British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (l) greets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as he visits 10 Downing Street, London, Oct. 31.

Britain has sound reasons for seeking good relations with Saudi Arabia. Arab culture does not readily forgive hosts who are inhospitable. The boycott by Vincent Cable, the acting Liberal Democrat leader, of the state visit by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is as pointless as it is discourteous.
The Government’s own stance, however, has been less than wholly welcoming: David Miliband is, of course, perfectly entitled to take time off to attend the birth of an adopted child; but to withdraw from a state occasion at very short notice is, to say the least, unfortunate.
State visits are important ceremonial and symbolic occasions, intended to underpin a relationship of value to both countries. This visit has been treated as though Saudi Arabia were an unpleasant and embarrassing regime from which Britain is emphatically eager to distance itself.
It is important, therefore, to restate the reasons for the visit and the strategic interest that Britain has in maintaining a smooth relationship with the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia is, by far, this country’s most important political and economic partner in the Middle East.
It is pivotal to the settlement of all three conflicts destabilising this troubled region: the Israeli-Palestinian question and the turmoil in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer, and a crucial force in attempting to maintain reliable supplies at predictable prices.
And it is the land from which Islam emanated and which guards the sacred shrines of one of the world’s great religions.
The importance of British trade with Saudi Arabia cannot be overestimated. British exports were worth £4.4 billion last year, more than the total to all the other countries in the Middle East.
The £25 billion al-Yamamah defence contract is the largest overseas defence deal Britain has ever concluded, or is ever likely to conclude. And although the alleged pay-offs to a Saudi prince are embarrassing and the manner in which the investigation was quashed was extremely unusual, the egg is on British, rather than Saudi, faces.
Nor is it realistic to play down Riyadh’s regional role. Its diplomacy has, for years, been marked by excessive caution and a habit of using its wealth to buy the peace of every dubious Arab leader or extremist faction.
That has changed. The Saudis have become bolder and more ready to engage in the issues. It was King Abdullah’s plan for a comprehensive settlement with Israel that formed the basis of the Arab peace proposals five years ago.
And although the Saudis have no relations with Israel, they are ready to attend the proposed summit with Israel, provided all sides can overcome the bickering over the agenda. Britain, long engaged in the search for a regional settlement, recognises that Saudi moderation is crucial if the wider Muslim world is to accept a deal.
timesonline.com

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been shuttling between various Arab capitals and Israel in an attempt to bring about a consensus on how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute at the Middle East peace conference scheduled for this month.
The question is: Is the US administration sincere in bringing about a just and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East?
Rice has indirectly admitted that there is only a feeble chance of a peace agreement coming out of the Annapolis conference.
In her recent statement to the US Congress, Rice said that the Palestinian president would not be able to offer any significant concessions without the support of the Arab countries.
The aim of the conference, she said, is not to found a terrorist state but a state capable of fulfilling its security commitments, a democratic country that truly represents its people.
She also alluded in her statement to the missed opportunity for establishing a Palestinian state before Yasser Arafat’s death.
If you go by a recent report in the Israeli daily Maariv, Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert and Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed not to broach issues such as the final status, return of refugees and Beit-ul-Moqaddas in the Annapolis meeting.
Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have succeeded in convincing Abbas that the conference was meant to revive the peace process and issue a call to return to the old road map for peace and not to make any major breakthrough on basic issues, Maariv said in its report.
Olmert has also ruled out announcing any major concessions except to make a call for reviving peace efforts.
The Arab leaders whose support is key to bringing peace to the region are skeptical about the outcome of the conference without any specific agenda to settle the thorny issues of refugees, borders and Beit-ul-Moqaddas.
It is apparent that President Bush wants to make the occasion a grand spectacle attended by world leaders representing the G-8 countries, the UN, the Middle East Quartet and the Arab states though it will only sign an empty agreement.
Arab countries should insist that they would attend the conference only if serious moves are made to achieve real peace. Otherwise their attendance would be endorsing the Israeli scheme to prolong the conflict unresolved with the express support of the US. Their attendance would be harmful to their own interests in the long run.
Hassan Tahsin
ARABNEWS.COM

American officials report that the number of sectarian and other killings in Iraq has declined since the onset of the military “surge“.
But, while the number of killings may, indeed, have fallen, does that mean Iraq is really safer?
Insecurity in Iraq is most strikingly illustrated by the number of people fleeing their homes.
The United Nations estimates that, since July, the number has risen by 60,000 every month.
The best estimate is that around 16% of Iraq’s population, or one in six Iraqis, no longer live in their homes.
Roughly half of those who have fled have also left the country, implying 2 million refugees. This leaves another two million who have been displaced internally, and who represent an emerging humanitarian tragedy.
There have been international reports and fundraising campaigns to support Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan, but the internally displaced have received less attention, despite their greater vulnerability, owing to their proximity to the conflict and the poor standard of basic services in Iraq.
They tend to be less visible, and it is more difficult for donors and agencies to assist them.
Internal displacement predates the 2003 Iraq invasion. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, large numbers of people were forcibly relocated through either conflict or government policy.
Since 2003, displacement has affected all the peoples of Iraq, and the central reason remains the same--the use of violence to expel people from an area with the aim of increasing political and economic power.
Mixed neighborhoods across Iraq have been targeted by one side or another as sectarian violence has risen and local militias wield power.
The inability of the government or the multi-national force to curb this intimidation reflects the absence of the rule of law. Other factors causing displacement include operations of the multinational force itself, crime, the lack of basic services, and desperate poverty.
The complexity of Iraq’s society and history means that many people have been displaced more than once, or have returned from exile only to become internally displaced.
According to the UN, 69% of those displaced since February 2006 come from Baghdad, which demonstrates the extent of the “sectarianisation“ of the capital.
Thus, one reason for the “success“ claimed by supporters of the military surge may well be that sectarian cleansing in Baghdad has been hugely effective and is now nearly complete.
Displaced Iraqis who remain in the country move to areas where their community is strong.
Displaced Shia tend to move from the center of the country to the south, Sunnis from the south to the center, and Christians to Nineveh province.
In mixed cities such as Baghdad and Baquba, those forced to move gravitate towards newly homogenised districts.
Most displaced people rent accommodation, stay with family or friends, or squat, while a smaller number take refuge in camps.
There are big refugee camps in Kerbala, Wasit, Diyala, and Nineveh, but most of the displacement is urban rather than camp-based, and thousands of displaced families live in major cities such as Baghdad and Mosul.
These people now account for many of the eight million Iraqis who are in absolute poverty and in need of emergency assistance.
Education is minimal, healthcare is inadequate, and many die without even being accounted for.
Whereas between 25% and 40% of Iraqis may require food assistance at any given time, this figure is much higher for displaced people, owing to their poor access to the public distribution system.
Only a third of the displaced had access to the system last year, while half reported receiving food rations only occasionally.
It is a new phenomenon in Iraq to see people, particularly women and children, looking in the rubbish every day for something to eat.
In such conditions, many young people feel they have little choice but to join violent groups, if only to provide some income and a level of protection.
Female-headed households, in particular, face great difficulties in protecting and supporting their families.
There are increasing reports of Iraqi women resorting to prostitution and of trafficking in women and children to neighboring countries.
The government recently announced the extension of a program of emergency cash allowances to widows.
However, this is insufficient to help most of the 3 million widows, while corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency hamper efforts further.
Another tragedy of the current conflict has been its impact on minority communities, which make up 10% of the population and are targets for eradication.
Violent attacks have caused a huge exodus, jeopardising the existence of Christians, Yazidis, and Mandeans, who have lived in Iraq for hundreds of years.
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

The visit of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to India in August; India’s multi-nation military exercise with the navies of Australia, Japan, Singapore and the United States in September following the trilateral naval exercises with Japan and the United States in April; and the planned visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to China following China’s and India’s first joint counter-terrorism training in November were all events confirming that India’s “Look East“ policy is in full swing.
While India has a long-standing history of engagement with East and Southeast Asia, which has been couched in shared values, history and culture, it has now been embedded in pragmatism and shared interests, such as resource interdependence and economic integration, to build a more solid foundation.
Fueled by globalization, the liberalization of India’s economy and the rise of transnational security concerns, India’s “Look East“ policy has also been tied to broader interests such as meeting India’s energy security and development needs, the ongoing rapprochement with the United States, counter-terrorism, maritime security, combating extremism and stabilizing India’s periphery.
History and culture bind India to East Asia India has a long history of trade and cultural exchanges with East Asia. Trade links with East Asia stretch back two millennia to the Silk Road and Calicut emerging as a major trading port in South Asia. Meanwhile, cultural and religious bonds date back to Emperor Asoka’s spread of Buddhism beyond the sub-continent in the third century BC.
Other notable periods of contact between pre-independence India and East Asia include the Kushan Empire, which built extensive trade networks with China, and the Chola Dynasty, which ruled over much of Southeast Asia during which Rajendra I conducted a naval expedition to Srivijaya (present-day Indonesia) to protect trade with China and Rajendrachola Deva I (Parmeshwara) named the island of Singapore (Singapura) in 10th century AD.
The exchange of pilgrims, explorers, and traders continued until the onset of British rule over India in the 18th century, after which India ceased to be an independent actor on the international stage.
India’s contact with East Asia became subordinated to colonial rivalry as Indian opium and soldiers were used to gain markets and quash rebellions in other parts of Asia such as China (the Opium War) and Malaya.
During World War II, the Stilwell Road served as a vital transit route to shuttle supplies from India to the anti-Japanese forces in China, and Subhash Chandra Bose’s short-lived Indian National Army formed an alliance with Imperial Japan.
Under India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, India reengaged with East Asia. The Asian Relations Conference held in New Delhi on April 2, 1947 served as one of the earliest attempts to form a pan-Asian identity under the context of the modern nation-state system.
Forming a common cause with Asian leaders such as Indonesian president Sukarno and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai on decolonization, Western imperialism, socialism, national sovereignty, equality and a developing-world solidarity, Nehru helped to forge the “Bandung Spirit“ of 1955, which became the precursor for the Non-Aligned Movement and the Asia-Africa Summit.
Nehru also offered to serve as a mediator during the Korean War and French-Indochina War, supported communist China’s claim to a seat at the United Nations, expressed pride in Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and opposed punishing Japan at the post-World War II Tokyo trials.
The spirit of Asian brotherhood was most visibly manifested in the slogan of “Hindi-Chin bhai bhai“ (Indians and Chinese are brothers), which attempted to forge a familial bond between Asia’s two oldest civilizations and Panchsheel (or the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence), which formed the basis for Sino-Indian relations and China’s and India’s relations with other countries.
However, this phase of India’s engagement with East Asia perished with India’s border war with China in 1962, preoccupation with Pakistan, and inability to meet its development needs, which caused India to turn inward.
Coinciding with these developments was the regional architecture in Asia separating along the Cold War divide with the formation of organizations such as the anti-communist, US-led Southeast Asia Treaty Organization.
India rediscovered East Asia in 1992 when it launched its “Look East“ policy in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War and the start of India’s economic liberalization policy.
What distinguishes the present engagement with East Asia from previous ones is the fact that it is operating on multiple fronts; India’s historical, cultural and ideological links are being complemented by growing economic interdependence and multilateral cooperation from the movement of capital and human resources and a growing number of free trade agreements and cooperative security dialogues.
ATIMES.COM