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