Towards a truce in West Asia

A 'PROMISING BEGINNING' towards peace in West Asia has been indicated by the Palestinian Authority President, Mr. Yasser Arafat. This is how the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, is willing to assess Mr. Arafat's latest call to the Palestinians to observe a ceasefire in their `intifada' or uprising against the prolonged occupation of their territories by the Jewish state. Mr. Peres does not of course reckon Mr. Arafat's call as a move for complete ceasefire. Israel, or more precisely the moderate section of its leadership, shares the U.S. administration's latest view that Mr. Arafat's unconditional call for an end to violence in West Asia might, if heeded by both Palestinians and Israelis in a reciprocal fashion, lead to a firm truce. In the calculation of the Bush administration, a truce could first shape a definitive `cooling-off period'. This, in turn, would be useful to fashion confidence-building measures with the purpose of creating a climate for `final status' talks. The focus of such negotiations will be the delineation of a Palestinian state in a manner that could settle the fundamental dispute between the Jews and the Palestinians within a framework of peace and stability. The Bush administration is keen to stay engaged in West Asia, in respect of the Palestinian question, for a calibrated diplomatic intervention. The model of peace-odyssey sessions, which the previous Clinton administration held in conjunction with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, is disfavoured by Washington at this stage. The failure of those sessions is blamed, in the final analysis, on the inadequacy of efforts to create a sense of trust between the primary parties, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

This explains the dynamics of the current diplomatic intervention by the U.S. It was in the context of last week's suicide-bombing by the Palestinian Hamas group inside Israel that the U.S. sought to restrain Mr. Ariel Sharon, the Jewish supremacist Prime Minister, from ordering a massive retaliation in line with his practised policy. The bombing was the worst incident of its kind since the commencement of the latest Palestinian `intifada' several months ago, and a fierce retributive strike by Israel would have only complicated the situation. Even as Mr. Sharon was counselled to hold fire and measure his response, the U.S. mounted pressure on Mr. Arafat to call for a truce. Washington's overall objective was to seize the momentum generated by the publication of the Mitchell Commission's recommendations on ways to pull West Asia from the brink. By and large, the panel's report has found favour with the moderate sections of Israelis and Palestinians. For Mr. Arafat, the new signs of Washington's renewed interest in a resolution of the Palestinian puzzle are too precious to be ignored. That should account for the readiness with which he made a direct appeal to the Palestinians to cease violence.

The radical Hamas has hardened its position after sending out mixed signals about its gameplan in this evolving situation. It was first willing to scale down or be selective about the attacks it might have been planning against the Israeli interests. Yet, the overall initial mood in official Israel has been one of some willingness not to write off the Arafat offer in a hurry. While this may have opened a very narrow window of opportunity for the peace lobbyists, the international community should also adopt a `hands-on' approach to encourage the two warring parties to work out a ceasefire and a cooling-off period. It is a good sign that Russia is beginning to reverse its waning interest in West Asia, given the Bush administration's circumspection about the diplomatic minefield. The basic issues having remained largely unaltered since the beginning of the Madrid-Oslo process in the early 1990s, the search for solutions must still be preceded by an exercise of psycho-conditioning the parties for peace.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Overtaken by events
Next     : The Nepal crisis & Indian diplomacy