With fresh leaders in Britain and France, pundits wondered if Middle East policies might change, writes Rasha Saad While commentators argued it was still too early to guess what approach both leaderships might have towards the Middle East, they insist there are signs that are worth pointing out. For Amir Taheri, whatever its eventual shape, Nicolas Sarkozy's Middle East policy is sure to be different from that of his predecessors in at least three ways. In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat Taheri argues that first Sarkozy does not see France as a rival, let alone an adversary, of the United States for influence in the Middle East. Taheri said that if anything, Sarkozy is likely to seek close cooperation with Washington on a range of issues, especially those linked to fighting terrorism, securing energy supplies, and curbing Iran's regional ambitions. "While Sarkozy does not wish to get France involved in the conflict in Iraq. He is certain to have a more positive attitude towards helping new Iraq rebuild its economy and institutions," Taheri wrote. Secondly, Taheri said Sarkozy was likely to steer French policy away from its heavy reliance on personal relations with individual leaders in the region. This would do away with the ambiguities that have always characterised France's relations with most Arab states, Taheri says. "What is certain is that French foreign policy under Sarkozy will not be as dull, cynical, and ultimately pointless as it was under Chirac," concludes Taheri. Shifting to the scene in Britain, Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that British foreign policy, unlike its domestic affairs, does not change with a change in its leadership. "From Wilson to Thatcher to Major and Blair, London's positions have always been similar to those of the United States. Therefore, we should not expect any surprises from Gordon Brown," Al-Rashed wrote. Al-Rashed explained that since we have not heard much about Brown's opinions on world issues such as Iraq, Palestine, Iran and terrorism, this is likely to mean that he does not intend to pull his forces from Al-Basra before he sees an initial US pullout. Moreover, Al-Rashed adds, Brown will not take a stand against Israel and will not negotiate with Iran before it shows some flexibility on its nuclear programme. He will also not halt the trials of terrorists or release those who have been convicted. "Hence, it was an internal cosmetic surgical procedure that has nothing to do with foreign policy for which Blair was often criticised," Al-Rashed wrote. Al-Rashed adds that although British policy is always close to US policy, how it relates to Washington is different. It either leads or is led. He said Britain enjoys a political system that is relatively free of pressure, unlike the US system which is burdened with and restricted to the interests of the various lobbies and pressure forces. That is why, Al-Rashed wrote, the British influence was positive and led to repeated changes following the US positions advanced on the Palestinian issue since the early 1980s that reached the stage of proclaiming the White House's endorsement of the principle of establishing a Palestinian state. "Since he is a product of the Labour Party, we expect Brown to play the same role of treating US policy when it suffers from fever," Al-Rashed concludes. In the London-based Al-Hayat Patrick Seale wrote that the first task of Britain's new prime minister will be to repair the damage caused by the Iraq war and that Blair is going to devote his energies to the Middle East, perhaps in an attempt to repair damage to his own, much battered, reputation. Neither man faces an easy task. The problem for Gordon Brown is that the damage from the Iraq war is so extensive that it will take years, perhaps decades, to repair. The problem for Tony Blair is two-fold: first, his pro-American and pro-Israeli record is such that few Arabs will trust him, certainly not the radicals. Secondly, the job he has been given as the Quartet's envoy to the Middle East is strictly limited. Seale explains that the United States, Israel and even the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, do not want Blair to play a political role because this might encroach on their own interests and activities. Seale adds that Blair's restricted brief is to help the Palestinian Authority develop honest and effective government institutions -- no doubt with the aim of making it an acceptable partner for Israel. This means he will be working closely with President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Mohamed Fayyad on the West Bank, as they are already being showered with funds and international political support. For Seale it remains to be seen whether Blair will spend much time -- indeed any time at all -- helping Hamas in Gaza, which, like the US and Israel, he persists in demonising as a "terrorist organisation". "This will be the real test for Tony Blair. If he boycotts Hamas, his mission is doomed. If, on the contrary, he establishes contact with Hamas and attempts to persuade the European Union and other donors to channel funds and political encouragement to it, he will anger Washington and its Israeli ally, and will soon be out of a job," Seale wrote. Mustafa Zein wrote in Al-Hayat that some Arabs have the right to be sceptical about the intentions of Blair for many reasons. "The man was enthusiastic about the war on Iraq, as if he was one of the American neo- conservatives. He participated in promoting the lies about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. He assured the House of Commons that Saddam could launch a chemical attack within 45 minutes. He did not apologise for the war and did not pay attention to Iraqis and was not moved by enormous bloodshed in Mesopotamia. He said that what's happening is worth suffering for and that it is 'enough that we got rid of Saddam Hussein'," Zein wrote. He left while hearing the voices of demonstrators against his policy.
