19 - 25 April 2001
Issue No.530
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 19 - 25 April 2001 Issue No.530 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Dangerous illusions
Washington's foreign policy is beginning to take shape, writes Ibrahim Nafie, and marks a cleardeparture from the Clinton era
Countering the commonly held impression that the new US administration is still finding its feet in terms of foreign policy were several candid interviews I held recently in Washington. The new White House team, well-placed sources told me, has a number of guiding principles, the first of which is to keep the Republicans in power for the next two presidential terms at least. That the Democrats were able to defeat the Republicans eight years ago, my sources felt, was largely due to the elder George Bush's heavy emphasis on foreign policy. This Bush administration, therefore, "will not have a lot of time to waste on foreign policy."
To be able to devote greater attention to domestic affairs Washington must reorder its foreign policy priorities to more closely reflect its direct interests. This, in turn, will entail a shift in orientation from Europe to a focus on South America and the Pacific -- America's vital "backyard." The Bush administration's foreign policy outlook will differ fundamentally from that of Clinton, who was less discriminating in terms of US interests, my sources said.
As for the world beyond America's backyard, the Bush administration has adopted an approach similar to that of Richard Nixon, which, in essence, was to delegate to major regional powers the business of maintaining stability in their respective spheres as long as this did not compromise US interests.
Washington is fully prepared to welcome more influential roles for Russia, Europe and China, for example, in their respective spheres and to furnish their governments with various forms of economic and moral backing. However, I was told, Washington will not repeat Clinton's mistake. Clinton, they said, used the carrot but kept the stick behind his back. Under Bush, both the carrot and the stick will be visible.
The same principle, of course, will apply to the Middle East, where Washington is looking to major regional powers to play a more pivotal role in securing regional peace and stability. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, I was told, are the two countries that the US administration feels it can most rely on in this regard. Washington has very close relations with both and is determined to develop them further. Which means, of course, that it will be important for Washington, Cairo and Riyadh to reach an understanding over problems -- generally involving Palestine and Iraq -- that have created sensitivities in bilateral relationships.
In the mind of the Bush administration the US wasted precious time over the past six years on the Palestinian-Israeli question, largely, in their opinion, because the Palestinian leadership has not acted in good faith. Now, my sources said, Washington's attitude is that its decision as to whether or not to act on the Palestinian matter will depend on the success Egypt and Saudi Arabia have in helping to restore the relative calm necessary for the resumption of negotiations. I was told, however, that Bush had advised his aides not to be overly optimistic about a rapid solution in Palestine and that he ruled out, for the time being, the possibility of Palestinian-Israeli talks in Washington because they would not be productive. In all events, the US president said, security matters must be settled first before negotiations proceed to other substantial matters, adding that Washington has no objection to Egypt being the venue for negotiations.
It is also the belief in Washington that, although Sharon has insisted that he will not resume negotiations with the Palestinians at the point they left off at with Barak, there is a possibility that negotiations between the two parties will reach an agreement similar to the proposal Barak offered before the last Israeli elections. Barak offered to return to the Palestinians 97 per cent of the West Bank -- with the remaining three per cent compensated for from land in the south -- and all of Gaza. The Palestinians would obtain full sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including Al-Haram Al-Sherif, but with the exception of the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall. Palestinian refugees would also have the unrestricted right to return to the Palestinian state while no more than an average of 20,000 per year would have the right to return to their homes in Israel. At the same time, Israel would reserve the right to hold on to a number of strategic sites, manned by no more than 700 soldiers, and although the two sides at the time might have reached an agreement to ensure the presence of an international force on those sites, Barak rejected the principle of linking the withdrawal of that force with a Palestinian-Israeli agreement. Finally, the settlement was to be shored up by an enormous $3 billion dollar package of economic and security assistance. During his recent visit to the region, Secretary of State Colin Powell informed Cairo, Riyadh, Amman and Damascus that Washington was seeking a positive Arab consensus over the proposed solution, which the US intends to push for. These governments, in turn, have agreed upon certain ideas that they will bring to the negotiating table should security circumstances prove conducive to their resumption.
If we have much to take issue with over the new US administration's perspective on the current situation in the Middle East, one important message came across very clearly during my meetings. That the Arabs desired peace was never at issue. What was called into question was whether Israel was prepared to reach a solution that will bring justice and security to all. If everything I heard in Washington is correct, the ball is now in the Israeli court.
Unfortunately, events of the past few days have demonstrated that in the Sharon-dominated court, peace is the last thing on people's mind. Military maps are being pulled out of their drawers again and sites are being pinpointed for "preemptive" strikes. Sharon believes that through a combination of brutal repression of the West Bank and Gaza and reckless raising of the military stakes in the region, he will be able to force the Palestinians back to the negotiating table on his terms while neighbouring Arabs states will have stand back and watch or bear the consequences. The confidence he has in these dangerous illusions is alarming.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page