BRITISH Foreign Secretary David Miliband is on one of those trips to the Middle East that so many Western politicians regularly undertake. He has met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and now heads off for Lebanon and Syria for talks with government leaders there. The aim of the visit is largely fact-finding and, as such, evokes mixed feelings. How many times do Western and other politicians need to visit the region to understand the root problem here and do something about it? A lot, evidently. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been 16 times in the past two years, and there is precious little to show for it. A Palestinian-Israeli settlement is as remote as ever; meanwhile the blockade of Gaza remains in force. That is not to say that such visits always must have immediate results. On the contrary, Arab leaders (and in this they are supported by the Arab public) welcome any and every opportunity to present the Arab case to the wider world. If the argument for justice for the Palestinians has to be reiterated time and again, then so be it. In fact, David Miliband’s visit contains cause for guarded optimism. One of “fact-finding” aspects of the trip is to gauge response to an anti-settlement initiative the EU is on the verge of adopting, largely under British pressure. Like almost everyone else, the EU regards the settlements as illegal. However, opposition to them has been short on action, opening it to allegations of hypocrisy. Europe did nothing, for example, about imports manufactured in the settlements. Labeled “Made in Israel,” these goods benefit under the 2000 free trade agreement between the two sides despite patently not being made in Israel. Until now, that is. The British move to change this and stop EU imports from the settlements is a welcome development.
Welcome too is Miliband’s decision to go to Damascus. It is yet another sign — the first being French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit there two months ago — that Syria is being brought in from the cold after three years of isolation imposed by the West following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. That is important because whatever anyone may think of the government in Damascus there will be no peace in the region without it. But appreciated though these developments are, let no one delude themselves into imagining that this trip or any other by any European leader or government official is going to make for real change in the Middle East. The days are long gone when British or French governments can affect what happens in this part of the world. They cannot even do so when acting in concert with all the other Europeans under the EU umbrella, despite the fact that it is the biggest aid donor by far to the Palestinians or the region’s largest trading partner. The only country that can affect events here and change the political map is the US.
Clearly nothing is going to happen on that front before Barack Obama moves into the White House. It could be a lot longer. He has already made it clear that his priority will be the economy — and in the present situation that is perhaps understandable. However, he also says that he wants to restore the US’ reputation in the world. That makes the Middle East a must, even if an American opinion poll indicates that only 19 percent of respondents believe that he should make Middle East peace a priority. What the US does in the Middle East is the key to its reputation. If it does nothing there will be more than disappointment; there will be bitter anger at expectations dashed, hopes betrayed. That anger will not be confined to the Middle East.
