Tweet
la progéniture anglaise au proche orient entraîne ses parents et ses parents adoptifs vers les fonds,le très influent daily telegraph élève l'idée que la grande bretagne doit arrêter israel dans ses aventures qui ne font que compliquer les choses au proche orient,cette région de tous les dangers ou on n'a pas résolu un seul conflit depuis des années,mais ou les problèmes s'accumulent,au risque d'avoir dans quelque années uns situation pire que celle de la guerre froide,avec un conflit israelo-arabe non résolu,un iraq divise et instable,un iran nucleaire,une syrie encerclée etc ...
la diplomatie anglaise dans cette région s'est occupée d'abord du business et moins des relations politiques et humaines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html
The most dispiriting aspect of the G8 summit was the fact that the world's most powerful leaders, even when coincidentally assembled in one room, were unable to come up with any meaningful concerted initiative to try to deal with the outbreak of warfare in Lebanon.
While Tony Blair's famous "Yo!" conversation with President Bush suggested to many people that the two of them were too close, the real lesson of the G8 was that the leaders as a group are not close enough: despite the influence of Russia over Iran, France in the Arab world, and the US over Israel, these countries were not able to mount the intensive and coordinated diplomatic effort that the world had the right to expect.
It may be, of course, that any attempt to negotiate a ceasefire in recent days would have been doomed - Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation that set out to escalate the conflict, and Israel can hardly be expected to end its offensive at this stage unless captured soldiers are returned, rocket attacks ended, and some hope provided that Lebanon's future will be different from its past. But more active diplomacy now could at least be paving the way for whatever settlement is eventually reached, and would at least give some hope of preventing a long war.
For the truth is that a protracted conflict will not only be a desperate tragedy for the people of Lebanon but may very well not be in Israel's own best interests. The Israelis have had little option in recent days but to respond to Hezbollah's aggression, but aerial bombardment will not destroy a terrorist army, and a ground invasion will involve a heavy price for keeping it temporarily at bay. In the end, Israel will need a stable, democratic Lebanon with sufficient international support to keep order in its own land.
That is why Britain's stance should be deeply sympathetic to Israel's predicament but protective, too, of the moderate Lebanese voices who now feel abandoned. In some instances, such as attacks on the Lebanese army or on parts of the civil infrastructure, Israeli actions have been disproportionate, and our Foreign Office should not be afraid to say so: our position in international affairs may often be linked to that of the United States but it does not have to be identical to it.
Yet this weekend's fighting is more than a local war - it is a reminder that the Middle East is likely to become more dangerous rather than less so. Within a few years we might easily be facing a nuclear-armed Iran, a still-unstable Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan that is worse than it is today, a stalled peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, and perhaps one of our major Arab allies on the verge of collapse.
This would represent the most dangerous situation in world affairs since the darkest moments of the Cold War. Its prospect requires British and other Western politicians to become steeped in knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs, armed with a coherent, long-term policy.
The immediate priorities, aside from Lebanon, are obvious. One is Iran's nuclear ambitions. On this, British ministers have rightly worked to construct a united front of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and backed a generous offer to Iran. They should be at the forefront of calling for a tough line on sanctions if that offer is rejected.
Another is the alarming state of Afghanistan. Last week, the Defence Secretary produced the worryingly complacent assessment that the Taliban and similar groups pose no long-term threat to the stability of that country. Yet more British troops are to be sent there. The Government should be making the case now for more forces from our Nato allies - highly likely to be needed - and for a powerful international coordinator to speed up reconstruction and win the confidence of Afghans.
Failure in Afghanistan, or over Iran, would be a catastrophe. But whatever happens on these fronts, it is essential that British policy, now and for years to come, gives greater weight to the nations of the wider Middle East. Our influence in the region is at a low ebb. From the Gulf states comes a quiet but continuous complaint that Britain pays them insufficient attention. In nine years of intense foreign activity, the Prime Minister has never been to Qatar or the United Arab Emirates. His "personal envoy" to the region is his fundraiser, Lord Levy. In a properly run government, his personal envoy would be the Foreign Secretary, and such countries would be near the top of her list, able to play key roles in our dealings with Iran and Iraq.
We need to reach out to these and other states to help them develop their own regional security framework. And elsewhere we should elevate Nato's "Mediterranean Dialogue" to a level of genuine partnership with such nations as Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Tunisia. Beyond the defence relationship, we can work with many countries to foster links between our parliaments and educational institutions, promote cultural links and bring young people together. We and our allies in Europe should be discussing with them the common threats we face - terrorism, religious radicalism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.
Such an enhancement of our engagement with the broader Middle East is an important national priority. And it needs to be pursued across departments in a fully functioning Cabinet, with senior ministers given the information to evaluate what is happening and make their own judgments - in contrast to the sofa-style decision-making of the Blair Government, which has led to so many misjudgments, such as the failure to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.
A reinvigorated foreign policy is a major challenge for this country. But if we do not act, the challenges will be all the greater.
la diplomatie anglaise dans cette région s'est occupée d'abord du business et moins des relations politiques et humaines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html
The most dispiriting aspect of the G8 summit was the fact that the world's most powerful leaders, even when coincidentally assembled in one room, were unable to come up with any meaningful concerted initiative to try to deal with the outbreak of warfare in Lebanon.
While Tony Blair's famous "Yo!" conversation with President Bush suggested to many people that the two of them were too close, the real lesson of the G8 was that the leaders as a group are not close enough: despite the influence of Russia over Iran, France in the Arab world, and the US over Israel, these countries were not able to mount the intensive and coordinated diplomatic effort that the world had the right to expect.
It may be, of course, that any attempt to negotiate a ceasefire in recent days would have been doomed - Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation that set out to escalate the conflict, and Israel can hardly be expected to end its offensive at this stage unless captured soldiers are returned, rocket attacks ended, and some hope provided that Lebanon's future will be different from its past. But more active diplomacy now could at least be paving the way for whatever settlement is eventually reached, and would at least give some hope of preventing a long war.
For the truth is that a protracted conflict will not only be a desperate tragedy for the people of Lebanon but may very well not be in Israel's own best interests. The Israelis have had little option in recent days but to respond to Hezbollah's aggression, but aerial bombardment will not destroy a terrorist army, and a ground invasion will involve a heavy price for keeping it temporarily at bay. In the end, Israel will need a stable, democratic Lebanon with sufficient international support to keep order in its own land.
That is why Britain's stance should be deeply sympathetic to Israel's predicament but protective, too, of the moderate Lebanese voices who now feel abandoned. In some instances, such as attacks on the Lebanese army or on parts of the civil infrastructure, Israeli actions have been disproportionate, and our Foreign Office should not be afraid to say so: our position in international affairs may often be linked to that of the United States but it does not have to be identical to it.
Yet this weekend's fighting is more than a local war - it is a reminder that the Middle East is likely to become more dangerous rather than less so. Within a few years we might easily be facing a nuclear-armed Iran, a still-unstable Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan that is worse than it is today, a stalled peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, and perhaps one of our major Arab allies on the verge of collapse.
This would represent the most dangerous situation in world affairs since the darkest moments of the Cold War. Its prospect requires British and other Western politicians to become steeped in knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs, armed with a coherent, long-term policy.
The immediate priorities, aside from Lebanon, are obvious. One is Iran's nuclear ambitions. On this, British ministers have rightly worked to construct a united front of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and backed a generous offer to Iran. They should be at the forefront of calling for a tough line on sanctions if that offer is rejected.
Another is the alarming state of Afghanistan. Last week, the Defence Secretary produced the worryingly complacent assessment that the Taliban and similar groups pose no long-term threat to the stability of that country. Yet more British troops are to be sent there. The Government should be making the case now for more forces from our Nato allies - highly likely to be needed - and for a powerful international coordinator to speed up reconstruction and win the confidence of Afghans.
Failure in Afghanistan, or over Iran, would be a catastrophe. But whatever happens on these fronts, it is essential that British policy, now and for years to come, gives greater weight to the nations of the wider Middle East. Our influence in the region is at a low ebb. From the Gulf states comes a quiet but continuous complaint that Britain pays them insufficient attention. In nine years of intense foreign activity, the Prime Minister has never been to Qatar or the United Arab Emirates. His "personal envoy" to the region is his fundraiser, Lord Levy. In a properly run government, his personal envoy would be the Foreign Secretary, and such countries would be near the top of her list, able to play key roles in our dealings with Iran and Iraq.
We need to reach out to these and other states to help them develop their own regional security framework. And elsewhere we should elevate Nato's "Mediterranean Dialogue" to a level of genuine partnership with such nations as Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Tunisia. Beyond the defence relationship, we can work with many countries to foster links between our parliaments and educational institutions, promote cultural links and bring young people together. We and our allies in Europe should be discussing with them the common threats we face - terrorism, religious radicalism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.
Such an enhancement of our engagement with the broader Middle East is an important national priority. And it needs to be pursued across departments in a fully functioning Cabinet, with senior ministers given the information to evaluate what is happening and make their own judgments - in contrast to the sofa-style decision-making of the Blair Government, which has led to so many misjudgments, such as the failure to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.
A reinvigorated foreign policy is a major challenge for this country. But if we do not act, the challenges will be all the greater.
Commentaire