Issue No. 592
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
27 June - 3 July 2002 Issue No. 592 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The search for reciprocity
Ibrahim Nafie evaluates the content and direction of Washington's thinking of the Palestinian question
President Bush's policy statement on the Middle East threw a much needed stone into stagnant waters. The speech was delayed owing to two suicide bombings in West Jerusalem. Initially it was thought that the delay would be indefinite. Following the bombings, Bush stated that the climate in the region was not ready for a blueprint of a settlement. That he did deliver his policy statement so soon after those operations reflects the importance Washington has come to attach to taking definitive action towards ending the current impasse. In a sense this can be seen as a response to President Mubarak's long-standing appeal to Washington to assume a more active and constructive role in resolving the Middle East conflict. As the president has said on numerous occasions, if left to their own devices the Palestinians and Israelis will never return to the negotiating table and the cycle of violence will continue to spiral.
Certainly, President Bush's policy statement on the Middle East is a marked improvement on previous US positions. Perhaps the most significant message he conveyed was his affirmation of his government's support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. He said that a provisional Palestinian state could be created within 18 months and become an independent, sovereign state in three years within the framework of a final settlement. He also affirmed that a settlement must be based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and resolve outstanding issues: Jerusalem, the plight of Palestinian refugees and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria. He further said that Israel must withdraw to the pre-Al-Aqsa Intifada positions and cease all settlement activity in the occupied territories, whether such activity entails construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements.
Bush went on to say that he had asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to "work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realise the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution-building". At the same time, it should be stressed, Bush linked his vision for a Palestinian state with the need for a new Palestinian leadership, new governing institutions and certain security arrangements.
In Israel a number of cabinet members announced that Bush's speech conformed with the vision of the Likud government, which is not surprising in view of the telephone conversation between Sharon and Bush in advance of the speech and in which Sharon undoubtedly suggested some fundamental changes. Nevertheless, not all in Israel were as unreservedly jubilant. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres suggested that pause should be given to specific ideas, such as Washington's affirmation of its support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. "Everyone who lauded Bush's speech should bear in mind that his solution calls for two states for two peoples. I know that there are people who oppose the creation of a Palestinian state yet who rejoiced at this speech. I suggest that they take a closer look at its contents." A similar caution was aired by Israeli officials in response to the widespread exultation over what was interpreted as Bush's implicit call to oust President Arafat.
The PA, too, welcomed the policy statement. President Yasser Arafat described it as a new step towards stimulating the peace process. Echoing this belief, Palestinian Minister of Information Yasser Abed Rabbo announced that the Palestinian leadership and President Arafat looked forward to exploring the details of Bush's proposals in direct meetings with US officials and in consultations with Quartet and Arab nations.
President Hosni Mubarak said Washington's policy statement was "balanced", adding, "the Palestinian National Authority supports the statement, and if it approves it, we also support it." However, as certain points in the speech are vague and open to interpretation, the president deferred comment on his positions on Bush's suggestions until he could obtain further details on some points. As Mubarak announced on the fringes of the celebration of Republican Guard Day on 25 June: "We are waiting for the visit of US Secretary of State Colin Powell to discuss and clarify certain issues."
Without a doubt, Bush's statement placed heavy emphasis on the conditions he expects the Palestinians to meet and his tone in this regard could only be construed as harsh. Nevertheless, Palestinian leaders seemed to interpret it otherwise. For example, Bush's exhortation to the Palestinian people to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror" was taken among some Palestinians to mean a new leadership, but with the continued presidency of Arafat.
That Arafat himself praised the substance of Bush's speech, including the appeal for a new leadership, was conducive to such an interpretation. In his recent meeting with Mubarak at Camp David Bush explained that his call for a new Palestinian leadership meant an elected leadership capable of working within the framework of democratic institutions and of leading an independent state.
Palestinians have cause to argue that their current leadership meets these conditions. President Arafat was elected president of his people and in a free and fair polling process that took place under international supervision. As such, coercion to replace the Palestinian president must be construed as a flagrant violation of the will of the Palestinian people and a breach of democratic principles.
This is not the opinion of the PA alone. Following Bush's address Russian President Vladimir Putin declared: "It is wrong to remove President Arafat from the political field." UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was more explicit. "The Palestinian people, alone and of their own accord can decide who leads them." Similarly, EU foreign policy coordinator Javier Solana insisted "the Palestinian people alone have the authority to chose their leadership and the EU will cooperate with this leadership."
The Palestinian interpretation of Bush's call for a new leadership, therefore, has a large body of international opinion to back it up. At the same time Bush did not explicitly call for the replacement of Arafat, a call that would defy political and moral norms.
In all events, a change in the Palestinian leadership, within a constitutional framework, is in the offing. President Arafat has called for local elections at the end of this year and presidential elections for early 2003. In those elections the Palestinian people will have their say on who they think is worthy of leading them in the coming phase. Their choice must be respected, regardless of others' hopes or preferences, all the more so as their choice is to be voiced through constitutional channels and under international supervision. These conditions, moreover, should meet Bush's criteria for a new Palestinian leadership.
As we look beyond this issue, of crucial importance to the implementation of Bush's ideas is the principle of reciprocity. Only if both the Palestinians and Israelis fulfill the obligations outlined by the US president, in a spirit of reciprocity, will it be possible to generate the appropriate climate for a resumption of negotiations leading to the declaration of a provisional and then a permanent Palestinian state. If the Palestinians are to hold local and then presidential elections, and create the governing institutions for a provisional state, then Israel must withdraw its forces to positions before 28 September 2000, cease all further incursions into PA territory and bring an unequivocal halt to settlement construction and expansion in the occupied territories. Only through the application of the principle of reciprocity, on the basis of a concrete agenda for action, will it be able to gauge the sincerity of the commitment of each side. After all, it is hardly reasonable to expect the Palestinians to have to implement every condition to the letter while Israel is left to swagger without restraint.
It should also be understood that the term "provisional" applies not to the Palestinian state, per se, but to the borders of this state. There can be nothing temporary about the Palestinian state and the attendant prerequisites for sovereign statehood, even if it remains for final borders to be set during the 18 months following the declaration of a "provisional" state.
In his speech Bush made no reference to pre-June 1967 borders, confining himself to the formula "secure and recognised borders reached through negotiations". Nor did he refer to the principle of land for peace. It cannot be stressed firmly enough that the "secure" border formula is notorious for having embroiled the disputing parties in endless wrangling. More importantly, such wording implies an attempt to alter the principles outlined in Madrid and conflicts with the Arab initiative adopted in Beirut, calling for Israel's full withdrawal to pre-June 1967 borders in exchange for normal relations. "Secure borders to be reached through negotiations" can all too easily lend itself to the annexation of portions of occupied territory. It is essential not to give room for further rancour or mistrust, especially when the Madrid principle of land for peace has been given concrete substance in the Arab call for Israel's full withdrawal in exchange for normal relations.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
