12 - 18 July 2001
Issue No.542
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 12 - 18 July 2001 Issue No.542 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Inching towards a dynamic role
Is the United States slowly reconsidering its position vis-à-vis the ongoing conflict in Palestine? Thomas Gorguissian, in Washington, traces the signs of change
United States officials involved in the Middle East peace process have reportedly decided to pull back and reconsider the role the US should play in the region. The move apparently resulted from the failure of senior US officials to put an end to the bloodshed in Palestine in spite of their repeated visits to the region.
Last week, US Secretary of State Colin Powell clearly and decisively criticised Israel's "policy of targeted killings," but it remains unclear, or undecided, what Washington will do next or what future course it proposes.
"If we want to see an end to violence, there needs to be accountability," former Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross wrote in an editorial in the Washington Post on Saturday. "There needs to be a clear understanding that we will, at a certain point, publicly say which side has been performing and which side has not -- or at least which side is doing a better job of carrying out the commitments it has made," he added. The American "peace processor" -- as Ross was once described -- has been involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the opening of the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid almost a decade ago.
Ross added that the proposed process of accountability would require the American side to observe and monitor the so-called cease- fire tailored by Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet nearly a month ago. "Both sides have demonstrated their sensitivity to public opinion internationally. It is time to recognise that and use it as leverage to produce performance, rather than an exchange of charges and counter-charges," Ross said. He added: "To be credible in levelling our own charges regarding lack of performance, we should create a clear structure of accountability. The commitments have been made to us; we know the elements of the Tenet work plan and we should evaluate performance on a daily basis."
Such a call for a more precise American role surprised many observers, especially as it came from a former US official who has been accused by many Palestinians and Arabs of being biased towards Israel.
It also marks a shift from the usual US stance whenever calls are made for a third party to take on a monitoring role. Consecutive US administrations have traditionally said that it was up to the two parties to agree on any monitoring mechanism, and that Washington would never pressure Israel to accept anything it did not want. Israel remains vehemently opposed to any kind of monitoring, whether it is American or international.
Its sensitivity towards the issue of international monitors became very evident during Powell's latest Middle East tour. After meeting Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Powell said he agreed on the importance of the existence of some form of monitoring on the ground. Yet, after Israel protested against this statement, the White House found an urgent need to clarify what Powell had or hadn't said.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters on 28 June: "Reading from a transcript of what he said, the secretary said -- and I quote -- 'I think there is a clear understanding of the need for some kind of monitoring-observer function performed by some group.' That is not, as you put it, an endorsement of what the Palestinians have said (on Powell's support for the presence of an international monitoring force). That is a restatement of long-standing United States policy." Fleischer added: "There is no change in the United States position. The Secretary's language involving -- and I quote again -- 'some kind of monitoring-observer function,' stems back to the Wye Accords. And there's no change. Both parties would have to agree to what that monitoring function would be. And that's what the Secretary indicated."
Former US Democratic Senator George Mitchell, who headed the Sharm El-Sheikh fact-finding committee, said that an international presence in Palestine "was the subject most discussed during our deliberations by the parties themselves." Yet, Mitchell added in his statements to a gathering at the National Press Club in Washington: "We concluded that the experience in the region indicated that international forces of that type could be effective only if they had the full support of both parties. And since at the present time the government of Israel opposes the presence of such a force, that would not be effective. Therefore, we did not make such a recommendation, for which I believe the Palestinians were quite disappointed and the Israelis quite happy, because we, in effect, adopted the position that the government of Israel had taken."
The Mitchell Committee "recommendations" are now considered the only working paper on the table with the aim of putting an end to the ongoing clashes and resuming peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.
A few days before Mitchell's recent assessment of the situation came out, senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath was in Washington for meetings with American officials. In a public appearance, Shaath expressed hope that some kind of monitoring would take place to guarantee the implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations.
"We are not insisting that monitors be imposed through a Security Council resolution, because we are very pragmatic. If the United States vetoes that, we have no alternative." Shaath emphasised the need for the US to persuade Israel to accept a monitoring system. To do so, the US itself must be persuaded of the feasibility of such a system, he said. He went on to say that Israel had accepted similar observers or monitoring forces all along its borders with its Arab neighbours (former enemies) in addition to a temporary international presence in the West Bank town of Hebron, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) in Jerusalem, and, most recently, the six "Lone Rangers" of the European Union in Bethlehem. "So give me a break! I mean, Israel, despite all its rejection, has accepted six groups of observers, and they have been successful. Wherever they were in place, they were successful," Shaath concluded.
Another call for monitoring came last week from two leading independent human rights organisations. A joint statement issued by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called for the urgent deployment of international observers to monitor Israeli and Palestinian human rights and humanitarian law violations. "Independent monitoring of what is happening on the ground is crucial, and only the international community can provide this," the statement said.
The two organisations called on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to declare their readiness to cooperate with such an initiative, and also asked the US, the EU and United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan to facilitate the establishment and deployment of such a force.
© 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