I have always argued, both privately and publicly, that the best peace broker in the Middle East is the US government – whoever happens to be at the helm of the Presidency.

Although US administrations have often been perceived as tilting too much towards Israel, I feel that regardless of the composition of the members of the road map there is no government that is better placed to act and serve as a catalyst whenever peace negotiations grind to a halt.

For this reason I felt more than satisfied that the US managed to broker the agreement that was recently reached on the Gaza crossings, which included the Rafah crossing.

Some have even quite rightly claimed that this very significant event can be seen as a model to be followed in trying to solve other components of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Without such an agreement, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have been cosmetic, as it does not make sense to “liberate” a country, state or region without even giving it the right to an open border.

This is the first opportunity the Palestinians will have to control a border of their own.

This makes sense, not only in terms of national pride but also in purely economic terms, since apart from allowing Gaza citizens freedom of movement it will also provide a passage for Gazan exports, mainly in the agricultural sector.

One sincerely hopes that the US government will show the same resolve over the West Bank issue, although things are likely to stall in Israel until the general election is out of the way.

Palestinian Authority Minister of Planning Ghassan Khatib, who is also a political analyst, recently commented that in addition to the economic, political and humanitarian importance of opening up Gaza, the way in which this deal had been negotiated and concluded carries many lessons that can be applied to other aspects of the conflict.

The Middle East region simply needs a systematic, active and balanced third party to fulfil its peace-making role.

It was also a feather in the EU’s cap that it has been entrusted with ensuring the implementation of the agreement.

The EU has always been generous in assisting the Palestinians financially but it has never managed to exercise the kind of clout that the US has so far had in the region.

Condolezza Rice’s role not only upgraded the US contribution to this peace effort but her personal involvement managed to get the parties involved to exercise more flexibility than they would have done under normal circumstances.

This does not mean that the Palestinians in Gaza have won complete freedom. Their ID cards and passports are still issued by the Israelis.

Israel also continues to control both their airspace and their territorial waters, which means that, to a certain extent, Israeli occupation still prevails to a lesser degree.

But the symbolism of it all should fill everyone – including the Palestinians themselves – with hope instead of despair.

The main reason why there is such optimism is that the accord has had a significant psychological impact in the sense that it could mark the beginning of something even better.

The EU has a new role to play in the sense that, through its more active involvement, rather than limiting itself to the provision of funds it could also provide more expertise, help the Palestinians restructure their authority and even plan strategically ahead.

While the Israelis have sometimes been cynical and sceptical about the EU’s involvement in the region, the Palestinians have always welcomed it since it has never been perceived as an occupying force.

I sincerely hope that C. Rice will increase her involvement in the region, particularly after the Israeli and Palestinian elections are held.

The biggest achievement of all the multifacets of the accord is that an agreement has been signed – and is being implemented – that officially introduces the concept of an active third party role in post-disengagement Gaza.

A summit without Arab

leaders

European Leaders were far more keen to praise the terrorism accord reached in Barcelona during the recent Euromed summit than to probe why eight of the ten Arab countries present did not send their top leaders to attend such a summit.

Some might blame it on ill health. Others might attribute it to forthcoming elections. But a 20 per cent representation is nothing but a clear signal that all is not well within the Euromed “world” and that the level of confidence-building and trust that one would have expected to see develop during the process’s first decade has failed to materialise.

The Tunisians were perhaps the bluntest when they said that they would not go there to be lectured on human rights, democracy and other delicate issues.

I do not intend to suggest that these issues should be put on the back burner, but unless economic and political cooperation based on mutual trust really develops between these two worlds, then we shall continue to have a lopsided Euromed process, particularly since the European component has now grown from 15 to 25 members with the accession of ten new members to the EU.

email: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the main opposition Spokesman on Foreign Affairs

and IT.