Conflicts Forum

In a speech in London this week (prior to addressing the Baker commission in Washington), British prime minister, Tony Blair, laid out his “whole Middle East” strategy. Blair asserted that addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be at “the core” of such a strategy yet British diplomats are reported as being deeply frustrated that the White House has a “complete lack of interest” in the issue.

In his speech, proceeding with a claim that what is happening in the Middle East today “is not complex,” “it is simple,” Blair presented the conflict as one of several “pressure points” that must be relieved “one by one” so that Iran can be offered a “clear strategic choice:” that they “stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq,” become Middle East peace partners, and abide by “their international obligations,” or face isolation.

In other words, dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “core” to Blair’s strategy for confronting Iran.

The residents of Gaza currently living under siege might wonder in what sense their plight is being held up as a core issue if this is simply part of a coordinated reaction to Iran’s growing power.

Acknowledging that Iran feels threatened, Blair said that it has “a genuine, if entirely misplaced fear, that the US seeks a military solution.” He assured the Iranians that America seeks no such solution, but having just been (re)branded a part of a “global nexus of terrorism,” Tehran probably draws no comfort from Blair’s assurance.

Indeed, while the British might favour a collective approach to the region’s problems, Israeli officials accompanying Ehud Olmert during his visit to Washington this week, “indicated,” according to the Wall Street Journal, “they thought Mr. Bush would be cool to the idea of an international conference on the region’s problems, even if the Baker commission recommends such a step.”

As a further indication that the Bush administration wants to create distance between itself and the commission’s recommendations, the White House launched a comprehensive internal review of Iraq policy this week. The Washington Post reports that, “the administration is basically trying to do in one month what the ISG has done over eight months.”

Elsewhere…

After long delays, Al Jazeera English, AJ’s new English-language news channel goes on the air this week. Aiming to be the channel that covers “the untold stories,” managing director, Nigel Parsons, says “we intend to cover the developing world fully.”

Unlike Western news organizations, “rather than having instant experts land there and tell us a story,” on AJE, “Africans will report Africa and Asians will report Asia. I hope that will help express what al-Jazeera is all about,” says London bureau chief Sue Phillips, “- not just one guiding light but several.”

In Israel there is a mixed response to AJE’s launch, ranging from the claim that Israel has “no answer” to Al Jazeera (a claim coming from someone who has apparently not been exposed to the U.S. media), to the expectation that like Al Jazeera in Arabic, the new channel will be fairer to Israel than either the BBC or CNN.

It looks like Americans will be the last to join AJE’s global audience as the company struggles to sign up with U.S. distributors, but Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Jon Alterman says, “in a lot of the world that speaks English, Al Jazeera International will be a decentered take on how the world works. There’s a global media ecology out there which the United States has decreasing dominance over.”

Printer-friendly format

Share This