Malcolm Fraser: Not Talking Is Never Good Enough

[ Middle East News Service Comments: Former Liberal Party of Australia [ie conservative] Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was a very public opponent of the Iraq War well before the fighting started. While I do not necessarily share all the nuances of his approach I think his is a sensible approach that deserves considering, His comment in regard to Israel and Palestine are particularly worthy of taking on board. There are many commentators in Israel whose analysis of Hamas would suggest that the organisation would have been receptive to the approach outlined here – Sol Salbe.]

Not talking is never good enough

Malcolm Fraser – The Age Op-Ed
May 22, 2007

PEOPLE like me, who from the outset opposed the Iraq war, feel deeply concerned at the dilemma in which the United States now finds itself. The debates about withdrawal, to set or not to set a timetable, divide the US in a way that has not occurred for many years.

To an observer from afar, from one whose country has participated in the conflict, it seems a major opportunity is now being missed.

The Democrats want withdrawal. In that I believe they are right, but they are wrong to attach a timetable. The President opposes a timetable, but he believes more military force, more of the same, can win. In that he is wrong. Both President and Congress are missing a significant opportunity. There have been suggestions that withdrawal should be timed to benchmarks dependent on Iraqi performance. That could be part of a settlement but it is not the major point and if nothing else is done it still will not work.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

The budget allocation for troops in Iraq should be passed, but only on condition that a strong diplomatic effort designed to achieve a regional solution to all the problems of the Middle East is launched with the full backing of the President and of Congress.

I suspect it is now beyond the capacity of the internal parties in Iraq, ignoring the region, to come to a resolution that will be effective and will bring peace. Iran and Syria must be party to any settlement if it is to last. Nobody can point to the shape of that settlement at this point, but unless diplomacy starts a settlement will never be reached. Unless people get into a room together and start to talk, the differences will remain and grow, containing always the risk of an even larger and wider conflict. In this conflict, one very old lesson, if not forgotten, has been cast aside. You need the confidence, the capacity to talk to the person whom you believe to be your enemy. You must have confidence to get into a room and negotiate.

A recent example of the behaviour of both the United States and the Soviet Union in some of the darkest years of the Cold War is the only testimony we need for this simple truth. If Eisenhower had refused to talk to Khrushchev, I believe there would have been a nuclear war between the superpowers.

One of the greatest mistakes of Middle East conflict is to believe that a settlement can be imposed by an outside power regardless of local sensitivities. It is all very well to establish a Government elected by Iraqis but it is too easy for those opposed to the American solution to depict this as a Government that represents American rather than Iraqi interests, because it was formed under the protection of American arms.

If there is to be a new diplomatic effort in the Middle East, it clearly must embrace all parties, including Iran and Syria. Its terms of reference will need to include not only the problems of Iraq, but also an ultimate settlement between Israel and Palestine, leading to an equal statehood for Palestine and a guarantee of perpetual security for Israel. There would need to be an end to double standards. Israel should therefore be subject to stringent nuclear safeguard arrangements and to the destruction of its nuclear arsenal.

The doctrine of not talking has not only perpetuated and made worse the problems in Iraq, it has made the problems in Palestine worse. Hamas won a legitimate election. People with knowledge on the ground knew that victory was likely but then, led by the US, nobody would talk to Hamas. They demanded public statements of Hamas that were a denial of its past in perhaps the most humiliating way. Public isolation, humiliation, will never succeed.

The West could have said to Hamas: "From our point of view, one of your major policies, perhaps your major policy, must change but you participated in the democratic process, we applaud that. We will judge you from the date of your election. We will talk to you about the requirements for permanent peace between Israel and Palestine." None of that alters the requirement that Hamas must ultimately accept the survival and security of Israel. But it would be far easier to bring Hamas to that point through diplomacy than through public humiliation.

The Bush policy of a troop surge will lead to greater failure and greater loss of reputation for a country that has over the postwar years done so much to advance worthwhile and liberal causes.

Diplomacy should be conducted by one person with the full support of the US Administration reporting, of course, directly to the President, but also reporting in an appropriate way and without restraint to the US Senate. Basic terms for the diplomatic charter should be worked out between the President and Senate, neither side having the unilateral power to change those terms.

The need to approve more money gives Congress an opportunity to establish a process that can lead to the resolution of outstanding issues and to peace. Without that process, without effective diplomacy, which in all likelihood only the US can lead, the Middle East faces a grim and tragic future.

Nobody should expect or believe there may be quick results. Ultimate solutions may take many years to achieve but diplomacy and negotiation must begin now if there is to be a solution.

Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.

[The independent Middle East News Service concentrates on providing alternative information chiefly from Israeli sources. It is sponsored by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the AJDS. These are expressed in its own statements]

© Scoop Media