Issue No.590
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
13 - 19 June 2002 Issue No.590 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Arafat's dilemma
Not even President Mubarak can save the Palestinian leader from the contradictions he has created for himself, writes Mustafa El-Feki
Last week's visit to the United States by President Hosni Mubarak was important for a number of reasons. Its timing was clearly a function of recent events in the Middle East, and more specifically, the Israeli army's invasion of the occupied Palestinian territories which commenced on 29 March. Mubarak was invited by the US administration because the American president wanted to hear his views and advice on the latest developments in the region. He was received with great attention by all Washington; and although it was a very short visit, the president and his delegation were able to meet many key figures in the administration and enter into a detailed exchange of views.
Such attention was only natural, for Mubarak had brought with him a comprehensive proposal for a solution to the present crisis. If implemented, this solution could represent a breakthrough that could restore stability to the region as a whole. Yet although the final joint news conference bore witness to a certain degree of mutual understanding between the two presidents, it also exposed a number of stubborn differences. Thus, the creation of a Palestinian state may represent an acceptable target for both the Egyptians and the Americans, but Egypt's proposed timetable had clearly not yet been taken on board. This is hardly surprising: any concrete schedule would require further consultations with the Israelis, especially since Ariel Sharon was due to visit Washington shortly afterwards.
Egypt is the largest Arab state and the major power in the Middle East. As such, it has always been viewed by outsiders as the key player in the region. Over the last few months, Crown Prince Abdullah's peace initiative has suggested an emerging role for Saudi Arabia. Egypt is not opposed to the prince's proposal, but many of the comparisons made between the new role the Kingdom seems to be seeking and Egypt's traditional role in the Middle East peace process are unfounded. For one thing, Egypt could not have proposed anything along the lines of the Saudi peace initiative -- if only because Egypt had already implemented its own "land-for-peace" initiative by signing a peace treaty with Israel on 26 March 1979.
The concerns which President Mubarak expressed on his recent trip to Washington are felt throughout the entire region. In this, he had the support of all the Arab countries, and had received the blessing of Arab public opinion. Before going to Washington, Mubarak met with the Saudi foreign minister, the vice-president of Syria, and with other senior Arab officials, all of whom expressed their support for his mission. Last month's three-way Sharm El-Sheikh summit demonstrated both that there is no political rivalry between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and that there are no policy differences between Egypt and Syria. While the approaches of the three countries may differ from time to time, their essential goals are the same.
What struck me most during President Mubarak's visit to the US was the way in which the role of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has been diminished in the wake of recent events. He is ignored by the US, and totally rejected as an interlocutor by the Israeli regime. Egypt, which has long been considered Arafat's main supporter, is now asking for another year of his leadership to enable him to declare an independent Palestinian state.
In an interview with journalists prior to his visit, President Mubarak said that Arafat should be allowed to remain in office for as long as it takes for a Palestinian state to be declared -- an event which is unlikely to be more than 12 months away. Meanwhile, Mohamed Sobeih, Palestinian permanent representative to the Arab League and secretary-general of the Palestinian National Council, said that Arafat will retire as soon as a Palestinian state has been established. Not only recent events, but age and health must also have taken their toll. It would seem that Arafat himself is coming to terms with imminent retirement, and now wishes only to hang on long enough to see his life's work crowned.
The reconstruction and reform of the Palestinian Authority also played a major role in the Washington discussions. Arafat has clearly been trying to signal his good will, especially on issues of security between the Palestinians and Israelis. However, neither the Israelis nor the Americans feel that he has done enough. Indeed, he has lost most of his credibility with them, and they no longer trust him.
In my view, Arafat's dilemma can be summed up in these terms: he wanted to be both the Ho Che Min of the Palestinian people, and their Sadat. Yet such a complex and contradictory combination of roles could only ever be workable for a brief period of time. During the most recent Intifada, Arafat was faced with a stark choice between his two roles, yet he failed to make that choice. And what he lost was not simply his remaining credibility with the Israelis and the Americans, but the support of a large part of his own people, and of some Arabs as well. Now, he is no longer the man who could once look forward to a cordial welcome every time he visited the White House; nor is he the ultimate freedom fighter for his people.
During the joint press conference that closed Mubarak's visit, President Bush remarked that he was confident that "other Palestinian talent" could emerge and take over the leadership. This is a sign that Arafat's political career has entered the final straight, and that there is an American interest in searching for new players on the Palestinian political theatre.
In Washington, Mubarak pushed hard for a more positive American role in resolving the Middle East conflict. He also voiced the Arab nations' support for peace, clearly endorsing the Saudi initiative which was adopted as the Arab peace proposal at the Beirut summit in March. However, despite his best efforts, the major obstacle is still that the Americans refuse to take the least step without consulting Israel and obtaining the approval of Tel Aviv.
Iraq also figured on the agenda in Washington. President Mubarak reiterated his warnings to his American friends that the Arab nations are absolutely opposed to any attack on the Iraqi people, and to any attempt to undermine the stability and unity of that country. There was little sign, however, that America would take the Arab reaction into account when formulating future plans.
+US+policy+towards+the+Middle+East+revolves+around+three+main+issues.+In+order+of+descending+importance,+they+are:+the+campaign+against+terror;+Iraq+and+the+removal+of+its+current+leadership;+and+the+Arab-Israeli+conflict.+The+Americans+are+ready,+to+a+certain+degree,+to+give+some+concessions+on+the+final+issue,+in+return+for+more+support+from+Arabs+and+Muslims+on+the+first+two.+But+the+interrelations+of+these+three+issues+are+themselves+highly+complex,+and+their+precise+role+in+the+formulation+of+American+policy+is+not+always+easy+to+disentangle.
President Mubarak took into consideration these connections in his talks with the Americans, but he discovered that support for an independent Palestinian state is the greatest concession the US is prepared to make at this point in time. There will be no advance beyond this point, until the Palestinian leadership is willing to do more homework and regain some of its lost "credibility".
In conclusion, we may say that President Mubarak's visit was a success, in the sense that it reasserted Egypt's role as peace-maker in the region and strengthened channels with Washington for the exchange of views. By doing so, it effectively overcame the opposition felt in some quarters which was voiced in an article by Thomas Friedman on the eve of Mubarak's arrival, in which the American journalist strongly criticised Egypt's efforts over the past five decades, dismissing our nation as a "passive" regional power.
What Mubarak's visit may have achieved in more objective terms, however, will only become clear after Sharon's visit to Washington. All eyes will therefore be on the US over the next few weeks, looking to see how its attitude may shift. Nevertheless, Mubarak was able to reaffirm the vital importance of stability in the Middle East, and of commitment to the cause of peace in this sensitive and strategic area.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
