Deficient sovereignty

Is the present crisis in the peace process inbuilt in the process itself? asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

---

Like the hero in George Orwell's 1984, the Middle East is the victim of a huge scam, a monstrous lie couched in doublespeak. The deception is represented in the substitution of one word for another, more specifically, in endowing a word, sovereignty, with a meaning that is the exact opposite of what it stands for, namely, occupation and subordination.

Perhaps the most blatant example of doublespeak is the notion of a Palestinian state as endorsed by George W Bush. The US president talks of an independent, sovereign state living peacefully side by side with Israel even though he knows that a condition for its establishment is that it will be demilitarised. A country without an army to defend itself is obviously lacking an essential attribute of sovereignty, and yet the proposed demilitarised Palestinian state is being touted as "sovereign". Nor is its demilitarised status open to discussion by any of the concerned parties; the decision has been made from on high and must be accepted as part of the package.

The same applies to Iraq, where the talk is of a handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi people when the coalition forces pull out on 30 June. However, it remains to be seen just how much power will be handed over to the Iraqis on that date, now only five weeks away, especially that some American officials are talking openly of extending the occupation to a "very long time".

Even the Greater Middle East Initiative is an example of doublespeak. Stretching from Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west, it can hardly qualify as a uniform cultural-political entity whose peoples share the same concerns and aspirations and whose problems can be solved in the same manner. For example, while the issue of establishing a Palestinian state is on the cards, there is no question of allowing the creation of an autonomous Kurdish state or of an independent state in Kashmir. How can there be talk of a homogeneous whole when problems of an apparently similar nature are addressed in such obviously different ways?

There is actually nothing in common between the Palestinian, Kurdish and Kashmiri cases. The only common denominator is the attitude of the United States towards all three. There is no question of establishing genuinely independent states in any of these cases. Rather, the expansion of the traditional geopolitical boundaries of the Middle East to accommodate a new wider, or Greater, Middle East promises to generalise a pattern that is emerging under the present American-led world order. It is a pattern inspired not by a desire to grant independence or sovereignty to this or that nation or state, but by a resolve to impose new forms of occupation and subjugation along the lines of what is now happening in Iraq and Palestine.

Another case in point is the pressure America is bringing to bear on the Arab world to institute reforms. Although the Arab states acknowledge the urgent need for reform, they are unanimous in their refusal to accept a blueprint for reform dictated from abroad, arguing that reform cannot be imposed on any society but must emanate from within. The US has not objected to this stand in principle. But Colin Powell has come forward with a proposal that is obviously aimed at ensuring a strong American presence in any reform process. He is trying to sell Arab leaders on the idea of an annual meeting between their foreign ministers and the US secretary of state to monitor the process, review the measures already taken and follow up steps to be taken in future. The idea behind the proposal is not to cancel reform imposed from abroad but, on the contrary, to generalise the practice throughout the Arab world with the active and systematic participation of an external party, the United States.

The behaviour of the US on the global stage is emulated by Israel at the regional level, where its bullying tactics have done little to endear it to its Arab neighbours. Absent as a state from the region for almost two thousand years, resurrected in its modern incarnation just 50 odd years ago, it has sought to impose its presence in their midst by force of arms. Even after the historic Beirut summit at which the Arab states adopted a unanimous resolution declaring peace to be their strategic imperative, Israel continues to cling to the notion that the peoples of the region question its right to exist and that consequently the conflict cannot be considered as over.

The problem is not that Israel is defending its right to exist as a sovereign state, but that it is trying to establish itself as a state enjoying some kind of supra-sovereignty at the expense of its Arab environment. In this logic, the only peace acceptable to Israel (and to the United States) is not one based on the parity and equality of the protagonists but one that offers Israel unlimited guarantees for its security and survival and that commits the Arab parties to obligations which serve its requirements.

As far as the US and Israel are concerned, the only deal open to discussion is one in which they get to have the final say. This was obvious in the Security Council resolution condemning the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Rafah. The resolution was approved by 14 of the 15 Council members, with only the US abstaining. It is hard to see why the self-proclaimed guardian of human rights found it necessary to abstain from condemning the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators marching to demand humanitarian aid. Even the Israeli representative at the Security Council conceded that the raid, the bloodiest launched by Israel in years, had killed a large number of civilians and felt the need to apologise officially. The US representative justified his abstention on the grounds that the resolution did not condemn terrorism! How can the US enjoy any credibility as an honest broker in the conflict when it insists on being more pro-Israeli than Israel's official diplomacy?

The Bush administration's unholy alliance with the Sharon government is matched only by its utter disdain for the Arab protagonists. A recent example of how quickly it can turn against its most stalwart Arab allies is the amazing raid conducted by US forces and the Iraqi police last week on the offices and home of Iraqi National Council member Ahmed Chalabi. Until recently regarded as Washington's pet and a strong contender for the top position in the post- occupation Iraqi government Chalabi incurred Washington's wrath when he criticised the coalition authority and the Bush administration's plans for the transition to Iraqi governance. American officials now accuse Chalabi of inciting Iraqi dissidents before the war to provide US authorities with misleading intelligence on Saddam's alleged cache of WMD, thereby encouraging the US to go to war against Baghdad. More specifically, one of the dissidents presented by Chalabi to US intelligence was behind the allegation that Iraq possessed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons, an allegation that has since proved to be totally unfounded.

US authorities are now making much of the fact that in 1992 Chalabi who had founded a bank in Amman that went bankrupt and who was then living as an exile abroad, was convicted in absentia of bank fraud by a Jordanian court. The CIA claims that the Chalabi group was infiltrated by Baath agents and expressed annoyance that the Pentagon insisted on supporting him.

In the recent period Chalabi has become increasingly critical of US policy, clashing openly with Bremer and calling for full Iraqi control of its armed forces and oil revenues following the 30 June pullout. He has also criticised Lakhdar Brahimi's efforts to organise an Iraqi government. In retaliation, the US administration abruptly cut off some 340 thousand dollars a month in funding to Chalabi's party.

As the 30 June deadline draws closer, Iraq is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Continued occupation is unacceptable, but at the same time the holding of elections as a prerequisite for the restoration of sovereignty is impossible. Can UN intervention prevent further deterioration? Can the Brahimi plan provide a way out of the present impasse? Is it advisable that an international military presence under UN auspices and with (or without) Arab participation replace the present US-led coalition, now totally discredited after the torture revelations?

There is talk of expanding the provisional government in the hope that its numerical expansion will endow it with a qualitatively different character, so that it is no longer made up only of competent bureaucrats but also of elements capable of creative thinking and political vision. Much depends in this matter on how the resolutions of this week's Arab summit are implemented.

However, the main obstacle that will continue to prevent the dream of regional peace and stability from ever materialising is the refusal of Israel, particularly under the Sharon government, to relinquish its status as a country enjoying some sort of supra-sovereignty.