Last week was characterised by two positive quotes in favour of our neutrality from the most unlikely of sources. The editorial of a government-leaning English language Sunday newspaper and Minister Austin Gatt’s ICT strategy document.

The Sunday Times chose to declare the following when lamenting Michael Frendo’s loss of the race for the post of secretary general of the Commonwealth:

“In heading the Commonwealth, a Maltese candidate would have also benefited from the island’s neutrality, which is an under-rated asset given the ever complex global situation we face to-day.”

More or less at the same time in the new draft ICT strategy document, the government declared on page 17 that:

“We shall leverage on our traditional neutrality characteristics to establish Malta as a place where IT business can be conducted securely.”

Meanwhile it is ironic that while these two eminent sources have suddenly and surprisingly woken up to the positive attributes of our neutrality – which we as a Labour party have put at the forefront of our foreign affairs vision statement – Minister Frendo himself, did not even bother to mention our status of neutrality once in his foreign affairs strategic document and set of objectives.

Beyond Annapolis

Forgetting for a moment the last minute indecisions as to who was going to be invited to attend, and also at what level to be present at the Annapolis summit of last week, one must admit that the one-day conference – which was originally mooted to have meant to run for three days – did offer more than just a glimmer of hope.

Let me deal with the positives first.

1. US President George W. Bush’s firm commitment that during his time as president he has done all that he can to help the Palestinians and Israelis achieve this ambitious goal.

2. The joint understanding whereby the two sides pledged to work toward a permanent peace by the end of 2008.

3. The high level of representation by the Arab world, irrespective of whether this could have been triggered by their common fear of Iran, or not.

4. The US pledge to monitor and judge the fulfilment of the commitment on both sides of the road map.

5. Syria’s welcome presence which could eventually impact positively, not only on the long festering Golan heights issue, but even more so and with a greater sense of immediacy on Lebanon itself.

6. A point that our party has been making all along, that American power remains indispensable if a diplomatic solution is to be found to the Middle East conflict.

7. The regular ongoing meetings planned between the Israelis and Palestinians.

8.The vocal reaction of all supporters of the summit that inaction is not an option.

9. The welcome observations that the time may have been right for the summit precisely because all sides felt a sense of threat and urgency.

10. If Abbas achieves real tangible results, particularly on Jerusalem as well as other Olmert concessions, the Palestinians in Gaza might – I repeat might – feel that statehood is on the horizon and that they could be inclined to get on board the ship rather than be left behind.

11. Decades after Golda Meir denied that there was even a Palestinian people, Olmert made a remarkable speech about Palestinian suffering where he admitted that for dozens of years, many Palestinians have been living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation.

He also added that he knew that this pain and deprivation is one of the deepest foundations which fomented the ethos of hatred towards us (the Israelis).

12. One of the boldest ever Israeli statements was made when PM Olmert said that if the day comes when the two state solution collapses and we face a South African style struggle for equal voting rights, then as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.

13. Syrian participation showed that although they are perceived as being aligned with Iran and often dismissed as Hamas and Hezbollah sponsors, the fact that they sat at the table with moderate Arab states when their Iranian allies were protesting the meeting, was considered to be an indicator of the potential for splitting this radical bloc.

But if we want to be honest, fair and objective, we must also give due and serious consideration to certain threats, dangers and pitfalls that may still seem to appear on the political radar or horizon.

These are the following:

1. The upcoming 2008 presidential election may limit the Bush administration’s options, although the fact that bush himself will not be running for the presidency can give him a newly discovered sense of flexibility.

2. The need to quantify the very real cost of failure.

3. Nothing that happened at Annapolis gives any indication of how the substantive gaps on core issues may be overcome. In fact, the joint statement of understanding failed even to specify those issues by name.

4. The US president did not give the Palestinians any reassurances about territory.

5. The intense pressures Olmert faces on his own front, not to make further concessions particularly due to the reactionary policies of some of his domestic coalition partners.

6. The major issue that did not feature or fit into the Annapolis agenda was – the future of Gaza. Privately many diplomats did not exclude that Annapolis was also meant to marginalise Hamas, but at the end of the day my main concern is neither political factions’ fate in Palestine, but the plight of the Palestinian people.

7. The Israeli media reports that their defence establishment is busy considering the pros and cons of launching a large-scale military operation into Gaza as a possible way to assist Abbas in returning to power there, since many feel that such an operation could be the only way for Fatah to regain control of the Palestinian territory.

8. Abbas’s inherent weakness. The Jerusalem Post, last week reported that he is incapable of making a move in Gaza on his own, and with Hamas gaining strength in the west bank – and contrary to public thinking, it is just as strong there as it is in Gaza – he has his hands full just trying to survive in Ramallah.

9. An Israeli military incursion into Gaza might weaken Hamas, but some Israeli analysts claim that such an operation would have the opposite effect on the Palestinians, and could only bolster Hamas’s support base in the Gaza strip.

10. Although bold statements were made, we cannot ignore the comments of a liberal Jewish writer Jonathan Freedland, that in Annapolis we had three men united by weakness. He described them as follows: George Bush is in his last year with opinion poll ratings somewhere around his ankles, Ehud Olmert’s numbers are not much better, while Mahmoud Abbas is a president who rules only half his people. That said, strength and weakness are relative qualities – some are weaker than others!

11. The Saudi foreign minister’s Annapolis comment that Israel has to decide. It either wants peace or territory.

Meanwhile I recommend that one should look up our friend Dr Mustafa Barghouti’s comments to the Carnegie endowment for international peace, in his capacity of member of the Palestinian legislative council and leader of the independent Palestinian bloc. He speaks of the dissatisfaction in the West Bank with the national unity government’s collapse, as well as the way the current division between Fatah and Hamas is demoralising people and creating a negative climate in the area. He feels that there was, so far, a lack of improvement in terms of Israeli measures, whether roadblocks, construction of the apartheid wall, or other constraints on freedom of movement. He also complained that there was no progress regarding security institutions, since they continue to be mired in partisanship and factionalism to the extent that they have not seen any real reform yet to correct this. He is of the opinion that this is deepening pro Hamas partisanship in the Gaza strip and pro Fatah factionalism in the west bank. His main message is that effective institutions cannot be built without removing the constraints of the occupation and the roadblocks.

I sincerely hope that at the end of the day the positives that emerged from Annapolis will outweigh the negatives, and that the information I have, that Israeli civil society is very much committed to a two state solution, will spur them forward in this direction as I also hope that will be the case with the Palestinian people in their majority.

Meanwhile, I genuinely wish that Washington will follow up Annapolis with determined and decisive engagement.

e-mail: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the opposition spokesman for foreign affairs and IT