Promoting Egyptian-European relations
In the context of a visit to Brussels of a delegation of the Egyptian Council of Foreign Affairs,
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
delivered, on 20 January, an address on peace and war in the region, as events in both Iraq and Palestine reach a critical threshold. Below is a summarised version of the text
For all the anxiety gripping the region at the prospect of an imminent US-led attack on Iraq, this has not led to a sense of mobilisation. Rather, a false sense of serenity, of business as usual, seems to have taken hold. In the lull before the storm, it is hard to believe that war could break out tomorrow, in a week's time, in fact, at any moment now.
Still, most people believe that war with Iraq is inevitable, even if the real objective of the massive deployment of forces now underway is to compel Saddam Hussein to relinquish power before war begins or to instigate a palace coup against him by elements of the Iraqi military who see Saddam's overthrow as a lesser evil than the destruction of Iraq.
If war does break out, there is no guarantee that it will be limited to Iraq. Israel is the wild card in the pack. Unlike Shamir, who promised the Americans during the first Gulf War that Israel would not retaliate if Saddam attacked it, Sharon has presented no such assurances. He could well seize the opportunity to liquidate the Palestinian problem through the mass "transfer" of Palestinians from the occupied territories, either towards Iraq or elsewhere. He could also open the Lebanese front against Hizbullah. And even if Sharon does promise Bush that he will not take advantage of the war to push his own agenda, there is no guarantee that he, and not Netanyahu, will be Israel's next prime minister. Netanyahu, as we all know, has openly declared that he does not consider himself bound by any of the requests put forward by the US president.
In the event of a military confrontation between Israel and Iraq, the whole region could find itself plunged into a major conflagration. Just before joining Sharon's government, former Israeli Cabinet Minister Avigdor Libermann threatened that if Egypt backed the Palestinian resistance, Israel would not hesitate to hit the High Dam! This outrageous statement was taken very seriously by President Mubarak, conjuring up visions as it did of Israel resorting to atomic weapons or of the entire Nile Valley being flooded by the waters of Lake Nasser.
There have been two key moments in the Middle East peace process. First, a success, namely, the signature by Sadat, Begin and Carter of the Camp David accords; then, a failure, namely, the inability, one quarter of a century later, of Arafat, Barak and Clinton to sign a similar agreement on the central issue of Palestine. The success of Camp David I was hailed as living proof that peace is possible and the process towards it irreversible. The failure of Camp David II put that deduction into question. These two moments are the key to understanding the present situation. If we want to intervene effectively to reverse the course of events and avoid a complete collapse, we must assess the situation at a level of comprehension based on an overall outlook.
We are facing a crisis situation not only for the Middle East, for the Iraqi people, the Palestinian people, indeed, for all the peoples of the region, but for the whole world. The crisis could eventually engulf the entire planet, including Europe. With so much at stake, no one can afford to stand back and wait for whatever fate may bring. All parties are called upon to immediately assume their responsibilities. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we are not dealing with one crisis but two superimposed crises, each reacting with the other: Iraq and Palestine. One could even claim that Israel too is living a moment of crisis, whose repercussions can be disastrous for the whole region.
With the Iraqi crisis at the forefront of global concerns, the Palestinian crisis has been placed on the back burner. Every effort must be made to prevent the drums of war from drowning out the voice of the suffering Palestinian people, to prevent the Iraqi crisis from eclipsing the Palestinian. The best way to avoid having a dangerous vacuum surround the Palestinian crisis at a time the Iraqi crisis is coming to a head is by reaffirming the main achievements of the peace process: the key UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions consecrating the principle of exchanging land for peace, the idea of two states sharing Jerusalem as their capital, as well as all the other constructive ideas and proposals advanced over the years to push the peace process forward.
It is in that sense that the London Conference on Palestinian reforms is a welcome development, even if it is not proceeding as smoothly as might have been hoped. Every effort should be made to overcome the obstacles currently impeding the talks. However, it would be a serious mistake to hold the Palestinians exclusively responsible for these obstacles. After all, accepting that reforming the Palestinian Authority is necessary should not entail accepting the removal of Arafat as its chairman nor that Palestinian institutions are to be restructured so as to satisfy the requirements of the Israeli government.
Of course, violence has to be brought to an end, especially against civilians. This applies to both sides. A vicious cycle of violence and counterviolence only feeds mutual hatred, which in turn only deepens the conflict. But as long as occupation not only continues but is extended and consolidated, resisting occupation by all means is justified and legitimate. As armed (and necessarily violent) resistance to foreign occupation derives its legitimacy from the UN Charter, it is ludicrous for an occupying power to insist on the renunciation by an occupied people of all forms of violence as a prerequisite for any move whatsoever in the direction of peace.
A leading role in ensuring that the Palestinian crisis is not sidelined by the Iraqi crisis can be played by Egypt, thanks to its credentials as a pivotal Arab state, the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel and the only party which enjoys open access to all the protagonists, including the various Palestinian factions it has actively worked to reconciliate. Moreover, Egypt has an undeniable interest in ensuring that the peace process it launched a quarter of a century ago in Camp David does not suffer an irreversible setback. Given the close relations linking successive US administrations to Israel, which have become even closer under the present administration, Egypt is pinning its hopes on an effective and energetic contribution by the European Union to the Palestinian cause, more especially, on active European support for the creation of a sovereign and democratic state in Palestine, living within secure and recognised borders side by side with Israel. Egypt is for a peaceful settlement of both the Iraqi and Palestinian problems, an objective that will remain out of reach as long as the Europeans leave the field wide open to Bush to determine the course of events in the region according to his own agenda.
The Euro-Arab dialogue will eventually establish closer economic and political links between Europe and the Arab world. But it is a slow process that is expected to develop; over years, not to say decades. In the meantime, Egypt and the European Union have every interest in working together for the cause of peace. The geo-political credentials and assets of both are undeniable; all that is required is to put them to best advantage in a concerted and coordinated fashion.
With regard to Israel, what significance should be given to the emergence of Mitsna on the Israeli political scene? Is he capable of initiating an alternative policy to the one dominated by the Likud, whether by the Sharon or the Netanyahu line? Could he be regarded as a second Rabin, or is he condemned to play the role of a second Peres? Mitsna's behaviour is crucial in determining whether there is a possibility of regenerating a camp for peace and hope in the Middle East instead of fatalistically accepting the inevitability of a devastating war.
