29 Nov. - 5 Dec. 2001
Issue No.562
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 29 Nov. - 5 Dec. 2001 Issue No.562 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Peace now
Mohamed Hakki writes on the deliberations of a Middle East conference in the US
Two US envoys, General Anthony Zinni and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, will spend 10 days in the Middle East to study how the United States can best implement the regional policy outlined by Secretary of State Colin Powell. The envoys will be welcome, supported and helped by the leaders of Arab countries, all of whom have hailed Powell's speech as "detailed", "balanced" and forward-looking.
But a closer look is needed to assess whether the vision Powell outlined has a genuine chance of success. For that closer inspection, forget the US media. When it comes to reporting on Israel, the mainstream US press is dripping with bias, misinformation and self-censorship.
More constructive criticism, though, has come from some of the old Middle East hands of the administration. While welcoming the speech for "resurrecting concepts, positions, principles and perhaps a spirit that seems to have lapsed [after] seven years of diplomatic activity which came to naught," they have still judged Powell's speech as in many ways deficient.
Last week, four of those old hands gave their thoughts on the speech and the region at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine. Edward Walker, president of the Middle East Institute and former under-secretary of state for the Middle East; Philip Wilcox, president of the Middle East Foundation and former US consul-general in Jerusalem; Naseer Aruri, president of the Trans-Arab Institute in Boston; and John Duke Anthony, founder and president of the Council on US-Arab Relations were all speakers at the event.
Walker, who has just returned from an extensive trip around the region, painted a bleak picture of an Arab world veering towards fundamentalism, and an Israel careening dangerously to the right. "I was told in virtually every Arab country," said Walker "that the younger generation is turning to fundamentalism, Islamism, anti-Americanism, and dissatisfaction with the status quo."
Walker was candid about the reasons, and Afghanistan loomed large. Describing the results of his visits to the region, Walker told how he encountered "concern about mounting civilian casualties and that this would become another Iraq for the people in the region, another rallying cry of anti- Americanism." But he went on to say, "Fortunately, that has not occurred." Walker argued that America's swift victories in Afghanistan have helped limit any bitterness. Rather, he remarked, "we are doing better than people anticipated. The net result will be a positive one that will enhance the reputation of the US just as the Gulf War did."
But another cause of grievance that Walker described will not be solved so easily: people daily watch television footage of Israeli tanks raiding Palestinian villages and destroying homes. Walker plainly understood how this has affected the way many in the region see the US. He spoke of the sense that the US has an obligation, and the ability as a superpower, to resolve the issues. But there, Walker's analysis parted company with what most in the region would argue. Walker averred that it was "naive" to think that the US can solve Palestine's problems.
Instead, Walker thinks the administration will stick "its toe in the water and will wiggle it a little to get a sense of whether or not there is any foundation for continuing the peace process."
Both Walker and Philip Wilcox revealed how hesitant even that toe-dabbling may be. Originally, Powell was due to speak before 11 September. But by the time of the attacks, the president had not approved his speech. Then, 11 September came, and there was worry that the speech would somehow be seen as a direct consequence of the terrorist assault, and imply that terror was a way to win political results. But after time, Powell realised that the situation in the region was worsening and that "our equities were affected negatively." Powell also realised that the US would be hard pressed to maintain support for its war on terror without offering anything in return. He therefore urged the National Security Council to endorse the speech.
But still there was resistance. Until 24 hours before Powell's address, it was not clear that the speech would be made. Many council members asked, "If Arafat and Sharon are not committed, why get involved? Failure is inevitable and will be a blot on the administration's record." Eventually, however, those misgivings were overruled.
Walker, however, shares some of them. He ended his speech saying, "Arafat has not made a decision to stop the violence, or paint a vision of the future of the Palestinian state. He has never talked about democracy, transparency, or the balancing of power within the government structure." As a result, Walker concluded that "dipping a toe in the water will not be enough."
Others were less gloomy. Both Wilcox and Aruri felt the speech returned to important language, concepts, positions, principles, and a spirit apparently lapsed. But, as usual, the substantial issues remained stagnant. Wilcox welcomed the appointment of General Zinni to work with William Burns, but said that Powell's speech was bereft of new policy ideas on the crucial final status issues - Jerusalem, refugees, the right of return, borders and the fate of settlements.
Wilcox thinks that the current approach to those disagreements - the Mitchell-Tenet plan - is gravely inadequate. Like the failed Oslo process, the Mitchell plan does not define the "end game," nor was it supposed to. "We do know that Sharon's vision of the end game is an extremely limited one," said Wilcox. "He said that if the Palestinians comply with all requirements, he is prepared to offer them 42 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza. No compromise on Jerusalem or settlements." Indeed, although the Mitchell-Tenet plan requires a freeze on settlement building, the Sharon government says it will permit "natural growth." Which, of course, means a continuation of illegal construction. Indeed, since 1993, the settlement population of the West Bank and Gaza has grown from 100,000 to 200,000. Given this bad faith, Wilcox sees no hope that Sharon will concede anything if Arafat meets his demands.
Given such iniquity, the need for a credible broker is stronger than ever. Wilcox clearly thinks, therefore, that Bush's boycott of Arafat is an error. He wondered aloud how the US could urge Sharon to meet Arafat when Bush declines to do so. Professor Naseer Aruri agreed with Wilcox that the final status issues are the largest obstacles.
Powell, he said, described a vision of "two states existing side by side with recognised borders, enjoying economic security, good education, religious tolerance, rule of law and political participation." Aruri commented that if such issues, particularly the contiguity of borders, are left to negotiations, "the apparent leap forward would best be described as a rhetorical leap forward."
Nor was Aruri much happier about the credibility of the broker. Noting that Powell's demands are much tougher on the Palestinians than on the Israelis, Aruri pointed out that Powell skirted around the appalling crimes committed by settlers and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), in the occupied territories. "If Mr. Powell's intent was to be even-handed and act as an honest broker, his list of refrains was terribly myopic and lopsided," Aruri said.
Aruri went further, though, dismissing the entire basis of current approaches to peace. Describing those documents produced by the Oslo deliberations, he noted one egregious omission: "In more than 800 pages of the Oslo documents, you will not encounter the word occupation once," he said, adding that the absence of the term occupation means the absence of international law, which governs military occupation under the fourth Geneva Convention.
Aruri was happier, though, with the link made between current peace efforts and the Madrid peace process. Madrid, he noted, was the venue for Arab-Israeli negotiations before Oslo. Madrid called for a comprehensive peace. Oslo, though, somehow superseded Madrid. Then the peace process ceased to be international, becoming exclusively bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Aruri similarly welcomed Powell's call for a freeze on settlements. Regarding the framework, Aruri remarked that Powell returned it to Resolutions 242 and 338. He also noted that Powell had repeated the principle of "land for peace." Like others talking at the conference, Aruri said that the success or failure of Powell's initiative will depend on key questions: Jerusalem, refugees, and so on.
Those same issues exercised John Duke Anthony, president of the National Council on US-Arab Relations, who said he had expected more from Powell's speech. He noted particularly the absence of any mention of Jerusalem, lamenting an opportunity missed to introduce the notion of an undivided Jerusalem to the American people.
Anthony feels that opportunity need not have been missed. He argued that "the present constitutes an unprecedented opportunity for bold, new, categorically different leadership." There are good reasons for Anthony's hope. Neither Israel nor the US are hindered by forthcoming elections. On foreign policy matters, the president is supported better than any president in the past decade. The vast majority of American voters who support Israel's occupation campaigned and voted against Bush, so he will not be eroding his own support by censuring Israel. Other members of the UN Security Council are likely to support Bush should he call for the enforcement of Resolution 242; the US and Russia are closer than have been since Invasion of Kuwait; the US and its allies require strategic and defence assistance from the Arab world; the Israeli peace camp increasingly supports US opinion in the peace process.
The existence of Israel is not at stake here, but rather, Anthony observed, "a satisfactory settlement to a conflict that has scarred half a century of Israelis and Palestinians and denied safety and security to both." Anthony closed by warning that these opportunities must not be missed, noting that "the current moment may last only weeks, at most only two to three more months but no longer." The time for peace, it seems, is now.
© 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