'Amoral responsibility to act'

In New York and Geneva, Arab diplomats are pushing for the UN and the international community to engage more actively in the deteriorating Middle East peace process. Dina Ezzat examines the diplomatic offensive
'Amoral responsibility to act'
The current situation in the Palestinian territories provides a tense background against which Arab diplomats, gathered in New York this week for a UN General Assembly debate, are lobbying to resurrect the Middle East peace process. It is probable that, within the next few weeks, the US will forward ideas for getting Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table. But no comprehensive peace initiative seems to be in sight -- at least not yet. Talk of a joint American-European Union initiative for peace in the Middle East, or of an initiative spearheaded by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, seems to have fallen silent for now.
"There seems to be a general consensus that Sharon will not commit himself to anything comprehensive or long-term. In the light of this, it seems, the international community has decided to give Sharon more time," commented one Arab diplomat. Speaking to Al- Ahram Weekly from New York, the diplomat agreed that "there are several possible initiatives floating around in the air -- and it seems that in the air is where they will remain for the time being."
On the fringe of the General Assembly meeting in New York, delegates from the US, Europe and Russia and representatives of the UN secretary-general are holding consultations on the Middle East. For their part, Arab diplomats are intensifying meetings with these international parties to encourage quick and meaningful political action.
According to diplomatic sources in New York, Arab League Secretary-General has told his UN counterpart, Kofi Annan, that the highly explosive situation in the Middle East can no longer be ignored. He also asserted that the UN had a moral responsibility to act. Moussa has repeated these statements to other officials and diplomats in New York. According to diplomatic sources, most of these officials seemed to agree with Moussa that some movement forward was urgently required.
There is no agreement, however -- neither amongst the international community at large, nor among Arab states -- on what exactly this movement forward should be.
In an unprecedented move, US President George W Bush used the word "Palestine" as the name of the Palestinian entity he had in mind in his speech to the UN General Assembly earlier this week. "We are working toward the day when two states, Israel and Palestine, can live together peacefully within secure and recognised international borders as called for by the Security Council resolutions," Bush said. Addressing the General Assembly a day later, Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestinian Authority, expressed his "deepest appreciation" to Mr. Bush for the speech.
But beyond exchanging public statements about the would-be Palestinian state -- an exchange that has been ongoing since October, as the US tried to win over Arab public opinion in the run-up to its war against Taliban -- agreement is still lacking on what needs to be done now.
The US administration is again talking about the need to implement the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Plan. The Palestinians accept this, but they are also calling for international observers to ensure the implementation of the cease-fire. Some EU member-states agree that Israel should be encouraged to accept some limited international observer presence.
Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are taking a pragmatic approach, and are hoping something will come of American re-engagement with the Middle East. Syria and Lebanon do not agree. They are arguing that further US involvement would threaten the "already fragile" united Arab stance. The door would then be open for the US to attack an Arab state as part of its "war against international terrorism" without being concerned about a collective Arab reaction. As for the Arab League, 's vision is of a "a clear road map that takes us, within a reasonable and clearly defined time- frame, to a viable Palestinian state."
All parties agree on two issues. Firstly, it is clear to all that the Bush administration has not yet made up its mind to commit itself to a Middle East peace process. Bush's approach differs considerably from that of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, according to one diplomat. Bush has not displayed the same sort of "continuous, deep and detailed engagement," the diplomat said.
Secondly, all parties agree that ideas floated by Israel about an "interim, independent" Palestinian state, which they say will begin with Gaza, do not form the basis for a serious new start to the peace process. "It is impossible to go for another interim agreement," Arafat repeatedly told diplomats and officials in New York.
Meanwhile, Bush remains reluctant to meet with Arafat for serious discussions. According to one well-informed diplomat, "All efforts to arrange a fringe meeting in the corridors of UN headquarters have not worked. Arafat is very frustrated."
European diplomats -- who have been trying to mediate this meeting -- say they are disappointed with Bush's apparent lack of sympathy with Arafat's difficult position. As the situation goes from bad to worse on the ground, Arafat is "losing credibility among his people," according to these diplomats. "A meeting with Bush could have slightly improved Arafat's public image, but the US have decided to act on Israeli advice and not meet with Arafat."
US Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters in New York this week that "in due course and as we move forward, the President will have an opportunity to meet with Chairman Arafat." Powell expressed hope for "a new energy toward getting into a cease-fire. This is the first step."
If a cease-fire is the first step, no one seems to be clear on the second step. Meanwhile, concern is growing among Arab states over what the US's true intentions towards them are. In the UN this week, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq have been particularly vocal in expressing concern. Iraq is increasingly concerned that it may become the next US target in the "war against terrorism." One Arab diplomat told the Weekly "Iraq has learned that a senior American official has been trying to convince the Russians to agree on 'using this opportunity' to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, irrespective of whether Iraq is connected to the 11 September attacks or not." This and other similar intelligence reports have given Arab states cause for increasing concern about a potential attack against Iraqi targets, the diplomat said.
Future US policy in the Gulf area was discussed at length in New York at a meeting that Colin Powell held with his counterparts from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Gulf states did not agree amongst themselves that US strikes against Iraq should be prevented, however. According to diplomatic sources, GCC foreign ministers seemed to be more concerned that Yemen, which is also said to be on the US hit list, be spared from US strikes.
One Arab diplomatic source commented that statements made earlier this week to a Lebanese newspaper by a senior Iraqi official about "Kuwait being part of Iraq" were not helpful in consolidating GCC opposition to US attacks against Iraq.
Syria and Lebanon are also concerned. They fear that the inclusion of Hizbullah on the third list issued by the US of individuals and organisations related to Al-Qa'ida might be a warning that an attack may be launched against Lebanon, or specifically against Syrian positions in Lebanon, or even against Syria itself.
Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Al-Sharaa was reported to have been told by his American counterpart in New York on Sunday that the US wants Damascus to use its influence over Hizbullah to reduce conflict with Israel. Syria and Lebanon told the UN secretary- general this week that Hizbullah should not be on the US list of "foreign terrorist organisations" because it confines its military activities to attacking Israeli forces in Israeli-occupied Arab land.
Arab League Secretary-General Moussa was offered assurances by officials from the US, the EU, Russia and the UN, to the effect that they had a "clear understanding" of the negative impact that a US attack against an Arab state would have on the Arab world, particularly in view of the absence of a US peace initiative.
At a meeting held in New York this week, Arab foreign ministers and the Arab League secretary-general seemed able to agree on this much at least: that a US initiative on Arab-Israeli peace is far from ready yet, and that US attacks against an Arab state, while possible, are not probable.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor