Tweet
SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T PAY FOR AMERICA TO 'DO SOMETHING'
Leon Hadar, Washington Correspondent
The Business Times Singapore
August 14, 2007 Tuesday
MUSLIMS and non-Muslims fight over territory for years, resulting
in thousands of casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees as
negotiations mediated by foreign governments have failed to resolve
the conflict.
But guess what? No American pundit has been calling on Washington to
'do something'.
And why not? Because it's not the the Israelis and the Palestinians
fighting over the West Bank; it's the Armenians and Azeris clashing
over Nagorno-Karabakh.
You probably know about what is happening in the West Bank. After
all, you are being bombarded with front page news reports about every
encounter between Jews and Arabs in the Wild West Bank. And pundits on
the 24/7 news shows warn that unless Washington does this or that to
end the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed - revive the 'peace process',
send a envoy to the Middle East, convene a peace conference - we
will witness a major war in the Middle East, and who knows, World
War III? Oil embargoes? The end of the world as we know it?
But Nagorno-Karabakh? To make a long story short, the territory has
been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the
beginning of the 20th century. The two nations Armenia and Azerbaijan
fought a war for its control in the final years of the Soviet Union.
Since the end of the war in 1994, most of Nagorno-Karabakh remains
under Armenia while the parties have been holding a series of talks.
There is no doubt that the American and other governments and
international organisations would welcome a resolution of the conflict,
and have indeed been trying to help the Azeris and the Armenians to
settle their differences. In fact, Washington has also been trying to
resolve the conflict between the Greeks and the Turks over Cyprus -
and bring an end to the Turkish occupation of the northern part of
the island - for the last 30 years with little success.
And in all likelihood, we are going to learn to live with these and
other similar conflicts - ranging from Kashmir and the civil war in
Sri Lanka to bloody disputes that are ravaging sub-Saharan Africa -
for many years to come. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which,
like the disputes over Nagorno-Karabakh, Cyprus and Kashmir, involves
ethnic-religious communities fighting over a territory - has become
an obsession for the members of Washington's elite. It reflects their
inability to disassociate themselves from an issue that ceased to be
central to US national interest although outside players, including
the Israel and the oil lobbies, to continue to press it to the top
of the US agenda as a way of extracting American support for their
respective clients. So like the Energiser Bunny, the US-led 'peace
process' keeps going, and going.
Indeed, US President George W Bush announced recently that he was
planning to convene an international conference to help restart
Israeli-Palestinian talks.
But if anything, it is American preoccupation with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict - motivated by the commitment to Israel
and the need to appease the Arab oil-producing states - that has helped
ignite anti-Americanism, including terrorism, in the Middle East.
By creating expectations that it could indeed 'make peace' in the
Middle East, Washington has created expectations that cannot be
fulfilled for the simple reason that the sides to the conflict are
not ready to make the compromises necessary to reach an agreement.
Hence America's failure to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to
make peace ends up producing an anti-American backlash, which in turn
creates even more pressure on Washington to 'do something'.
It is time for Washington to consider embracing a certain benign
neglect when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not
different from the one its employs in dealing with Nagorno-Karabakh
and other conflicts.
It should be ready, if necessary, to work with other international
players to facilitate a resolution of the conflict - but only if
and when the sides are ready to make concession with regard to core
issues like the fate of the Jewish settlements, the Arab refugees
and Jerusalem.
And even in that (unlikely) case, Washington should refrain from making
long-term and costly security and economic commitments either side.
It would not be surprising if this kind of US 'constructive
disengagement' from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could actually
create incentives for the Israelis and Palestinians to achieve real
peace. And if they fail do that, they are going to be the ones -
not unlike the Azeris and the Armenians - who would end up paying
the price for their historic blunders.
Leon Hadar, Washington Correspondent
The Business Times Singapore
August 14, 2007 Tuesday
MUSLIMS and non-Muslims fight over territory for years, resulting
in thousands of casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees as
negotiations mediated by foreign governments have failed to resolve
the conflict.
But guess what? No American pundit has been calling on Washington to
'do something'.
And why not? Because it's not the the Israelis and the Palestinians
fighting over the West Bank; it's the Armenians and Azeris clashing
over Nagorno-Karabakh.
You probably know about what is happening in the West Bank. After
all, you are being bombarded with front page news reports about every
encounter between Jews and Arabs in the Wild West Bank. And pundits on
the 24/7 news shows warn that unless Washington does this or that to
end the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed - revive the 'peace process',
send a envoy to the Middle East, convene a peace conference - we
will witness a major war in the Middle East, and who knows, World
War III? Oil embargoes? The end of the world as we know it?
But Nagorno-Karabakh? To make a long story short, the territory has
been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the
beginning of the 20th century. The two nations Armenia and Azerbaijan
fought a war for its control in the final years of the Soviet Union.
Since the end of the war in 1994, most of Nagorno-Karabakh remains
under Armenia while the parties have been holding a series of talks.
There is no doubt that the American and other governments and
international organisations would welcome a resolution of the conflict,
and have indeed been trying to help the Azeris and the Armenians to
settle their differences. In fact, Washington has also been trying to
resolve the conflict between the Greeks and the Turks over Cyprus -
and bring an end to the Turkish occupation of the northern part of
the island - for the last 30 years with little success.
And in all likelihood, we are going to learn to live with these and
other similar conflicts - ranging from Kashmir and the civil war in
Sri Lanka to bloody disputes that are ravaging sub-Saharan Africa -
for many years to come. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which,
like the disputes over Nagorno-Karabakh, Cyprus and Kashmir, involves
ethnic-religious communities fighting over a territory - has become
an obsession for the members of Washington's elite. It reflects their
inability to disassociate themselves from an issue that ceased to be
central to US national interest although outside players, including
the Israel and the oil lobbies, to continue to press it to the top
of the US agenda as a way of extracting American support for their
respective clients. So like the Energiser Bunny, the US-led 'peace
process' keeps going, and going.
Indeed, US President George W Bush announced recently that he was
planning to convene an international conference to help restart
Israeli-Palestinian talks.
But if anything, it is American preoccupation with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict - motivated by the commitment to Israel
and the need to appease the Arab oil-producing states - that has helped
ignite anti-Americanism, including terrorism, in the Middle East.
By creating expectations that it could indeed 'make peace' in the
Middle East, Washington has created expectations that cannot be
fulfilled for the simple reason that the sides to the conflict are
not ready to make the compromises necessary to reach an agreement.
Hence America's failure to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to
make peace ends up producing an anti-American backlash, which in turn
creates even more pressure on Washington to 'do something'.
It is time for Washington to consider embracing a certain benign
neglect when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not
different from the one its employs in dealing with Nagorno-Karabakh
and other conflicts.
It should be ready, if necessary, to work with other international
players to facilitate a resolution of the conflict - but only if
and when the sides are ready to make concession with regard to core
issues like the fate of the Jewish settlements, the Arab refugees
and Jerusalem.
And even in that (unlikely) case, Washington should refrain from making
long-term and costly security and economic commitments either side.
It would not be surprising if this kind of US 'constructive
disengagement' from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could actually
create incentives for the Israelis and Palestinians to achieve real
peace. And if they fail do that, they are going to be the ones -
not unlike the Azeris and the Armenians - who would end up paying
the price for their historic blunders.