Dear Prime Minister:
We the undersigned, former British ambassadors, high commissioners,
governors and senior international officials, including some who
have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience
is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies
which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in
close co-operation with the United States. Following the press
conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated
these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties
public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and
will lead to a fundamental reassessment.
The decision by the U.S., the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a
"road-map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict
raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined
and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any
other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the
Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on
which such a settlement would be based were well-established:
President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his
presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were
well-understood and informal agreements on several of them had
already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing
effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or
to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the
"road-map" merely waited on American leadership, but waited in
vain.
Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international
community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel
Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and
illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.
Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you
yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which
for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to
restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for
such successes as those efforts have produced.
This abandonment of principle comes at a time when, rightly or
wrongly, we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as
partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.
The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no
effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with
experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the
coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has
proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by
terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor
helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of
Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis
may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now
be created by the coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually
all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in
America. We are glad to note that you and the President have
welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be
ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to
the United Nations to work with the Iraqis themselves, including
those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up
the mess.
The military actions of the coalition forces must be guided by
political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre
itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to
say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy
weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the
current confrontations in Najaf and Fallujah, all these have built
up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by
coalition forces probably total between ten and fifteen thousand
(it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to
have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in
Fallujah alone is apparently several hundred including many
civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each
loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery
and their sacrifice", apparently referring only to those who have
died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the
passions these killings arouse.
We share your view that the British Government has an interest in
working as closely as possible with the U.S. on both these related
issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe
that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest
urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for
supporting policies that are doomed to failure.
Yours faithfully, (52 former British foreign service officers)