Diplomats Rebuke PM on Middle East

EWEN MacASKILL (diplomatic editor) / The Guardian (UK) 27apr04

[several articles below]

Fifty-two former British diplomats yesterday delivered a damning critique of Tony Blair's close alliance with George Bush and their "doomed" Middle East policy. The former diplomats, many of whom served as ambassadors in Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the region, sent a joint letter to Downing Street.

They told the prime minister they had "watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States".

They condemned a US strategy in Iraq they see as over-reliant on force. "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," they said.

But the spark for the letter came from an abrupt change in policy towards the Palestinians announced by Mr Bush in Washington last month and apparently endorsed by Mr Blair. Mr Bush, after meeting the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, supported the continuation of the bulk of the illegal Jewish settlements on the Palestinian West Bank.

Such a letter from diplomats with wide experience in the region - one of them, Richard Muir, was ambassador to Kuwait until 2002 - is an embarrassment for Mr Blair.

The former diplomats said Mr Blair needed to show as a "matter of the highest urgency" he has real influence in Washington. "If that is unacceptable or unwelcome, there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure."

They pleaded with MPs to respond to their initiative.

A Downing Street spokesman played down the criticism: "The [government's] position on the issues raised in this letter are well-known. The authors of the letter are entitled to express their views."

The spokesman insisted that the Sharon plan offered an opportunity to return to peace negotiations.

The former diplomats disagree. One of the signatories, Sir Harold "Hooky" Walker, the last British ambassador to Iraq, said they saw Mr Bush's support for Mr Sharon's plan as a huge departure from an international framework for a Middle East settlement that had been understood by everyone for 40 years, and they were concerned about Mr Blair's apparent support for this.

"We thought this was very significant and very sad," Sir Harold said.

The letter originated with Oliver Miles, British ambassador to Libya in 1984 and ambassador to Greece until 1996. "It is an indication of our serious concern that what is probably the biggest ever such collective group has gone straight to government in this way," Mr Miles said.

Although publicly the Foreign Office backed the Downing Street line, in private many serving diplomats opposed the war in Iraq and are critical of the way the US has handled the postwar situation. They are also hostile about Mr Sharon's conduct towards the Palestinians.

Sir Menzies Campbell MP, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "This is a most remarkable intervention in the debate about the Middle East from a group of people who are almost certainly the most expert in Britain on the issue.

"The prime minister would be well advised to take account of their criticisms".

The letter came as the Foreign Office formally announced that Edward Chaplin, head of the Middle East and North Africa department at the Foreign Office, is to become ambassador to Iraq on July 1. Mr Chaplin was briefly kidnapped by Revolutionary Guards in Iran in 1987.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1204098,00.html 1may04

Diplomatic Divide

Leader / The Guardian (UK) 28apr04

There are three big things to say about the robustly critical open letter to Tony Blair on Middle East policy from 52 former British diplomats published yesterday. The first is that its publication is a genuinely significant event. The word "unprecedented" is overused and has been much in evidence in the last 24 hours. In this case, though, its use is wholly justified. Attempts to liken the diplomats' letter to the open attack against Margaret Thatcher's policies signed by 364 economists in 1980 are wide of the mark. Economists are forever promoting their views in public.

Diplomats—even retired ones—are not. Discretion is implanted in their DNA from an early age. In extreme circumstances, they may send an internal note or, rarer still, ask for a private meeting. They do not do open letters to prime ministers. And they certainly do not do open letters using words like "dismay", "naive", "illegal" and "doomed"—and publish them in the press. That is a breach of the code. It signals the fact that this is an exceptional event that cannot be brushed aside or easily forgotten.

The second big thing is nevertheless to inject a note of contextual caution. Feelings are inevitably and rightly high about Israel-Palestine, about the crisis in Iraq, and about the prime minister's support for the US. But the diplomats do not speak for the whole of the foreign service—much of which is at least as strongly Atlanticist as Mr Blair- and nor are their views holy writ. Ask yourself how often the whole Westminster village embraces the views of the Foreign Office mandarinate with enthusiasm? Certainly not over the European Union, that is for sure. If 52 retired diplomats had published a letter calling for the adoption of the EU constitution, it is a fair bet that they would not get the lead slot on the BBC News, the splash in the Daily Telegraph or be rewarded with an approving leader in the Daily Mail. It is not impossible that they would find themselves denounced as an arrogant elite who have gone native and whose time has passed.

But the main thing to say about the letter is that the diplomats are overwhelmingly right. The three large points that they make are, first, that the US government has unilaterally committed itself to a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict; second, that the US is now paying the price for having no effective post-invasion plan for Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and, third, that Britain has not exerted its influence to redress these dangerous policies.

The breaking-point for the organisers of the letter appears to have been the joint press conference given by George Bush and Mr Blair in the White House Rose Garden on April 16. This was a genuinely shocking event. Mr Blair made no effort either implicitly or explicitly to distance Britain in any way from the president's unilateral endorsement of the Sharon withdrawal plan on April 14. Nor did he give any hint of having qualms, or even anything independent to say, about US tactics and priorities in the increasingly bloody battles in Iraq. On the contrary. Mr Blair appeared to give his backing to both strategies. It was a disastrously complacent performance and it is not surprising that it outraged the diplomats, as it also outraged so many others.

Ever since then, it is true, Mr Blair and his officials have tried to repair the initial damage. They have portrayed the Sharon plan as an opportunity to return to the Middle East road-map, where all issues will be part of the final status negotiations. And they have emphasised that the Bush administration is working with the United Nations representative Lakhdar Brahimi in Iraq. But these are fig leaf efforts. The attempt to reconcile mainstream opinion in this country with the undisguised unilateralism of the underlying US positions is, as the diplomats said, naive and probably doomed.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1205013,00.html 1may04

Revolt grows as MPs and military back diplomats' fears:
No 10 Critics 'ignore realities on the ground'

MICHAEL WHITE & RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR / The Guardian (UK) 28apr04

Tony Blair and Jack Straw joined forces yesterday to reject the criticisms of their Middle East policies by 52 former diplomats as "unbalanced" and likely to weaken Britain's influence further by driving a wedge between London and Washington. As they accused their critics of looking for "perfect solutions instead of working with the realities on the ground", unease over the threat to the Middle East peace plan led 108 MPs - 87 of them Labour - to endorse a Commons motion condemning President George Bush's pro-Israeli comments.

The diplomats' criticism is echoed by Britain's military chiefs, who have privately expressed deep concern about US tactics in Iraq.

The diplomats' unprecedented letter voiced "deepening concern" over the occupation of Iraq and Mr Blair's apparent endorsement of the unilateral Israeli plan for Palestine. It prompted speculation that it must have been written with the encouragement of senior serving Foreign Office diplomats.

Yesterday it appeared to divide the diplomatic and academic community.

"It's a bit harsh to accuse him of not acknowledging their concerns," said one eminent former mandarin who denied that the prime minister had resiled from the Middle East road map, or endorsed the Israeli plan. He called the 52 "ivory tower" critics.

Others complained that the diplomats' letter made no reference to terrorist attacks against Israel. That underlined the majority's professional ties to the Arab world as "a cabal of Arabists", they argued.

Mr Blair was guarded in his comments. With Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, at his side at No 10, he said people were "personally entitled to criticise" but insisted Britain had a duty to help Iraq find a stable future and to help achieve a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

"I do not think any discussion of that issue is right unless we balance the suffering of both sides," he stressed.

In their letter, the former diplomats said if Britain was unable to exert "real influence" with the US administration, it should abandon its support for policies which were "doomed to failure".

But Mr Straw said on BBC Radio 2: "It is very important for us to try to work with the United States and not to have a polarisation that would weaken our influence and weaken the influence of Europe."

But the concern about British policies is shared by senior military figures. One defence source, referring to the US military attacks on Falluja and Najaf, told the Guardian: "We do things differently."

"The British should be saying to the Americans, 'If we are to be involved then we'll do it our way,'" echoed Colonel Christopher Langton, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, referring to the holy Shia city of Najaf.

Despite Mr Blair's comment that "the advice we have is that we have sufficient troops to do the job", senior officers are drawing up plans to send more troops to Iraq. They are also making it plain that they do not want to operate under US command. "There are severe worries if we operate under the American way of doing things, and getting all the flak, then it will spread to Basra," a defence source said.

Britain has about 7,700 troops centred on Basra, a distinct zone of control insisted on by Sir Michael (now Lord) Boyce, chief of the defence staff before the invasion.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1204986,00.html 1may04

'He cannot ignore their letter'

Tony Blair's policy is rebuked by former British diplomats

Editorials from various UK newspapers / The Guardian (UK) 28apr04

Daily Mirror Editorial, April 27

"If any group of people understand the problems of the Middle East, it is the 52 former senior diplomats who sent an explosive letter to the prime minister [on Monday]... They were brutally scathing about the policy pursued by America and supported by Britain...

"[The signatories] believe that the actions of the US and UK are making the world a more dangerous place and the chance of peace impossible. Tony Blair has been a good friend to President George Bush. Far too good. The time has come for him to do what good friends sometimes have to do and tell the president the truth about what he is doing."

Richard Beeston Times, April 27

"The unprecedented criticism... represents a damaging blow to the credibility of the government's foreign policy in the Middle East. It is also likely to be interpreted in the region, and at home, as further evidence of the high political price Mr Blair is paying for his continued loyalty to Mr Bush...

"[The diplomats] were highly dubious about the war in Iraq. But they were prompted into public action by the collapse of peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians and by Mr Bush's open endorsement of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and his controversial unilateral moves...

"Although the signatories hope the letter may galvanise a policy change, some envoys who refused to put their names to it predicted the move would have little lasting effect."

Scotsman Editorial, April 27

"For more than 50 former British diplomats, representing a wealth of political experience in the Arab world, to have signed a letter to Mr Blair criticising his Middle East policy is unprecedented. The sheer weight of accumulated knowledge amassed by these critics implies that no one can afford to ignore this broadside...

"All this means that the prime minister, battered on almost every front, is now being targeted by Britain's foreign policy establishment... The real impact of this letter is likely to be on public perceptions of Mr Blair's leadership. Assaulted on every side, his domestic agenda all but non-existent, he wanted to become a foreign policy PM. On Europe, Iraq and now the Middle East, the widespread view is that he is prone to miscalculation and cannot be trusted."

Daily Express Editorial, April 27

"More than 50 former ambassadors, high commissioners and governors have savaged Mr Blair's handling of the Middle East... The British public is going to be increasingly disenchanted as casualties mount [in Iraq] and the realisation grows that this is going to be worse than Afghanistan... One day the prime minister will have to answer for all this: that day might come sooner than he thinks."

Herald Editorial, Glasgow, April 27

"In a sense, it was conduct unbecoming of a diplomat. However, the decision... to eschew the normal channels and go public [on Monday] on their concerns... is a measure not only of their strength of feeling but also their frustration...

"It is probably the biggest protest against government policy on any issue ever delivered by distinguished former British diplomats. It is very damaging for a prime minister who looks more vulnerable and less sure-footed as events in Iraq unfold contrary to his expectations... He would be wise to heed the diplomats' words because their analysis is right... They leave Mr Blair with a stark choice regarding his closest ally: either begin influencing America's doomed policies in the Middle East or stop supporting them. Mr Blair cannot ignore the letter."

Deborah Orr Independent, April 27

"Perhaps the final irony in a war that has never been short on it, is that all those who are against violence and bloodshed must hope now for troops to remain in Iraq. Without them, a terrible war will be triggered, a war that would prove a lot of righteously angry people right in their opposition to invasion in the first place. But what sort of victory is that? Let's hope Mr Blair listens to his diplomats, draws a line under his past failures, and starts to understand that this is not about being right. Maybe the rest of us should do the same."

Evening Standard Editorial, London, April 27

"Many of the pro-Arab Foreign Office officials, known as the 'Camel Corps', have long viewed the world in a way which has little to do with the political realities up the road at No 10, and some of their names are on this document... Many of them are long since retired and, though they may have deep knowledge of Middle Eastern countries, may not have direct personal experience of the way in which the events of September 11 2001, changed America's stance towards the world...

"Mr Blair's approach has been to try to refine American policy where he can. He had some, albeit limited, success in persuading the president to seek UN approval before the Iraq war. Other than using the level of British forces' participation in the occupation of Iraq, it is hard to know what more Britain could presently do to 'exert influence' on the US than it is already trying to do."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,12900,1204693,00.html 1may04