Issue No. 594
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
11 - 17 July 2002 Issue No. 594 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Getting others involved
As President Bush presents his new plan, Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the prospects of widening the debate at a meeting held this week at Chatham House
As a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, I took part in a conference held this week in London, under the joint sponsorship of the council and Chatham House, to discuss what, if anything, other involved parties could do to help the Palestinian-Israeli conflict break out of the dangerous impasse in which it is now locked. I was asked to comment, in particular, on what role Europe could play, especially in the wake of the G-8 Summit in Canada, where most European leaders expressed serious misgivings about the latest American proposals for a settlement.
To begin with, we must ask ourselves what sort of help we would like the Europeans to provide. Do we want them to help make Bush's declared aim of removing Arafat easier, or do we want them, instead, to help Arafat avoid such a fate? This is a crucial question, and one that was the subject of sharp disagreement between the United States, on the one hand, and Europeans, including the Russians, on the other.
In fact, there is no consensus on the question within the American administration itself. It is common knowledge that the president's closest advisers are divided among themselves, with hardliners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, on one side, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, said to be less intransigent, on the other. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice is said to be closer to the hawks.
Nevertheless, the Bush speech outlining his vision for a settlement of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict has restored discipline among his working team, who have all been asked to line up behind the hawks. Powell is now required to implement a policy which is the exact opposite of the line he advocated at White House meetings held behind closed doors. In the face of this situation, what should the Arab position be? Should we support Powell's new line or the one he was ordered to abandon?
One issue on which the Arabs are unanimous is the unacceptability of demanding Arafat's removal as a precondition for a settlement. They believe that if he is reelected as Palestinian president he should neither be forced out of office nor transformed into a ceremonial figurehead, and certainly coercion, especially military intervention, should not be brought to bear towards this end. The decision on who will lead the Palestinian people is one that only the Palestinian people, themselves, are entitled to make. The Palestinian Authority is giving all possible guarantees that elections will not be rigged and the polls, themselves, will be monitored by European, Canadian, Norwegian, Japanese and American observers.
Europeans share the Arab view that Arafat should not be removed if reelected. This was made abundantly clear by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac, and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G-8 Summit in Canada. Are we to ask the Europeans to relinquish their stand, which, by the way, also happens to be ours? Should we develop a dialogue with the Europeans aimed at adopting the US stand, which is neither ours nor theirs, or should we, on the contrary, make common cause with the Europeans towards convincing the Americans to change theirs?
This is the first important issue concerning European involvement at this juncture. The second is the international conference.
President Bush did not address this issue in his speech. True, deliberations over the Middle East situation are on between a quartet consisting of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. But what status does this quartet really have? Can it lay down policies or issue binding decisions? The US representative in the quartet is Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, the European representative is Miguel Moratinos, the UN representative Kofi Annan's personal assistant, Terje Roed-Larsen, and the Russian representative Andrei Vdovin. None have the authority to lay down policies; they can only exchange information and coordinate positions. They are no substitute for an international conference.
As matters now stand, decision-making powers with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are vested exclusively in the United States. Even if an attempt is made to include others in the decision-making process by holding a regional conference, there is no guarantee that it will extend to include all regional parties. It is more than likely that Syria and Lebanon will not be invited to participate, and that the UN will participate only to the extent necessary to serve Bush's vision, and not in its capacity as custodian of the key Security Council resolutions, such as 242 and 338, on which a settlement of the conflict should be based.
Bush's ideas do not have a system of reference. Seeking assistance from other parties, therefore, boils down to distinguishing what all concerned parties find acceptable in these ideas from what is contentious and subject to dispute between them. It is clear, for example, that the call to reform the Palestinian Authority is acceptable to all the concerned parties. But the meaning of the reform, its aim, and how it is to be implemented is highly controversial. This is typical of the sort of problems that still need to be thoroughly debated.
Bush's ideas cannot be considered conclusive. They derive their authority only from the fact that Bush is president of the sole remaining superpower. As such, we have no option but to take them seriously. But not to the extent of conducting the Euro-Arab dialogue via the United States, or with Washington's policies as the frame of reference. That dialogue should be an independent enterprise proceeding from a world view based on multipolarity, not unipolarity.
If it is true that the issue of terrorism now occupies the forefront of world concern, it is also true that the events of 11 September occurred in the United States. If it is true that the blow the US received on that day should be condemned by the whole civilised world, it is also true that America suffered from that blow more than any other country. The US thus has a personal interest in uprooting this scourge and its interests do not necessarily coincide with those of other nations when it comes to how to deal with the issue. That is why it cannot be said that what is good for America is necessarily good for other nations.
It is in the common interest of Arabs and Europeans to stress that terror will not be eliminated if we concentrate only on the manifestations of terror without addressing the reasons that generate terrorism in the first place. This means, among other things, that the root causes of the Palestinian problem have to be addressed. Sharon's line, strongly backed by Bush, is that there is a military solution to the problem of terrorism, and that the problem can be solved by simply exterminating terrorists, whether real, potential or suspected, or whether they are freedom fighters resisting occupation. This line can only complicate the problem still further.
We should develop an Arab-European rapprochement to counter-balance the American administration's rapprochement with Sharon, because Bush's vision, as outlined in his policy statement on the conflict, encourages Sharon to pursue and further escalate his repressive policies. Moreover, Europe, and also Japan, cannot be required to finance the Palestinian reconstruction effort after Israel's devastating destruction of West Bank cities, without being given a say in the reconstruction of the Palestinian security organs. On such issues, politics should take precedence over a police mindset. This should be taken into consideration in determining the mutual commitments between the parties.
Moreover, Israel's claim that the wanton destruction of West Bank cities and villages was an unavoidable side-effect of its justified war against terrorism cannot be accepted at face value. All acts of destruction must be subject to a process of accountability conducted by a neutral authority. It is a process that needs to be set in motion by the Arab parties themselves without delay, before evidence of the crimes committed disappear. A neutral judicial commission must be set up to establish the facts, and to issue its findings in the form of binding judgements. If it finds that Israel's rampage of destruction was neither necessary nor legitimate, it must award damages to the victims. This is another area for Euro-Arab cooperation. As the principal donors for reconstruction of the devastated Palestinian cities and infrastructure, the Europeans have every interest in a thorough investigation of the facts.
Last week, a Belgian court ruled the petition accusing Sharon of war crimes for his role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres inadmissible on the grounds that crimes committed in other countries cannot be prosecuted in Belgium unless the perpetrator is present in Belgium. There is no doubt that Zionist pressure groups worked actively to bring about this result. But before blaming others, we should acknowledge our own shortcomings and do everything we can to prove that we are up to the challenge.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
