U.S. credibility at stake in Middle East

U.S. credibility at stake in Middle East

Egypt continues to be among the countries trying to bring
peace in the Middle East. Its Ambassador to Indonesia, Ezzat
Saad, talked to The Jakarta Post's Claire Harvey, about his
country's stance on Palestine. The following is the excerpt of
the interview.

Question: What is Egypt's opinion of the short-term prospects
for peace in the Middle East?

Answer: It is difficult to talk about peace without an
immediate cease-fire and full withdrawal of Israeli forces from
the West Bank. Any new initiative, such as convening a regional
conference as the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon suggested
recently, should be aimed at implementing the previous agreements
and the related arrangements. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat
should attend, if the conference will be held on summit level.

We cannot imagine that any objective observer can ask for
condemnation of a legitimate resistance to foreign occupation. It
is very well known that Sharon's political agenda is to return
the situation in the Palestinian occupied land to its pre-Oslo
days having a new deal with a collaborationist leader, after
toppling President Arafat, who can accept his preferred terms for
permanent peace: i.e. Palestinian autonomy over disconnected
enclaves of the West Bank without free access to Gaza and to
neighboring Arab countries, without sovereignty in East Jerusalem
and without the right of Palestinian refugees to return.

What is Egypt's reaction to the incursions by Israel into the
Palestinian territories?

From the very beginning Egypt had warned the Israeli
leadership of the serious consequences of the incursions into the
Palestinian cities. At the same time, Egypt requested sponsors of
the peace process, specially the Americans, and the European
Union to intervene immediately.

Within the framework of the United Nation, the Arab group,
supported by the other Islamic countries including Indonesia,
requested an urgent meeting for the Security Council to adopt a
Resolution to provide protection for the Palestinian people, an
attempt that has failed, as it was the case many times before,
because of the American veto.

Instead, and under pressure of the Arab and the world public
opinion, as manifested in demonstrations in many capitals, it was
the United States delegation that drafted a resolution calling
upon Israel to withdraw from West Bank (resolution No. 1402).
However the resolution was not implemented till now because of
its non-binding nature.

On the bilateral level, Egypt withdrew its ambassador from
Israel since November 2000 because of the continuation of the
grave situation in the occupied territories and the failure of
Israel to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
By the end of last March, Egypt suspended all government-to-
government contacts with Israel except any diplomatic contacts
that will be in the interest of the Palestinian people.

What can Egypt and other nations, particularly Indonesia, do
to help the situation?

I think we have the legal framework for a comprehensive
settlement of the conflict. On the one hand, we have the relevant
UN Security Council resolutions especially No. 242 and No. 338,
the principle of land-for-peace and, on the other hand, we have
the Oslo Agreements and the related arrangements that have been
signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The problem here is the implementation of the Israeli
obligations. I believe that the role of Egypt and the other peace
loving countries, including Indonesia, is to convince the states
that accord a biased treatment to Israel, particularly the U.S.,
to ensure the respect and implementation of international
legitimacy, to demonstrate the awareness of the need to bring
stability and security of both the region and the world.

Do you believe there has been an adequate response by the
United Nations?

From the very beginning Israel resisted all attempts to bring
the conflict into the UN agenda. As for the Arabs, and the
majority of the member states, they tried hard to involve the UN
as the proper forum to deal with such international conflict with
all its impacts on the international peace and security. The
problem here is that the charter of the organization entrusted
the Security Council with certain exceptional powers based on its
special responsibilities for maintaining international peace and
security.

Unfortunately the practice of the Security Council, especially
since the 1990s till now, is not as the drafters of the Charter
intended for the council to do. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a
very clear example in this regard.

Thus it is no wonder that the Arab group, and the great
majority of the international community that support the
Palestinian cause, failed to have a binding UN security council
resolution to provide international protection for the
Palestinians from the Israeli aggression.

Even when the Arab group requested sending an investigation
team to Jenin refugee camp to assess the human tragedy that took
place there, the U.S. delegation threatened to use the veto and
at the end we had to accept just a fact-finding mission whose
members are now subject to the approval of Israeli government.

However, we appreciate the efforts of Kofi Annan, the UN
Secretary General, to ease the situation. Besides his
participation in adopting a declaration on April 10 together with
the EU, U.S. and Russian Federation, calling upon Israel to
implement the relevant Security Council resolutions, his special
envoy to the region, Terge Roed-Larsen, visited the Jenin refugee
camp where he issued a statement condemning the Israeli
government and accusing it of failing to mount rescue efforts
that could have saved Palestinian lives in the devastated camp.

What is your opinion of the role of the United States in the
present conflict?

The U.S. has a vital role to play, not only as a sponsor for
the peace process but also because of its special relations with
Israel and the fact that the U.S. assume special responsibilities
in maintaining international peace and security as the major
super power.

Israel's attempt to equate its criminal acts and exercise of
state terrorism against the Palestinian people to the measures
adopted by the U.S. against international terrorism in the wake
of the Sept. 11 attacks would only undermine the credibility of
the collective international efforts to combat international
terrorism and -- if this is tolerated -- would necessitate a
reconsideration of the stance towards international cooperation
against international terrorism.

What further action should be taken by Arab nations, by the
Organization of the Islamic Conference and by the UN?

What is needed now is collective coordinated efforts to
convince the American administration of the fact that it will be
very difficult to talk seriously and credibly about an effective
coalition against terrorism, while the Israeli government
continues its defiance of the whole international community,
which has repeated demands over the past four weeks for an
immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian occupied
territories.

We also have to work hard for more involvement of the EU as an
important economic and trade partner of Israel.