|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, January 24, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
International
| Previous
| Next
Palestinian report discredits U.S. mediation
By Kesava Menon
MANAMA (BAHRAIN), JAN. 23. Palestinian negotiators had often in
the past complained about the Jewish origins and pro-Israeli tilt
of several U.S. officials who had played a key role in mediating
with Israel. At no time, however, did the Palestinians suggest
that these U.S. personnel should be replaced and for all
appearances they were received with respect whenever they toured
the region in the course of their mission. But the seriousness
with which the Palestinians are approaching the on-going talks at
Taba no less than a specific statement by some of their chief
negotiators comes as strong evidence that the Palestinians are
relieved that the U.S. is not currently playing a role.
The high point in Palestinian-U.S. relations was reached when the
former President, Mr. Bill Clinton visited the Gaza Strip and
addressed the Palestinian Parliament. In giving his nod to
Palestinian aspirations for a sovereignty, as much by giving his
tour the trappings of a State visit as by specific points he made
in his address, Mr. Clinton boosted the Palestinian belief that
they would receive more just treatment from the U.S.
administration. This belief was seriously damaged in the course
of the Camp David talks last year and its follow up. The
Palestinian Authority President came away from Camp David
thinking that Mr. Clinton had tried to railroad him into a less
than fair agreement and his pique was hardly lessened when the
U.S. President went on to blame him for the failure of the talks.
In a timely warning to those who look positively at the prospects
of U.S. mediation in other conflicts (Kashmir, for instance)
comes a Palestinian-authored critical appraisal of the role and
approach the U.S. has adopted over the past 10 years. In essence,
the appraisal underscores how the U.S. even under a perceptive
leader such as Mr. Clinton is so caught up in its own world view
and so attached to its own interests that its utility as a
mediator is undermined. In publicising this appraisal on the day
after Mr. Clinton quit office, the Palestinian Authority, of
course, wanted to place on record its summation of his efforts
but this appraisal is useful in other contexts as well.
Stating that the U.S. mediation had ``disastrous consequences''
for the peace process, the memorandum, prepared by the
Palestinian Authority's peace talks department, notes that the
process had become a goal in and of itself for the U.S.
administration. Over the last seven years U.S. policy had been
guided by ``the need to help Israel normalise its relations with
the Arab and Muslim world at large, as well as with many other
nations around the world sympathetic to the plight of the
Palestinians''. The memorandum points to the U.S.
administration's failure to address Palestinian dispossession,
the core issue without the redress of which it is impossible to
achieve real peace. Instead, the memorandum notes, the chief
preoccupation was the security of Israel, including the security
of its occupation forces.
Till the last stage of the Clinton administration, the U.S.
pressed the two sides to work out an agreement in principle, or a
framework agreement, something less than a detailed plan for
their co-existence in future with precise points to be filled in
through follow-up bilateral negotiations. The memorandum points
to the deficiencies of such a method. ``As a result of vaguely-
worded arguments...both parties to the conflict have mistakenly
assumed, at different times, that either the Israelis had
accepted to end the occupation, or that the Palestinians had
agreed to forgo some of their fundamental rights. Such ambiguity
made it possible for both sides to sign agreements that they
could interpret in diametrically opposed manners to their
domestic constituencies...and has led to very little
implementation.'' The memorandum goes on to note that some of the
U.S. officials - the special envoy, Mr. Dennis Ross was
specifically named - had not been able to set aside their
personal attachment to Israel while carrying out their
professional duties.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : International Previous : 'Body repair kit' becomes a reality Next : Kilshaws turn hate objects | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|