16 - 22 May 2002
Issue No.586
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 16 - 22 May 2002 Issue No.586 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The right to overthrow leaders
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the alleged consensus that has built up over the need to get rid of Arafat
According to the New York Times, a consensus has emerged in recent days among Europeans, Arabs, the United States and Israel that the Palestinian Authority must be overhauled to be more democratic, more accountable and less corrupt if a Palestinian state is ever to be born. But United States and Israeli officials offer sharply differing views on just what that means.
To the Israelis, reform amounts to replacing or marginalising Yasser Arafat. Sharon describes the overhaul of the Palestinian Authority -- which could take years -- as a "precondition" for any serious talks about a political settlement. A senior Israeli official travelling aboard Sharon's plane back to Israel last week told reporters that the Bush administration had accepted Israel's view that a new round of negotiations could not begin until the Palestinian Authority replaces Arafat and rebuilds itself with new leadership. Some of Sharon's assistants went still further, claiming that Bush had agreed on holding off negotiations until Arafat is relegated to the role of a mere figurehead with no real prerogatives.
Though not sympathising with the Palestinian leader, the Bush administration still believes Arafat cannot be sidelined in the present circumstances and that he is required to manifest leadership and put an end to violence. The White House has dismissed Israeli allegations that the US administration agrees to postpone the resumption of negotiations until Arafat is deprived of all authority as nonsense. And Bush described Arafat's statement on the latest suicide bombing in Israel as "an incredibly positive sign," but added that words must be accompanied by deeds.
The New York Times also quoted American officials as saying that their Arab and European counterparts have made it clear they have no interest in pouring millions of dollars into rebuilding a Palestinian security apparatus or institutions if the money winds up being wasted or siphoned off to support terrorist activity. Bush came forward with practical proposals, such as immediately sending CIA director George Tenet back to the region to help build a unified Palestinian security force that could fight terrorism. The American administration went as far as to propose the idea of creating a new position of Palestinian prime minister who would operate independently of Arafat, particularly in the fields of foreign policy, security and economic affairs, thus gradually marginalising Arafat and reducing his authority to nil.
What this sudden interest in "reforming" the Palestinian Authority boils down to is a blatant attempt to overthrow the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people, or at least to strip him of any real authority. But given Arafat's status as the irreplaceable leader of the Palestinian liberation struggle, there is no way either of these two goals can be achieved. As long as he is alive, he will continue to lead. The only alternative is to liquidate him physically. His removal is not an option. Only death can stop him from functioning as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians. He himself made it clear, during his siege in Ramallah, that there was no other alternative. Even his enemies are aware that he means what he says.
It is hard to see how talk of the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state can be reconciled with open talk of the right of foreign parties to meddle in its internal affairs, indeed, to violate the essential prerogatives of sovereignty by nullifying the authority of its president, not only in his capacity as head of the Palestinian liberation movement, but also as the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people.
How can the attributes of any leader be decided upon by the adversary? How can Sharon be authorised to specify what traits Arafat should have? How to define the line of demarcation between legitimate and acceptable intervention and intervention that flies in the face of all accepted norms of political behaviour? For political negotiations to be fruitful, they must be conducted between parties mandated by their respective constituencies to exercise their free will on an equal footing. If Sharon has his way, Israel would in essence be negotiating with itself. Can such negotiations end the conflict and put a stop to violence?
If Sharon is allowed to dictate who is to speak for the Palestinians, this would create a dangerous precedent. It is a precedent that can be generalised and has indeed already been applied more than once, most recently in Afghanistan. The US and its allies created an alternative leadership to the Taliban in Afghanistan, justifying their intervention on the grounds that the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, gave refuge to the terrorist organisation Al- Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden. Sharon's attempts at the time to equate Arafat with Bin Laden were rebuffed by US President Bush. But since then the position of the US administration has changed, and it is now considering the pros and cons of removing Arafat as was the case with Mullah Omar, and as will soon be the case with Saddam Hussein. What applies to these leaders could eventually apply to other leaders, Middle Eastern or otherwise, ruling over what Washington calls "rogue" states. Is this not a total violation of the principle of national sovereignty?
Moreover, is it true that Arafat is required to be removed because he does not combat terrorism as he should, because he is silent on corruption and unaccountability in the ranks of his followers and because he rules in an autocratic and irresponsible manner? Western capitals know very well that Hamas would emerge as the big winner in any genuinely democratic elections, especially in Gaza. The democratic alternative to Arafat is not leaders more accommodating to the Western point of view, but leaders hostile to the West and ready to adopt a more radical line, which could include violence and terrorism, in their opposition to a settlement along the lines recommended by Israel and America. Is that what the West wants?
In the final analysis, the West -- and Israel -- are wrong if they believe that the choice is between Arafat and a more compliant leadership. Actually, it is between Arafat and a more intractable leadership, between Arafat who, as proved by his acceptance of the Oslo accords, does not reject a peaceful settlement a priori, and more radical trends some of whom are opposed to the very idea of a peaceful settlement with Israel.
Though Yitzak Rabin played a role in encouraging the creation of Hamas in the aim of counterbalancing the PLO, he realised after the secret negotiations he conducted with Arafat prior to the Oslo accords that he was better off dealing with the PLO, and with Arafat personally than with any other party. Can Sharon come to a similar conclusion? Or is his designation of Arafat as the Middle East Bin Laden final and irrevocable? The confrontation between the two men reached a climax during the siege Sharon imposed on Arafat in Ramallah in an attempt to clip his wings and deprive him of all authority. But the operation ultimately failed and Sharon was forced to end the siege.
He is still continuing to insist, however, that Arafat should be held responsible for all terrorist acts, including those for which Hamas has claimed responsibility, and which were undertaken at key moments when a return to the negotiating table appeared possible. But there is the matter of his uncharacteristically subdued reaction to the latest suicide bombing. After vowing to retaliate by attacking Gaza and issuing emergency call-up notices to army reservists, he announced that the operation had been delayed. Could his hesitation be a sign that he is becoming aware that his enmity for Arafat could lead him into a trap laid by Hamas, and that there are lessons he could draw from Rabin's experience on the matter?
Sharon does not believe in a political settlement of the conflict. He continues to argue that the PLO is a terrorist organisation in the mould of Al-Qaeda, that there is nothing to distinguish it from Hamas and that Arafat cannot be absolved of blame for Hamas's actions. Sharon's new-found interest in reforming the Palestinian leadership is aimed at making it more compliant to his vision of a settlement.
However, it is clear from the last meeting between Sharon and Bush that his vision is not identical to that of the American president. Bush is keen on the creation of a Palestinian state, while Sharon believes it is premature to take a final decision on the matter, especially now that the Likud party he heads has voted against the creation of a Palestinian state altogether. Moreover, Sharon insists on having Arafat removed, while Bush is not ready to write the Palestinian leader off as the only viable interlocutor in any peace deal. Both agree that the Palestinian leadership has to be overhauled, but differ over what this entails in practice. In such a context, is an Israeli attack on Gaza unavoidable or will proceeding with such an attack confirm the failure of Sharon's eye-for-an-eye policy? Will it be a tacit admission that the military operations conducted against the West Bank cities in the name of destroying the "terrorist infrastructure" failed to achieve their declared objectives, and that what started out as a limited military offensive is turning into an open-ended and costly enterprise?
The Egyptian-Saudi-Syrian summit in Sharm El- Sheikh has responded to the confusion in both American and Israeli ranks over how to proceed with a categorical pro-peace strategy along the lines of the Saudi initiative endorsed by the Beirut summit. To what extent such a strategy will deepen the rift between Bush and Sharon remains to be seen.
© 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