NEVER before have so many former British Amba-ssadors openly criticised Britain's foreign policy as they did recently against Prime Minister Tony Blair's handling of foreign policy in the Middle East. They perceive Britain's foreign policy in the Middle East remains unbalanced, which completely toes the dictates of the Bush administration. Controversy on British foreign policy has become much more vehement since the former Ambassadors sent a public letterto Tony Blair.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's uncritical support for President Bush in Iraq war and Bush-Sharon unilateral plan for settlement on Israeli-Palestinian conflict has disappointed and irked former British Ambassadors, many of them have served long periods in and around the Middle East. They argue that Blair's support for Bush's policies has jettisoned a long-standing principled stance of balance of British foreign policy in the Middle East. They have not restrained their views and on 26th April, sent a public letter to the British Prime Minister, addressing their concerns in no uncertain terms.
The public letter was signed by more than 50 former British Ambassadors to the Prime Minister, urging him to either influence US policy in the Middle East or to stop backing it. The former British Ambassador to the U N at the time of Iraqi invasion, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was number 2 with the Coalition Provisional Authority for six months in Iraq, has reportedly endorsed the stance of his former colleagues and was late in incorporating his name with those of his formercolleagues.
Initially, Prime Minister Blair told
the media that he would reply to their letter, but it appears that he has decided to ignore their views. Some of his senior parliamentary colleagues counter that the former Ambassadors do not fully appreciate the "nuances" of the British foreign policy on the Middle East. This means that they basically should not interfere. On 29th April, the Prime Minister as usual robustly defended his stance in Parliament supporting President Bush in Iraq and the Bush-Sharon unilateral plan, replacing the much-vaunted " Road Map to Peace" of April 2003.
Extracts from the letter:
The former envoys have argued in strong language that Blair has forsaken peace. The relevant extracts of the contents of the letter are quoted below for readers' ready reference. On Iraq, the former Ambassadors stated:" The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post Saddam settlement. All those with the experience in the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.. .The military actions of the Coalition
and Arab worlds.... But the hopes were ill founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence...Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are onesided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood".
They concluded the letter stating
crunch comes in the last sentence when they state that the existing policies are "doomed to failure". It is a very serious indictment on Tony Blair's gullible support for the US policies in Iraq and on Israeli unilateral peace plan.
The public letter is an unprecedented assault on the British Prime Minister. The former envoys including former Ambassadors to Syria, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UN condemned Britain for "abandoning" peace efforts
forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition"
On the Bush-Sharon plan, they added: " The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "Road Map" for the settlement of the Israeli/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic
very clearly: " We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure".
It will appear that the words employed in the letter are quite pointed and robust. They seriously question the Coalition's muscle-prone policies in Iraq and reject the claim that resistance in Iraq is being conducted by pro-Saddam people. Secondly, they argue that the Bush-Sharon unilateral plan is illegal and will likely to inflame the sentiments of the Islamic and Arab worlds. The
between Israel and Palestinians and for invading Iraq without an exit strategy. Their views against the current Blair's foreign policy in the Middle East is likely to weaken Blair's authority on foreign affairs at a time when he is being criticised by many of his own Labour Party members.
How did the initiative begin
It is reported that the letter signed by the 52 former Ambassadors originated a long way from London. On April 16, while visiting Tripoli, former British Ambassador Oliver Miles who served Libya during the 80s, watched the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in Washington and was incensed by his support for a Middle East plan adopted by President Bushand Prime Minister Sharon.
Mr. Miles reportedly said that when he became "steamed up", friends told him to do something. He sat down using the Internet to reach his family and friends. He drafted the basis of the letter, hunted down telephone numbers and addresses of former colleagues and sent it to them. Most of them replied and offered support, in particular those who had served in the Middle East. Support for action continued to stream in up until the letter was sent on to the Prime Ministeron 26th April. Mr. Miles has admitted that it could not have been done pre-e-mail days and certainly notfrom Tripoli.
Conclusion
The former British Ambassadors questioned the wisdom of Mr. Blair's blind alliance with the US President. No one has expected that Britain that traditionally led in shaping political contours in the Middle East has become subservient the under Labour Prime Minister's tenure to right-wing hawk policies of the Bush administration. It is extremely disappointing that Blair continues to pander to demands of the administration. People around the world look forward to Britain to stand up to the wrong policies of the Bush administration in the Middle East. Observers argue that rather than ignoring their statement, Blair would be wise to take heed of the views of the former Ambassadors. After all, their considered views come from great wealth of knowledge of and experience in the region and they are not afraid to publicly express and share them. Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassadortothe UN, Geneva.