 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 9 - 15 September 1999 Issue No. 446 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 9 - 15 September 1999 Issue No. 446
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Focus Culture Features Books Special Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Leaving the details to the Arabs
By Gamil Mattar*
Important issues, which concern the Arab region, are once again in focus. In Europe, a historical settlement is being forged. The settlement in the Balkans has been in the making for no less than a decade. Yugoslavia has always been a highly explosive region, destabilised since its creation by ethnic, racial and cultural differences. The wars these sparked have been responsible for the creation or repatriation of hundreds of thousands of displaced people, a human tragedy no matter how you look at it. When the time seemed ripe for a settlement, the major powers, or rather, the "imperial state" and its satellites, interfered to put a decisive end to the conflict and to impose their own strategic settlement. Aware of the nature of the struggle on the ground, where the conflict is at the level of contact between enemies who also happen to live on the same street, the imperial state decided against traditional imperial intervention in the form of armies composed of noblemen and serfs. It also dismissed the idea of invasion through alliance with one faction or the other, since it was dealing with a sovereign state.
As the vanguard of the imperial state, NATO moved swiftly to implement its plan, which could brook no delay. Once a force capable of mobilising technology, the alliance became subject to technology. For the first time in history, imperial forces launched the major part of their offensive from the air, and from a distance. Since the refugees were never the major cause of the Balkan war, the Western leaders did not wait for their repatriation, but met to decide on the future structure of the Balkans, in terms of NATO's new objectives. Decisions were made long before the fate of the refugees had been decided.
The war raging in the Balkans or, rather, above them, the massacres carried out by both parties in Kosovo, and the summit held to determine the final status of the region within the context of NATO's reemergence, are the most important events of the past few months. In the Middle East, a few key players, each of whom had played a very active and meaningful role, departed from the scene. King Hussein, a major architect of the policies and present-day realities of the Middle East, passed away. Binyamin Netanyahu, who had been losing support for a while, was actually removed from power. Then King Hassan II, another pillar of the Arab political scene, passed away as well.
While the departure of the two monarchs (whose health had been failing for a while) and the fall of the Israeli leader (whose popularity had suffered severe blows) came as no surprise, the consequences of each departure were quite unexpected. The events that took place at every departure gave observers only partial answers, while raising many puzzling questions. I was not surprised at the large number of dignitaries who attended the funerals of the two monarchs, nor at the manifestations of genuine sorrow and grief shown by the peoples of both countries.
Both monarchs had made great achievements, built states and left their mark on Arab politics. On the other hand, I was surprised at the brilliant congruence established at both of the funerals: CNN, the disappearance of a leader, and the declared determination to "deal with" the Middle East problem. Some of those who watched the same events had a different opinion: they did not view this apparent congruence as brilliant, but rather felt it was disrespectful of traditions, not to say exploitative of the situation. I found much of what was said positive: worthy eulogies to the efforts of the great leaders who had passed away. Others argued that the comments made on the occasion were unsubtle, forced interferences, orchestrated by the media to read certain inferences into the words and deeds of the two late Arab monarchs.
It would be difficult to assert that either of them would have been pleased with the idea that his funeral was an opportunity for disparate strands to be gathered together -- an opportunity to nudge Arab and international opinion in the direction of a peace concocted by Netanyahu, adopted by Barak, and served up to the mourners on a silver platter.
Whether or not it was an act of genius, this congruence featured certain interesting elements. Certain events were fast-forwarded, while others were played in slow motion. Developments that should have taken months sped by in weeks, while delays of weeks were stretched to cover 15 months. Assertions of peaceful intentions and good will mingled with categorical refusals; denials of dependence on US politics were accompanied by total Israeli involvement in NATO plans for "stability" in the Middle East.
Even now, the declared aim is to revive the stalled "peace" process in the region, and to eliminate the sceptics who argue that there is no link between the death of two leaders, the finalisation of the Middle East problem (whether through its liquidation or by some other means), the end of a century or a millennium, and the end of Clinton's term of office. We now know the facts: Israel has secured Washington's guarantee that all "details" regarding the Palestinians will be subjected to Israel alone for approval. No regional or international interference will be tolerated unless Israel has the upper hand.
Among such "details" is the structure of the future Palestinian state as envisaged by Barak and US officials. Barak and Sharon envisage a state of Palestine that will have no concrete material form on the ground. It will be a collection of bits and pieces, deprived of access to the Mediterranean, stifled by congestion and overpopulation, torn apart by political strife, and finally controlled and directed by Mossad and the CIA. Yet because it will be "sovereign", no external parties will be allowed to participate in delineating the borders of this state. The future of Jerusalem and the issue of refugees, described by Barak as "details", will be excluded from discussions. Israeli officials refuse to even consider the idea of negotiations on refugees and Jerusalem.
Barak's "red lines" have proved an effective ploy. The Arab reaction was restraint: not only were the Palestinians pressured to refrain from mentioning Jerusalem and the repatriation of refugees, they were even encouraged to begin searching for Arab solutions.
This development transcends Barak's wildest dreams. In other words, the Arabs are now helping eliminate the "details" that impede peace and stability in the Middle East, "details" which have always annoyed the Israelis. As a result, a vocal opposition to the settlements has emerged in Lebanon, and dissent between Jordanians of Palestinian descent and those of Jordanian origin has ignited. Conflict is also to be expected in Syria.
These disagreements will not abate. The "details" that the Israelis have left for the Palestinians to settle are crucial. The consequences are already being felt, but I see little awareness of their possible impact on the Arab world as a whole. The consequences of an Arab solution to the refugee problem and its "details" are clear enough, but I fail to see how the Arabs can accept the consequences of Barak's refusal to discuss Jerusalem. I would not be surprised to see a proposal tabled in the near future by certain Palestinians eager to establish a state -- even in name only.
*The writer is the director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
