IN THEIR MEETING in Brussels today, European Union foreign ministers will try to reach a consensus on what to do in the Middle East conflict — a task that has been historically mostly Washington’s. Senior European diplomats have recently been trying to help end nearly 17 months of Palestinian-Israeli conflict and are now looking for a solution of their own making.
The Bush administration’s writing off of Yasser Arafat, the increasing escalation of violence in the Middle East and the EU’s status as the largest non-military donor of the region have all led the EU to reappraise its role on the political front.
Frustration with the Bush stand has been the catalyst behind the EU quest for a bigger Middle East role. It has criticized the way Washington has been putting pressure on Arafat, with France calling if "another error that Europe could not go along with." French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine has labeled Ariel Sharon’s policies in the occupied territories "pure repression."
The European initiative might not succeed in pushing the two sides closer toward peace talks. Some observers agree the Europeans will not be any more influential than they usually are. A series of international efforts to broker a cease-fire has failed. Israel also sees the EU as being much too pro-Arab. And the United States would rather Europe not interfere in a domain it strictly monopolizes.
Perhaps most worrisome is that the EU has yet to speak with one voice. Foreign ministers could not agree at a meeting in Spain last week on what to do next in the Middle East. A French blueprint for Middle East peace calls for Palestinian elections and the creation of a Palestinian state. Germany floated the idea of a referendum of the Palestinian people on a negotiating proposal that could be put forward in peace talks. In addition, an Italian proposal seeks to hold a UN-sponsored Middle East peace conference attended by the US, Russia, the EU and all key regional players.
But the EU is united on two fronts. It wants a quick settlement and has misgivings over the US approach to ending the violence. Its latest efforts to counter Washington’s overt support for Israel has already met with some success. One reason why President Bush did not embrace Sharon’s demands wholeheartedly for completely severing ties with Arafat and the search for a new Palestinian leadership is partly because the administration has been subjected to pressure from a variety of sources, most notably from the EU.
The French proposal for the creation of a new Palestinian state to be immediately recognized by Israel and admitted to the United Nations has won broad support minus, of course, Israel and the United States. Paris says the state, not a truce must be the starting point for a negotiating process for a peace accord. Indeed, the key to peace might be a cease-fire but Palestinians need to be sure they will get something in return if they lay down their arms. Just as Sharon does not want to "reward terrorism," Arafat does not want to "reward the occupation."
But the Palestinian state Sharon envisages will be lacking in contiguous territory, a capital of its own choosing, control of its borders and other basic facets of modern statehood. The Palestinian state should be a contiguous one, not sliced by Israeli security roads and armed settlements. The prime minister’s ambition, acknowledged to the Israeli press, is to gain the rest of the Palestinian territories for Israel — as much of them as possible. His current policy is thus meant to destroy any possibility of a viable independent Palestinian state.
If only to prevent Sharon’s wish from becoming reality, it is hoped that at today’s EU meeting a coherent Middle East foreign policy will be formulated and a polished plan of action will emerge.
