Mitchell goes unsung
George Mitchell couldn’t add another feather to his cap. The Ireland-fame US diplomat, who was largely seen as the man who can help rewrite the Middle East history by brokering permanent peace in the region, has resigned unsung.
His two years of hectic shuttle diplomacy in one of the most volatile regions of the world, and subsequently between the world capitals, has just furthered the impression that it takes more than a policy prescription to address the Palestinian-Israeli imbroglio. If Mitchell’s utterances and efforts are profiled, it will inevitably convey the impression that as far as the groundwork for brokering a deal was concerned, it was very much there and only lacked the political will to further the envelope.
Mitchell’s walking down and out will be counted as an anathema for President Barack Obama’s administration. It was more than clear that it was Obama who stopped short of putting his foot down firmly when it came to speaking loud before the dispensation in Tel Aviv. This, of course, has come with a cost. The White House stands clueless and seems to be wandering in the dark in spelling out a clear-cut solution for the region. Obama’s electoral promise of brokering a two-state solution is in thin air, and nothing concrete has been achieved in his three years in office. On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had succeeded in manoeuvring his way out, whether it be delaying tactics across the table or getting scot-free with illegal constructions in the Occupied territories. Though the peace genie was at pains in lecturing Israel over the necessity to strike a deal with the Arabs, his efforts had borne fruit as far as his vision of Palestinian unity is concerned. The coming together of Hamas and Fatah, to an extent, forms the commitment to resolving conflict and advancing democracy.
The onus is now on Obama to bring to full circle the process he had initiated with his inauguration in office. The Middle East peace plan, which the White House is set to announce this week, should not be another booklet of salient features for academic discussion. It should reflect the consensus that Mitchell had brokered in the region, which called for a more hands-on-approach. Though many see the diplomat’s exit at this crucial hour as a result of policy disagreement, which had reached an impasse, the responsibility squarely lies on the White House to keep the doves in the loop. Washington’s Mideast policy, unfortunately, is a manifest of discrimination and leans at the doors of Tel Aviv. This is quite unbecoming for the status of the United States as honest broker in the region. At times when upheavals are the order of the day from Damascus to Sanaa and from Benghazi to Cairo, America’s playing the Israeli fiddle will be suicidal. The forthcoming weeks and months are of immense importance as far as real-politicks is concerned. The spring uprising in many of the Arab capitals and the in-principle decision on the part of Palestinians to unilaterally declare their statehood will have wider geopolitical ramifications. The US cannot afford to be on the other side of the fence.
Exodus unnerves Denmark
Copenhagen is critically conscious. Its unilateral measure to reintroduce control on internal borders is being contested across the European Union, as many see it as the beginning of the end of the unity project.
But it seems Denmark is unmindful of its impact, as it claims that the step is not a violation of EU treaties that guarantees freedom of movement across the 27-member states Union. The Schengen concept, which had come up for debate over the weekend, is likely to experience many such isolated restrictions being put to work by other states as well, as they find themselves dumbstruck while dealing with the new exodus of refugees from many of the Middle Eastern and North African countries.
Italy, which has embraced more than 25,000 immigrants since the upheavals begun in the region, has sent shivers down the spine across the continent. France, Germany and now countries as far as Denmark in the Scandinavia are reconsidering the liberal tourism regime they have been boasting for decades. Recently, Paris had to cancel some of the trains’ en-route southern Italy and undertook snap checking, arrest and deportation of many of the brown and black skin travellers. This is not merely a moment of policy perspective for the European Union, but also to dwell deep into the pros and cons of the issue in its socio-economic and
political outlook.
The Union’s endeavour to maintain passport-free travel for tourists legally inside their territory is highly appreciated. At the same time, the concerns that member states feel on security and social policy context cannot be underestimated. The creeping in restrictions in the form of random checks of cars and documents, midnight knocks at tourist resorts and a sense of xenophobia for non-white race citizens are alarming. Apart from ensuring that the Union’s security and sovereignty is not breached on the count of immigrants, the prosperous EU can spare a thought on chalking out a plan of action wherein it could look into the factors that compel many of those faceless people to adventure across the high seas.
Socio-economic disparity and political discrimination back home are reasons for the flight of people in search of greener pastures. Provision of a safe and serene life back home can make the difference.
0 comments:
Post a Comment