The occupier observed from the sidelines. The occupied were summoned to be handed yet another promissory note, and a sustenance allowance - on condition of good behaviour. The ritual was enacted, appropriately enough, in London (on March 1) where it all began nine decades earlier; it was consecrated by the august presence of United States Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, of the members of the Quartet, and a few others, including representatives of some Arab states. It resulted in a three-page statement of "Conclusions," supported by a longer Palestinian declaration on "institutional renewal" and a set of commitments by the `international community" to advice and assist the Palestinians in this endeavour.
The London document is important for its assertions and omissions. The timing was significant: post-Arafat, post-U.S. election, post-Iraqi elections. Its purpose was carefully spelt out: to support a "reinvigorated" Palestinian leadership's plan for reforms that would make them fit to enjoy the fruits of the promised statehood. The focus was only tangentially on the real issue - Israel's 38-year-old occupation of Palestinian territories. The participants, walking gingerly on eggshells, "urged and expect action by Israel in relation to its own Roadmap commitments." They expressed the pious hope that a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement would be achieved "consistent with the Roadmap and based on UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1515."
Since public memory is fleeting in our age of instant information, many would not be expected to remember the 14 substantive reservations incorporated by Israel in its acceptance of the Roadmap in May 2003. The London document therefore needs to be studied alongside these in order to assess the extent to which it sustains Israeli policy. Reservation 3 stipulated the emergence of "a new and different" Palestinian leadership. This was conveniently achieved through the death of Yasser Arafat. Reservation 4 insisted on a monitoring mechanism under U.S. management whose chief verification activity would concentrate upon the "the creation of another Palestinian entity" dedicated to reforms. The profile of the new Palestinian leader, and his pronouncements in recent weeks, suggest compliance with this requirement.
Reservation 10 stressed that UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 would constitute "only an outline" for the conduct of negotiations for a final settlement. The contradiction between this reservation and the softly worded expectation of the London document is evident. Resolution 242 (despite the Anglo-American sophistry about the absence of a definite article) emphasised the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war. Resolution 338 called upon the parties to implement Resolution 242 it in all its parts. The Taba non-paper of January 2001 as well as the Roadmap talked of a negotiated settlement based on Resolution 242. The emphasis of international opinion is on a just solution. The Israeli effort, on the other hand, has been to dilute this principle to the point of irrelevance, and to impose a solution. Does it not run counter to a basic principle of human existence?
Justice, said the Harvard philosopher John Rawls, is the first virtue of social institutions: " For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others (and) the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests."
The argument that institutional reforms in the Palestinian structure should precede the end of occupation is pernicious and reminiscent of the logic of colonialism. Democracy, institutional reforms, sound financial management, and good governance are all indisputably desirable. The freedom of a people cannot, however, be made contingent on the prior achievement on any or all of these.
The argument for reforms, in any case, is overstated as is evident from the remarks made in the London Conference by the European Union's High Representative, Javier Solana: "The Palestinians have earned the respect of the international community by demonstrating a great sense of responsibility and political maturity." He added that democracy was deeply entrenched in Palestinian political culture and that the Palestinians "need to be given as much physical, political and economic space as possible, as soon as possible."
No problem in recent times has impacted so comprehensively on so many people in so many lands as the problem of Palestine. There is an imperative for seeking an end to the conflict. None other than an eminent Israeli statesman summed it up a few years back: "For the Palestinians the peace process represents a chance to take possession of their destiny and go forward in peace and hope. For Israel there is a chance of real security and an opportunity to assert its democratic and humane origins". If so, procrastination can only be motivated by considerations of discord, and ill will to peace.
The author is a former Permanente Representative of India to the United Nations. He is presently Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.
Courtesy: The Hindu, Chennai, March 5, 2005.
* Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
