VOL. XLVI
No 3
UN weapons inspectors have indicated that they need considerably more time to determine whether Iraq is complying with UN resolutions. The British went ahead with their conference on Palestinian reform despite the absence of the Palestinians themselves. In Israel’s election campaign, Labour leader Amram Mitzna has ruled out joining any government headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Inspectors Ask For More Time
With the build-up of American forces in the region continuing – unnamed “defense officials” in Washington are talking of the total reaching more than 150,000 “in the coming weeks” – the Americans may be hoping that the question of whether or not Iraq is complying with resolution 1441 will be swiftly and decisively resolved, perhaps when the chief UN arms inspector, Hans Blix, reports to the Security Council on 27 January. If so, it has been a bad week for the US, since both UNMOVIC (the UN inspection agency headed by Mr Blix) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have now made it clear that they need more time if they are to provide clear cut answers. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said on 13 January that “for a credible inspection process we believe we do need in the vicinity of a year…given the fairly good access we’ve been given to date, we can, the longer we’re there, have a real role to play in terms of detecting anything illegal.” IAEA Director Muhammad al-Baradi'i for his part declared on 13 January that “we still need a few months to achieve our mission,” adding that while he and Mr Blix will deliver a “status report” on 27 January, this is not a “cut-off date.” Mr Blix, too, described the 27 January report as “the beginning of the inspection and monitoring process, not the end of it” and said that the inspectors will continue their work at least until they submit a major report that will detail the “key remaining disarmament tasks” to the Security Council on 27 March. And on 16 January Mr Baradi'i confirmed that the IAEA would formally request more time from the Security Council, saying that “I think we are inching forward but we still have quite a bit of work to do. Therefore we are going to ask for at least a few months to be able to complete our job.”
How much of a spanner this is going to put in the American works depends, of course, on what Washington’s real intentions are, which at this point are anyone’s guess. And the reaction in Washington was equally confusing. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on 13 January that “the president thinks it important for the inspectors to do their job and that they have time to do their job. The president has not put an exact timetable on it,” which sounded as if the US might be amenable to an extension. But then Mr Bush himself declared the next day that “time is running out on Saddam Husain. He must disarm. I am sick and tired of games and deception.” Mr Fleischer attempted to explain the apparent contradiction by insisting that the inspectors’ need for more time was not incompatible with saying that time is running out and that Mr Bush “has not put a specific date” on Iraq disarming. However, when asked how time can be running out if there is no timetable, the best he could come up with was “that’s something Saddam Husain will have to figure out.”
UK Conference Goes Ahead Regardless
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw declared that the 14 January conference in London on Palestinian reform – which the Palestinians themselves were prevented from attending by the Israelis – had been “comprehensive and constructive,” but a more accurate assessment came from International Development Minister Clare Short on 12 January when she said “the conference has been destroyed by the present Israeli government, which decided it would not allow Palestinian leaders to come to such a conference, which is nonsense.” Nonetheless, having decided to go ahead with the meeting – attended in the absence of the Palestinians by representatives of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the international Quartet - the British had little choice but to proceed as if the Palestinians were physically present rather than on video, and at the conclusion of the conference Mr Straw read a statement described as “my…understanding of the proceedings and outcomes today,” whose main features can be summarized as follows:
On security: “There was a
clear recognition that without credible Palestinian performance on security,
the reform agenda will founder. Participants in London welcomed a clear and
unequivocal Palestinian declaration against violence and terrorism.”
On elections: “The
Palestinians expressed their unequivocal commitment to developing a realistic
timetable for free, fair and open elections.”
On constitutional reform:
“The Palestinians made a commitment to draw up by the end of January an
outline constitution based on the principles of democracy, political
pluralism, rule of law, independence of the judiciary and the protection of
individual freedoms. They emphasized that the constitution would provide for a
Prime Minister having specified powers and a bill of rights.”
On economic reform:
“Participants recognized the exceptional work done by both the Finance
Minister, Salam Fayyad, and Economy, Trade and Industry Minister, Mahir al-Masri,
in bringing financial accountability and economic reform to the Palestinian
Authority.”
On judicial reform:
“Participants expressed concern at the lack of progress on judicial reform
compared with other reform portfolios. It is the area where the credibility of
the Palestinian leadership is weakest.”
On administrative reform: “Palestinians undertook to present a draft cabinet paper on the reform of public administration and the civil service within two weeks.”
· On follow-up: “Participants agreed on the centrality of the roadmap and the work of the Quartet to implement it. They welcomed the Palestinians’ commitment to implementing the roadmap, upon its final adoption and presentation, as the path to an independent and viable state. Participants recognized that Israel must also take steps to ensure that the Palestinian reform process succeeds, and avoid actions that undermine hope in a political settlement to the conflict. In this context, the Palestinians stated their assessment that the success of their future reform efforts would depend on an end to the current restrictions on movement, including closures and curfews.”
In conclusion, the participants agreed that “reform was important both intrinsically and as a means to the end of Palestinian statehood” and urged the Palestinians “to enhance their reform effort by designating and resourcing an empowered focal point for reform efforts.” They also agreed “to feed the conclusions of the London meeting into the Quartet through a meeting in London in early February of the International Task Force on Palestinian Reform, along with a meeting of Quartet envoys.”
These are brave (if occasionally incomprehensible) words, but they are probably beside the point, since it remains very much open to doubt whether Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants a reformed, viable and internationally acceptable Palestinian government capable of negotiating a real peace agreement or a collection of B-list collaborators without a mandate whose only function would be to rubber stamp the creation of whatever Mr Sharon means by a “state.” It is in that perspective that the Palestinians are likely to see Israel’s decision not to allow them to go to London. And at the very least, they would be within their rights to ask how they are supposed to enact reforms if Israeli travel restrictions in the occupied territories mean that the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) – the Palestinians’ parliament – cannot muster a quorum and even prevent the PLC speaker, Ahmad Qura'i, from attending its meetings, as they did on 13 January.
Mitzna Rejects Coalition With Sharon
As the 28 January date for Israel’s general election approaches, Mr Sharon – whose Likud party retains a strong lead in the polls, despite a corruption scandal – issued what was seen as an implicit invitation to Likud’s main rival, Labour, to join a coalition government when he said on 13 January that “I won’t put myself in the hands of any radical parties, neither of the left nor of the right. I can’t have those who want to give up everything or those who want to keep everything. I need the center because we have to take painful steps.” However, the next day Labour leader Amram Mitzna rejected Mr Sharon’s advances in what looked like a categorical manner when he said that “the time has come to say the truth. We will not be part of a government led by Ariel Sharon. Whoever does not vote Labour will de facto vote for Sharon.” Assuming Mr Mitzna means what he says (and according to the polls, a majority of Israelis do not think he does), this is, theoretically, bad news for the peace process, since it may drive Mr Sharon into the arms of the religious and secular right. But then again, since Labour’s participation in the previous coalition government appears to have done very little to moderate Mr Sharon’s behavior, it may not make so much difference after all.
Charles Snow