert Hunter, US ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998, is senior adviser at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. The RAND study cited above, Building a Successful Palestinian State, can be downloaded at www.rand.org/palestine/
Copyright: Project Syndicate/RAND
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS