April 18, 2002
MIDEAST:
SNUBBED, POWELL RETURNS 'EMPTY-HANDED'
KEY FINDINGS
** Israelis welcome Sharon's short-term security
gains; some foresee long-term confrontation
** Israelis split along right/left lines on
whether reoccupation of the territories or internationalization of the peace
process offers the most promise
** Arabs view IDF operations as evidence of U.S. submission to, or
complicity with, Israel
** Arab writers seek ways to counteract U.S.' perceived
pro-Israeli tilt
** "Failure" is the leitmotif sounded
by European writers in describing the Powell mission
** Many Europeans highlight the "absence" of an
overarching U.S. policy for the region, beyond Washington's avowed intention to
"attack" Iraq
REGIONAL THEMES
ISRAEL: While
most observers agreed with PM Sharon's decision to "stare down"
President Bush by letting IDF operations run their course, many worried that
Secretary Powell now returns to Washington "equally critical" of
Israelis and Palestinians. In their
view, Powell left behind a "dangerous vacuum" in which the two sides
will be left to "shed more blood...until we return to the negotiating
table." One writer judged that the
crisis had sharpened the left-right split in Israel, with the right-wing
wanting to retake control of the territories and the left pushing for a
settlement with the help of an international force. PM Sharon's proposal for a regional peace
summit was considered a savvy domestic political move which "aroused a
degree of hope" in Israel. One
daily warned, however, that Sharon would face a real dilemma if such a
conference crystallized around the Saudi peace initiative.
ARABS: Strongly
worded headlines and editorials conveyed deep despair over the
"failure" of Powell's mission.
A Jordanian daily spoke for many who felt that the tour's outcome
"spread a final and ultimate wave of pessimism" for those who had
counted on the U.S. Disappointment
spiked following media access to the Jenin refugee camp and Powell's meeting
with PA leader Arafat. East Jerusalem's
independent Al-Quds called for an end to Washington's
"monopoly" as peace process sponsor.
Editorials offered varying interpretations of Israel's apparent
disregard of U.S. "demands" for IDF withdrawal. Some posited that ingrained pro-Israeli
sentiment in Washington allowed Sharon to "humiliate" even President
Bush with impunity. Others saw U.S.
warnings to Israel as a mere "cover" for U.S. complicity in Israel's
plans. Some writers searched for the
best way to prod the U.S. into "exerting more pressure" on
Israel. In Morocco, dailies campaigned
for a worldwide boycott of McDonald's and of the dollar, "as an expression
of solidarity with the Palestinian people."
EUROPE: Having produced no
discernible movement toward a cease-fire, Powell's mission was deemed a
"failure" and "fiasco" by editorial writers across the
continent. Pointing to Sharon's
"ignoring" U.S. demands and Arabs leaders' cold-shouldering the
secretary both in Morocco and in Egypt, papers portrayed the trip as a
"humiliating" endeavor that "wasted American political
capital." Critics in many capitals
saw the outcome as a reflection of the Bush administration's inability to
articulate and implement a cogent Mideast policy. Opinionmakers blamed the president himself for
"zigzagging" from no involvement to belated intervention, and for
sending his envoy out "without clear instructions" or unequivocal
White House backing. A conservative UK
daily was alone in maintaining that Bush should revert to his "consistent
if controversial" hands-off stance.
The view in nearly all other papers, however, was that despite the
perceived failure of the Powell mission, more, not less, U.S. intervention is
needed, with some going so far as to insist that Bush's personal intervention
is called for. A pair of French and
German writers, losing hope in U.S. mediation, asserted that the EU must now
"get back in the picture" and "define its own common
position" rather than simply backing U.S. efforts.
EDITORS:
Gail Burke, Katherine Starr, Stephen Thibeault
EDITORS' NOTE: This report is based on 62 reports from 26
countries, April 16-18. Editorial
excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
MIDEAST
ISRAEL:
"A Dangerous Vacuum"
Independent Ha'aretz editorialized
(4/18): "U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who ended his trip to the
Middle East yesterday, succeeded, at least for the time being, in keeping the
conflict from spreading to the northern border.
But he leaves behind a dangerous vacuum at the heart of the
conflict--the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation.... The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict can not tolerate a diplomatic vacuum: in the absence of energetic
activity, it is doomed to further deterioration.... In order to implement the plan for a regional
conference, which has aroused a degree of hope in the [Israeli] public's heart,
the government must rein in the IDF's activities in the territories.... When an effort is being made to rescue Israel
from one of the worst crises in its history, the price of a short-term security
achievement is liable to be the loss of any long-term political hope."
"Officer Azulai"
Senior columnist Hemmi Shalev wrote in a page
one article in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/18): "Secretary of
State Colin Powell is the Officer Azulai [the main character of a popular
Israeli film] of Middle Eastern diplomacy.
He is full of good intentions, but the guys don't give him a chance. He demands law and order, and behind his back
they rob the bank.... The staff of the Prime Minister's Bureau found it
difficult yesterday to conceal their satisfaction with Powell¡¦s failure. Sharon waited until he saw the whites of
Bush's eyes, they stared each other down, and President Bush blinked first....
At the same time, their experience teaches Israelis that the Prime Minister's
Bureau tends to celebrate a bit too soon.
Powell left yesterday with a grudge not only against Arafat, but also
against Sharon, equipped with an Israeli proposal for a 'regional summit' which
some say will come back at the man who proposed it like a boomerang. When Sharon receives the letter inviting him
to the conference, on the basis of the Saudi proposal, he will be sorry that he
opened his mouth."
"The Party Is Over"
Veteran op-ed writer Eytan Haber opined in the
lead editorial of mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/18):
"Most unfortunately, the Palestinians feel as if they have succeeded in
convincing the world that they are right, whereas the Israelis feel they have
vanquished the 'terror infrastructure' on the battlefield. When both sides are convinced they have
won...the worst may still be ahead....
In the Oval Office...Powell will express his revulsion about the
Palestinian side; he will be equally critical of the Israeli side, and propose
to the President a short-term American policy:
'Let them bleed.' It looks as
though we in the Middle East will go on shedding more blood...until we return
to the negotiating table."
"Between Jenin And The Iraqi Bomb"
Defense commentator Reuven Pedhazur wrote in
independent Ha'aretz (4/18): "A Saddam Hussein with his finger on
the nuclear button is a clear and present danger to Israel. Therefore, if the chance exists that U.S.
military activity will put an end to his regime and bring about the
annihilation of Iraq's nuclear development program, Israel must do everything
to support and aid such a plan. This
must be one of the major considerations of the Prime Minister in deciding
whether to agree to the administration's request that the IDF withdraw from all
parts of Area A (under full Palestinian control). Unfortunately, as a New York Times columnist
wrote, the road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem."
"The End Of Powell's Mission"
Former Editor Moshe Ishon wrote in nationalist Hatzofe
(4/18): "The United States will continue to strive for a compromise
between Sharon and Arafat, although, at this stage, no positive move can be see
on the horizon.... In those circumstances, Powell's mission is approaching its
end; he cannot report to President Bush any progress in his talks...with Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon and PLO head Yasser Arafat.... As long as Arafat enjoys
the U.S.' unreserved support, Sharon will find it hard to bring about his swift
ouster from the political stage."
"Occupation Or Internationalization"
Diplomatic correspondent Aluf Benn wrote in
independent Ha'aretz (4/18): "Operation Defensive Shield has
fomented a deep change in the political debate in Israel and redrawn the
demarcation lines between left and right, which had become blurred in the
decade of the Oslo accords and the brutal clash with the Palestinians. The right is now urging that Israel retake
control of the territories, while the left is pushing for an enforced
settlement with the aid of an international force. Occupation or internationalization: these are
the parameters within which the public discourse will henceforth be conducted
in Israel. What both approaches have in
common is their recognition that there is no longer any prospect of reaching an
agreement with the Palestinians. Not a
permanent settlement, not an interim agreement, not even a temporary
cease-fire. There may be nothing new
about that, but the operation in the territories brought about the collapse of
the Palestinian governmental structure and put an end to the concept of
'Rajoubization' [after Jibril Rajoub, the head of the PA's Preventative
Security apparatus in the West Bank].... Operation Defensive Shield ended with
a major missed political opportunity. In
many countries, Palestinian terrorism was accorded legitimization as a national
war of liberation, Israel lost the moral validity of its operations, and
statesmen like Powell and Javier Solana are longing to be rid of both Arafat
and Sharon. There is a growing tendency
within the international community to intervene and bring order out of the
chaos, without requesting permission from the irresponsible Israelis and
Palestinians."
WEST BANK: "Powell's
Mission Failed"
Independent Al-Quds opined (4/18):
"An overall evaluation to Secretary Powell's visit to the region
indicates, without a doubt, that it has failed to achieve its modest objectives
set forth by President Bush on the eve of the Secretary's visit. The president said the visit was intended to
implement UN Resolutions 1397 and 1402, which call for an Israeli withdrawal
from Palestinian Authority areas, and reaching a cease-fire between the two
sides.... But neither was accomplished. Another indication of the mission's failure
is the fact that Arafat's office is still under siege,...and the Church of
Nativity is still surrounded by Israeli tanks.
The failure of Secretary Powell's mission raises questions about the
U.S. role in the peace negotiations, and proves again that Washington should
end its monopoly over the peace process...in order to allow the international
community to fulfill its obligations toward the Palestinian people."
"American Cover For Israeli Offensive"
Bilal El-Hasan opined in Al-Quds (4/16):
"Following PM Sharon's rejection of American warnings and demands for an
immediate Israeli withdrawal, President George W. Bush has suddenly become
speechless. But why? Has he conceded defeat in front of Sharon? Or, more
likely, that was exactly what the President wanted: To prove to the Arabs and
the whole world that he did his best but was unsuccessful.... The Israeli
military campaign in the West Bank has been supported, from the very beginning,
by an American cover, claiming that it was Israel's right for self-defense. The
fundamental position of Powell and Zinni, despite all the recent modifications
in that position, have reflected the Israeli perspective to an extent that the
Israeli offensive seemed more like a joint American-Israeli campaign, which reflects
the real aim of Secretary Powell's mission."
EGYPT:
"Powell And Generals' Talk"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram
admonished (4/18): "Powell told Arafat: 'You are a general and I am a
general; let's have a discussion of generals.
You have to make an extra effort to stop the Palestinian
terrorism.' Powell disregarded all the
destruction of the devilish Israeli military machine, forgot the blockade of
Arafat which he witnessed, ignored all the voices which oppose Sharon's
massacre--even those from within the U.S.--and asked the besieged Arafat to end
the violence.... The world awaits more objectivity from the American
administration, as America is the sole superpower of today's world.... Bias and injustice will only lead to further
violence, blood and anger from which no one will survive including the Israeli
people.... Powell's talk of the
generals--which is supposed to be honest, clear and conducted with
integrity--is no more than a cover for grave crimes history will not
forget."
"What Is After Powell's Picnic?"
The limited circulation pro-government Al
Gomhouriya's editor-in-chief and close "confidant" of President
Mubarak Samir Ragab summed up the Powell visit as follows (4/18): "Powell
came and went.... Clearly, from the start, the U.S. gave Sharon a 'green light'
to do whatever he wanted to do to Palestinians.... The Powell speech in
Jerusalem, delivered after his meeting with Arafat, was confused and
contradictory and appeared to be saying one thing out-loud while concealing
something else.... Did Mubarak find Powell's shuttle tour lacking the desired
results so he (Mubarak) could not meet with him? In my opinion: 'Yes.'"
"Sharon And Palestinians"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram columnist
Hazem Abdel Rahman wrote (4/17):
"We all know the timing of the recent martyrdom operation which
occurred on the first day of Secretary Powell's mission while he was meeting
with Sharon was very bad.... As such,
Sharon was encouraged to announce that he would remain in power in the Israeli
government until 2003 and may run for elections again...to remain until
2008. Arab and Palestinian circles see
this as a harsh shock and grave setback in peace efforts.... Arabs should study the factors which provide
stability and strength to his coalition and especially the role of the 'fedaie'
(commando) operations.... Palestinian politicians who wish for an Israeli
government which is more responsive to their demands should answer this
question frankly: should the martyrdom fedaie operations stop, especially since
there are other alternatives such as stones and civil disobedience?"
"The Issue Is Not Conferences"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram's
editor-in-chief Ibrahim Nafie stated (4/17):
"The meeting between Arafat and Colin Powell was truly positive.
Powell walked through the re-occupied Palestinian territories...and saw the
truth for himself.... Frankly, the idea
[about a regional peace conference to which Powell agreed] is not appreciated
by any Arab party.... The Arab world is
convinced the idea of a regional conference under U.S. sponsorship is nothing
but a new attempt to grant Sharon-the-terrorist some kind of
legitimacy.... It would be an attempt to
ignore the state terrorism of Israeli troops and to undermine the Arab position
as expressed in the Beirut summit. Most
importantly, it is an attempt to avoid an international war crimes' trial for
Sharon."
"The Age's Holocaust and the Awareness
Intifada"
Salah Eddin Hafez opined in leading
pro-government Al Ahram (4/17):
"Paradoxically, those who claim to be victims of Nazi crimes
yesterday, are those who commit annihilation crimes against Palestinian people
today.... Our efforts should focus immediately on documenting these horrible
crime and collecting evidence and witnesses before Zionist troops bury
them.... This is our [Arab] mission and
not the mission of anyone else.... We should realize the strongest resistance
to such a tribunal would not come from Zionist powers alone but also from
American powers and for fundamental reasons.
The record of U.S. crimes against humanity is a full one and includes
actions in the war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan."
JORDAN: "The President
Raises His Finger¡¦
Daily columnist Jamil Nimri wrote on the back
page of independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/18): ¡¦The outcome of Powell¡¦s tour spread a final
and ultimate wave of pessimism. No more
dependence on the American role. We cannot
however put the full stop at the end of the line. America exists and the world exists but the
course must be set from within the region and not from without. Powell started his mission as President
Bush¡¦s envoy and ended up as Sharon¡¦s envoy¡¦
Yet another experience--a conclusive one--clearly showing that America
will never cross the Israeli lines.
America either stays away and does not intervene or it does intervene to
serve the Israeli stance. Whether we
understand something or not from the failure of Powell¡¦s mission, the fact is
the alternative cards in the hands of the Arabs are weak. Instead of wasting efforts on convincing the
U.S. administration to move and do something, it would be better if we, ourselves,
do what we can to bring about effect everywhere including inside the United
States.¡¦ We must prepare a strategy that
is based on the reality shown by the miserable results of Powell¡¦s visit. We have no choice but to depend on our
ourselves and on our own performance in the international and regional arena.¡¦
"What¡¦s After Powell¡¦s Failure?¡¦
Columnist Raja Talab wrote on the op-ed page of
semi-official, influential Al-Ra¡¦i (4/18): ¡¦The way President Bush decided to send his
Secretary of State Powel to the region via his famous speech where he defended
Israel¡¦s ¡¦right¡¦ to defend itself, attacked the Palestinian President, and
specified the course of the trip that started in Morocco rather than Ramallah
or Tel Aviv, set the groundwork for Colin Powell¡¦s mission in the Middle East. It is a mission that could be described as a
sponge designed to absorb the Arab anger, particularly in moderate Arab
countries, and to show that the U.S. administration is still performing its
role. Because the mission was not
serious from the beginning, Powell arrived in the region without any new ideas
and no authority. He therefore resorted
to the safest tactic, namely pressuring the Palestinian side¡¦ Powell did not
fail because he did not exert genuine effort to put the situation back on the
right track, specifically with reference to the withdrawal of the Israeli
forces. In reality, Powell was on a
mission of support and back up that sought to give more American legitimacy to
the massacres of the Palestinian people and to bring down President Arafat.¡¦
"Failure Of Powell¡¦s Mission And The
Required Stand¡¦
Center-left, influential Al-Dustour
maintained (4/18): ¡¦In the face of this
Israeli arrogance that has no consideration whatsoever for world calls and
demands, and in the face of this utter American blindness to the real reasons
behind this struggle, and in the face of the escalation of America¡¦s blatant
bias in favor of the Hebrew state, the ball bounces back to the Arab
courts. Are we going to stay prisoners
to this idea of passively waiting? Is it
not time to activate Arab pressure and exercise real pressure on the United
States to force it to in turn pressure the Hebrew state?¡¦
LEBANON: "Complete And
Unconditional"
Mustafa Al-Husseini asserted in Arab nationalist
As-Safir (4/17): "The basis
for this deep understanding...between Washington and Tel Aviv, between Bush and
Sharon, is that they both share the view that the initial condition for a
solution for the Palestinian crisis should be 'complete unconditional
surrender.'... (Bush and Sharon) are not
only seeking this unconditional surrender by the Palestinians, but also by all
Arabs. This is the core behind Ariel
Sharon's suggestion to hold a regional conference.... Sharon's call for this conference can only be
characterized as a call for the Arabs to declare a complete unconditional
surrender.... The aim behind the
conference is to draw up a new political map for the region."
"Powell Revives The Political Horizon Of
Peace From Beirut"
George Bkasini wrote in Hariri-owned Al-Mustaqbal
(4/17): "Observers believe that
Powell's statements in Beirut were designed to correct his administration's
political tendencies and commitments in the region. It is important that Washington has become
convinced that a military solution via Sharon's way will never reach any
conclusion, and that the Arab initiative...is the only available option so
far.... Powell informed Hariri that his
administration 'is convinced now' of the Arab view which says that only a
political and comprehensive solution...would mobilize the Arab-Israeli
tracks.... Powell's visit to the region
may not achieve quick results, however, merely visiting the region reflects
American concern and an amendment in U.S. policy towards the peace
process. We should also take note of the
fact that Washington's mission with Sharon is not an easy one."
MOROCCO:
"Powell's Mission In The Middle East"
Abdekarim Ghallab asserted in
government-coalition, Istiqlal Party Al Alam (4/17): "Sharon decided and Powell endorsed a conference
to save more time for sabotage and destruction.... Sharon has played down the U.S. 'peace'
mission in the Middle East undertaken by Secretary of State Powell to implement
Bush's decision, which calls for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces. Sharon has done this to humiliate the dignity
of the president of the most powerful superpower in the world.... Israel is playing with fire, and America is
in lock-step. There will no peace in the
Middle East until the Palestinian people recuperate their territories and push
out Israeli occupation by resistance, which is called terrorism by
Powell."
"Boycott Of U.S. Dollar"
Independent Assabah ran this banner
headline (4/17): "Let's boycott the
dollar for the sake of Palestine."
[Ed. Note: This campaign will continue for an entire week according to
both independent, French-language business-oriented L'Economiste and Assabah.]
"Boycott Of McDonald's"
Independent Assabah said (4/17): "Boycotting McDonald's has put the
restaurants' future at stake. An e-mail
message circulating since last Monday said McDonald's restaurants have
dedicated Tuesday's profits to support Israel.
In response to this decision, it has become necessary to boycott these
restaurants all over the world. Assabah
journalist Nadia El Boukili...interviewed several Moroccans on the spot, all of
whom expressed their intent to boycott McDonald's in solidarity with the Palestinian people."
SAUDI ARABIA:
"The U.S. Is A Savage Creature"
Yaqoob Mohamed Ishaq commented in Jeddah-based,
moderate Okaz (4/17): "The
American people are kind, peace-loving....
For that reason, the world has condemned the attacks of September 11
because innocents were killed. The
Americans are victims of the media, which is under the control of the Jews.... Certainly if there were Arab media that spoke
English to Americans, they would condemn the policy of their
government.... The U.S. is a savage
creature. It killed the innocent people
of Afghanistan, and now it is helping Israel politically in its barbaric
aggression against the Palestinians, and tomorrow Iraq will be the next target
to put an end to Saddam, who produces destructive weapons.... The real objective of the U.S. is not Saddam,
but to put an end to the power of the Iraqi military, which could threaten the
security of Israel one day and could even put an end to it."
"International Investigation Is Needed To
Probe Massacres In Jenin"
London based, pan-Arab Al Sharq Al-Awsat
observed (4/17): "Many have watched
Israel's horrific atrocities in Jenin....
The international community, despite it's denouncement and sympathy was
not even able to send an ambulance to rescue the injured or provide help to
properly bury the dead. Is it possible,
in the 21st century, for the international committee to witness such a massacre
and pretend it hasn't happened?"
SYRIA:
"Powell And The Policy Of Appeasement"
Government-owned Tishreen declared
(4/18): "As expected, the situation in the occupied Palestinian lands is
worse that was before Powell arrived.
Powell couldn't persuade Sharon to withdraw and stop his crimes, because
the American administration had no plans to exert pressure on this
butcher.... It is clear that Sharon
understands the American position as encouraging him to continue the aggression
and the killing and destroy all elements of peace. That is the only explanation
for the failure of the Secretary to persuade Sharon to withdraw. This means that the U.S. administration is
still biased and supportive for Israel despite Sharon's actions.... The U.S. that supports this enemy (Israel)
should realize that it has vital interests in the region and that wisdom
dictates it take these interests, as well as Arab public opinion, into
consideration before it is too late."
"Why Did Powell Fail?"
Mohamad Kheir Jamali opined in government-owned Al-Thawra
(4/18): "Powell's failure is not due to Sharon's ability to turn his back
on the U.S. administration, nor to the incompetence of the U.S. administration
to harness Sharon and control his aggressive policy. Rather it is due to the U.S. policy's lack of
vision due to the U.S. policy's bias towards Israel. It is due to adopting
Israel's position and defending Israel interests as if they were pure American
interests equal to the collective strategic interests of the U.S."
"The Massacre That Changed The Whole Scene"
Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of government-owned Syria Times
editorialized (4/18): "Nothing President Bush can do now is right. He can call upon the Israelis to withdraw,
even while he knows beforehand that Sharon will not respond until he 'has
finished his job.' It will be hard, if
not impossible, to secure any Arab or Muslim backing for any idea (i.e. the
call for a new international or regional peace conference) or that alters the
Madrid Terms of Reference just because the Israeli PM wants it!"
TUNISIA:
"The Palestinian People Won't Capitulate"
Co-editor-in-chief Noureddine Hlaoui commented
in independent, French-language Le Temps (4/18): "After a first meeting with Arafat,
qualified as 'Useful and Constructive', the U.S. Secretary of State contented
himself with criticizing the President of the Palestinian Authority for his
refusal to comply with Sharon's orders.
It seems that Powell's shuttle is meant to softly impose Tel Aviv's
conditions.... The American Secretary of State, known for his moderate
positions, was easily convinced by the Israeli government's thesis.... In the end, Powell's trip has failed because
it had as its objective obtaining the capitulation of the valiant Palestinian
people."
"The Worst Is to Fear"
Senior editor Sabri Brahem commented in
independent French-language Le Quotidien (4/18): "Among all the American missions in the
Middle East region, Colin Powell's has been, without a doubt, the most
disappointing. It is also the most
revealing of the American conspiracy."
"Insults To Be Swallowed"
Co-editor-in-chief Lotfi Touati held in independent
French-language Le Quotidien (4/18): "His answers were certainly
diplomatic, but there was no doubt about his unconditional support for the
Israeli policy in general and to the 'Rampart' operation in particular.... Mr. Powell's trip to the region has the
distinction of allowing the Israeli army to continue, with impunity, its
massacres and its plan of ethnic cleansing.
But most of all, it has awakened people's consciences."
"Lack Of A Strategic View"
Co-editor-in-chief Mohamed Tawir held in
independent As-Sabah (4/17):
"The only confirmed result of Colin Powell's visit¡¦is that it
unveiled the American administration¡¦s lack of a clear strategy. A strategy that could guarantee continuity
and prevent it from taking controversial positions that do not work toward long-term
American interests, power and prestige.
An example is the sudden change in Bush¡¦s line as soon as Colin Powell
arrived in Tel Aviv.... The American
position changed from asking for an immediate Israeli withdrawal...to the
acceptance of Sharon's rules.... The
worst of all is that Sharon has succeeded in convincing Powell that he is
asking for peace with Palestinians and Arabs and that Powell accepted his
proposal to hold an international peace conference."
EUROPE
BRITAIN:
"America Humiliated"
The conservative Daily Telegraph opined
(4/18): "Peace-broking in the
Middle East is a Sisyphean task. Yet it
is difficult to think of an American secretary of state who has been so
comprehensively humiliated in that endeavor as Powell during the past
week. His mission began in Morocco,
where King Mohamed VI chided him for not going straight to Jerusalem. It ended yesterday in Egypt, where President
Mubarak refused to see him. In between,
Powell failed to achieve a ceasefire between the Israeli's and Palestinians,
the main goal of his mediation. He
managed to extract a condemnation of suicide bombings from Arafat, but what
worth is that? He was told by Sharon
that the army offensive in the West Bank would end within 'a week or so,' a
timetable which blatantly ignored Washington's demand for early
withdrawal. The sole benefit of the trip
may have been his warning to Syria to expect heavy Israeli retaliation if,
through Hizbollah, it were to open a second front. Bush decided to send Mr Powell to the Middle
East for two reasons. First, he was
worried lest continuing instability push oil prices even higher. Second...he wanted to soften Arab hostility
to removing Saddam Hussein by force. The
outcome has been a tragic waste of American political capital. The world's sole superpower has proved itself
impotent. That can only encourage its
enemies. Before his White House
statement two weeks ago, Bush had a consistent, if controversial, policy
towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In line with this war on global terror, it was that no progress could be
made until Arafat reined in his assassins, and that Sharon should meantime be
left to counter them as he saw fit.
Perhaps the president was acting against his better instincts when he
yielded to Blair's and the State Department's calls to intervene. Whatever the case, Powell's ignominious
failure has dealt American prestige a severe blow. The administration should revert to its
previous policy on Israel and the occupied territories, and press forward with
preparations for ousting Saddam."
"The Case For Humility"
Timothy Garton Ash opined in the liberal Guardian
(4/18): "I have spent the last few weeks in California, watching the
horror in Israel and the West Bank through the eyes of the American media. They are not as biased in favor of Sharon's
Israel as most people in Europe think.
From the quality press and television you get a clear picture of what is
being done to the Palestinians....
However, one thing that American reporters and commentators do seem to
agree on is that Europe is shamefully biased against Israel, for suspect
reasons.... There is a real danger here
of a downward spiral of transatlantic misunderstanding.... Of course Europe should speak its mind, but I
believe it would be disastrous if Europe chose this issue on which to assert
its independence. One reason is moral
and historical.... Without Europe's
holocaust there would probably be no state of Israel.... The second reason is practical. Europe does not have a snowball's chance in
hell of resolving the Middle East problem on its own. We should send our own strong message to
Israel and the Palestinians; but to run off and start imposing our separate
economic sanctions on Israel...would be ridiculous. Any such measures could only be effective in
tandem with the U.S.... There are many
places in the world where we can and should make a big difference by
ourselves. In Bosnia. In Morocco.
In putting the US on the spot over environmental protection or free
trade or the establishment of the international criminal court. But Israel is not the place to start. Like it or not, here our main task is still
to influence and complement American policy rather than making our own."
FRANCE:
"Disappointment"
Joseph Limagne held in regional Ouest France
(4/18): "Bush says he is
'satisfied' with Powell's mission.
Obviously he is easily pleased.
And those who believed in a new U.S. policy for the Middle East feel let
down. Powell's commendable efforts have achieved disappointing results. While it was na¡¦e to expect that the U.S.
could turn hawks into doves...Powell's results are so meager that we cannot
help but wonder about America's real desire to reach a solution.... Powell's only success is Sharon's vague
promise of a partial withdrawal within a week.
It is therefore not surprising that the Palestinians accuse the U.S. of
being partial.... If Powell is coming
back empty-handed, it is first because Sharon wants to destroy the Palestinian
Authority. But it is also because the
head of America's diplomacy was not in a position to put in the balance all of
America's weight. In Jerusalem and in
Ramallah it was clear that Bush is torn between the two currents dividing his
administration.... At this crucial time,
America's hesitation is a tragedy.
Europe held off in order not to hinder Powell's mission. The hoped-for
miracle did not happen. It is now time
for the EU to get back in the picture."
"A Complete Failure"
Bernard Guetta told listeners on government-run
France Inter radio (4/18): "It is
not a failure, it is a complete failure....
Powell has left for Washington without having achieved one inch of
progress.... The U.S. has just been
humiliated as never before.... The
result is not only serious for the Middle East... but for America's
credibility. What will Bush do? His
administration is divided... and in yesterday's speech, [he] gave such a
bizarre vision of his policy that one wonders whether he himself knows what he
wants to do."
"Powell Leaves Empty-Handed"
Pierre Prier argued in right-of-center Le
Figaro (4/18): "Yesterday the U.S. proved it could no longer keep its
distance from the Middle East conflict, even though one of its highest ranking
representatives was leaving the region empty-handed.... Powell indicated he is planning to
return.... At least the U.S. is filling
its role of hyperpower."
GERMANY: "Powell's
Odyssey"
Peter Muench judged in center-left Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (4/18): "The
price to pay for Powell's failed mission is the loss of hope that at least the
United States is capable of calming down the situation. The Europeans liked to hide behind this hope
in the past.... Now, they have no excuse
left and need to define a common position....
Both Sharon and Arafat are responsible for this loss of hope, but the
United States is also partially responsible.
Powell did not advertise the strategy devised by the United States, the
UN, Russia, and the EU very forcefully.
Not enough pressure was put on Israel to withdraw immediately. Thus, Sharon was able to believe that he had
enough time to finish the job in the West Bank without having to worry about
sanctions. Shared international efforts
to solve the crisis are no longer on the agenda after Powell's trip. The UN and the Europeans may continue to
dream about an international peace force, but the Americans and Sharon have
already rejected such a strategy. In the
end, Washington's loyalties are with Israel.
This is what the Palestinians and everyone else has learned once
again.... Powell has announced his plan
to return to the region. By that time,
Sharon may well have achieved all of the goals of the current operation and
have destroyed both the terrorist network and the entire structure of the
Autonomous Palestinian Authority."
"Failed"
Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine
front-paged this editorial (4/18):
"The main reason for the ongoing terrorism is the continued
occupation and humiliating territorial isolation of the Palestinians.... The
United States is finding it harder to acknowledge the injustices done to the
Palestinians than to identify with Israel's security needs.... Even if Powell's mission has failed, attempts
at mediation must continue."
"Time For Humility"
Dietrich Alexander wrote in a front-page
editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (4/18): "The best thing one can say about the
Powell mission is that the United States is once again a player, that
Washington is no longer trying to ignore its responsibility in the crisis
region. Seen from this angle, the
mission was not a failure."
"Powell Has Not Achieved Any Of His
Goals"
Karsten Kuehntopp commented on national radio
station Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (4/17): "Powell has not achieved any of
his goals.... This non-result was
predictable and has not surprised anyone....
The Palestinian leader told the Americans that it is absurd to ask him
to take action against militants in his own camp after the Israeli army
demolished his police apparatus. Sharon,
too, has scored a success: He did not
give in to U.S. requests for an immediate end to the military offensive. Sharon has shown the whole world that the
word of the U.S. president does not count much."
ITALY:
"America Lacks Response To Sharon's And Arafat's 'Nos"
Ugo Tramballi commented in leading business Il
Sole-24 Ore (4/18): "Colin
Powell is just the umpteenth U.S. secretary of state to have lost the game of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But,
this time, there is something more than just a failed mission. There is the dramatic revelation of the
absence of a real policy for the region. There is the embarrassment of moderate
Arab nations that had invested in the pro-active role of the U.S.
superpower. And, finally, there is the
evidence of a deep split in how the United States and Europe see the world in
the wake of the September 11 attacks....
Unless Bush--the only weapon left in the American diplomatic
arsenal--decides to intervene personally, the United States will be left
without resources in the middle of the most complicated international
crisis.... U.S. support for a Palestinian
state is not so much a moral urgency as much as [it is]... necessary to achieve
on the road to the much sought-after attack on Iraq--the only really defined
goal in the Middle East."
"Three Men Without Peace"
Prominent foreign affairs commentator Franco
Venturini observed in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera
(4/18): "Perhaps Powell will achieve more tangible results later.... But his sad return home...confirms, for the
time being, a reality that is difficult to change and that we need to
acknowledge: Arafat, Sharon and Bush, with their different histories and their
different goals, do have one thing in common--their unsuitability to promote a
peace process.... Arafat has long been
just a nominal leader.... Sharon did
what he was obliged to do.... And Bush
manages America's exaggerated power, and is unable to forget September 11. But his policy towards the Israelis and the
Palestinians has been zigzagging--no involvement first and then, too late, the
decision to intervene; initially monopolized by the Afghan campaign, and now
dominated by the goal of striking Iraq.
White House pressure on Sharon was prompted by the anger of moderate
Arab nations, whose silent agreement is necessary in order to attack
Baghdad. In Washington, however, the
relationship between the fate of the Palestinians and the consequences of the
future attack on Saddam is still the object of a lively debate.... Defending the Israeli state, recognizing the
national aspirations of the Palestinians, hoping for a more consistent America
are not contradictory elements."
RUSSIA:
"Israelis Pleased"
Andrei Pravov filed from Tel Aviv in centrist Nezavisimaya
Gazeta (4/18): "People in
Israel...are very pleased with the results of Powell's trip. There is a lot of talk here about Sharon's
proposal on holding an international conference on the Middle East.... The Palestinian leaders, for their part, are
concerned that the U.S. intends to link financial aid to the Palestinian
Authority to the Palestinian leadership's struggle against terrorists."
"Concessions That Are Not Concessions"
Boris Petrovich commented on page one of
reformist Noviye Izvestiya (4/17): "The concessions Powell wrung
from Sharon...aren't really concessions--occupation was supposed to be temporary
right from the outset."
AUSTRIA:
"Failure"
Senior commentator Ernst Trost stated in
mass-circulation tabloid Kronen Zeitung (4/18): "So there will be more bloodshed in the
Middle East. And the American diplomats,
who are supposed to carry on with Powell's mission, are going to have just as
hard a time as their boss. The
international Middle East conference called for by Powell, designed to help
create a Palestinian state and establish peace in the region, looks like a
distant dream these gloomy days."
BELGIUM:
"American Powerlessness"
Foreign editor Gerald Papy asserted in
independent La Libre Belgique (4/18):
"Powell's mission first and foremost ended up on a failure for the
United States.... Sharon has almost
ignored the demands that Israeli troops withdraw from the Palestinian
territories. This is a serious blow to
the credibility of the 'policeman of the world'--whose genuine determination to
make the Israeli prime minister see reason can at the least be
questioned.... How can the White House
reasonably expect to gain Arab countries' benevolence to conduct a military
operation against the Iraqi regime?"
"What An Insult"
Foreign affairs writer Roger Huisman held in
conservative Christian-Democrat Het Belang van Limburg (4/18): "What an insult for charming Secretary
Powell, the figurehead of the moderate faction in the U.S. government. He flew back empty-handed to the United
States yesterday--with Sharon's umpteenth hollow promise that he will withdraw
his troops 'in a week or so' and with a humiliated Arafat who will 'enjoy' his
house arrest further in besieged Ramallah....
One can only hope that Bush and the hawks in his administration will
soon realize that not Arafat but stubborn and arrogant Sharon is an obstacle to
peace in the Middle East.... Powell is
right and the conclusion is clear: the only way out to unblock the situation is
Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories."
"Powell Hindered By Sharon's Stubbornness,
Bush's Ambiguity"
Diplomatic correspondent Mia Doornaert opined in
independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard (4/18): "The secretary of state returned to
Washington empty-handed--not only because of Ariel Sharon's stubbornness, but
also because of President George W. Bush's ambiguous policy.... It is clear that Powell was hindered by the
Israeli prime minister's intransigence.
However, it is a fact that Sharon could not have been so intransigent if
he had not known that there is considerable support in Washington for his
purely military vision on the 'war against terrorism.... Sources say that Bush distanced himself from
Powell's mission to stay out the mess if the mission failed. However, it is virtually certain that this uninterested
attitude caused the failure of the mission.
It is clear that only a very firm American action can lead to a
breakthrough.... The situation has run
out of hand to the extent that the traditional approach...is no longer an
option. Only a plan that rapidly leads
to a viable Palestinian state will convince those Palestinians who still
believe in peace. Now that Powell is
returning empty-handed from the Middle East, President Bush's credibility, too,
seems to be undermined. 'I mean what I
say,' he said about ten days ago when he urged Sharon to withdraw his
troops.... Now that that demand remains
dead letter and Powell's mission has failed, the question no longer is whether
the president means what he says but whether he says what he means."
CZECH REPUBLIC:
"Unbalanced Diplomacy"
Martin Hekrdla asserted in center-left Pravo
(4/16): "It is not balanced
diplomacy when Colin Powell praises Israel for promising to retreat from some
towns and territory at a time when its tanks are occupying different
towns."
GREECE:
"Frustration"
The lead editorial in independent influential Kathimerini
(4/18) said: "Secretary Powell
returned to Washington following a futile mission leaving the region in a far
worse state than it was when he arrived....
Sharon's objective is to eliminate the Palestinian Authority and
Palestinian resistance leaders and to restore occupation of the Palestinian
territory."
"The Order Of Blood And Terror"
The lead editorial in popular, influential and
anti-American Eleftherotypia averred (4/18): "Bush is 'very satisfied' with the
Powell mission.... The truth is that the
U.S. secretary of state returns from the Middle East empty-handed without
having achieved anything substantive.
The tragic irony is that Western media had accepted and promoted the
Powell mission as a peacemaking one and were certain of its success. The strongest power in the world, and only
that, according to prevailing impressions, can maintain world order, as empires
once did. It's the well-known order of
blood and terror."
IRELAND:
"Sharon's Grim 'Solitudo'"
The liberal Irish Times had this editorial
(4/18): "Although the White House
insisted Powell made 'some progress'...it is difficult indeed to identify what
this might be.... U.S. policy remains
too pro-Israeli to be an effective mediator on its own. Sharon's invasion has been indulged, his
defiant rejection of calls to withdraw tolerated. This raises the question of whether the U.S.
is willing to confront him decisively, given the open disagreements within the
administration. Few doubt its capacity
to do so, given the huge annual flows of financial aid which sustain Israel's
military power.... International efforts
to restore a peace process must be redoubled, bringing together the UN, the
U.S., European governments and Arab states, along with Israel."
"U.S. Diplomacy Gets Some Sand In Its
Face"
The liberal Irish Times had this article
by Washington correspondent Patrick Smyth (4/18): "It hasn't been a glorious week for
American diplomacy.... Powell's
incomplete exercise in Kissinger-style shuttle diplomacy may not yet have been
crowned with success but is far from over....
Far from retreating, President Bush yesterday made clear the U.S. would
continue to engage. That, in itself, is
an important commitment from a man whose instincts tell him that such
engagement in the murky and morally ambiguous conflict simply confuses his
greater message that the war on terrorism is clear-cut with no room for
neutrality. Mr Bush's uneasiness with
this world was reflected in his ultimatum to both Israelis and Palestinians
last week that was ignored by both sides, an embarrassing lesson on the real
limits of his power of influence....
Powell's visit has at least opened a window of opportunity when that
occupation ends by brokering wide acceptance for an international
conference."
NORWAY: "A Bill At The
End Of The Trip"
Newspaper-of-record Aftenposten commented
(4/18): "Seldom have we seen the
U.S. so hamstrung to the point of humilation.... It is unbelievable that the Israeli army's
actions continued during Powell's entire visit and made his mission impossible,
without any consequences for Israel. A
superpower cannot be more clear in showing its lack of political will to put
power behind demands for a realistic peace solution.... European politicians have reasons to be
disappointed. Not because the
expectations of Powell's tour were high, but because what has happened shows
that the U.S. is not willing to push the Israeli line away from a continued
occupation.... For the U.S., the
Palestinian terror actions are the main problem, while here in Europe there is
a deep feeling that Israel's brutal occupation is the major hindrance for any
peace initiative."
ROMANIA:
"Tenet Could Be Sign Of Progress"
Political analyst Daniel Munteanu commented in
centrist Curierul National (4/18):
"If the announcement made by the Washington Post that George
Tenet would soon be visiting the Middle East, in order to re-establish the
Palestinian security forces crushed by the Israeli Army...then it can be said
that certain progress has been made, but not as much as expected from an
American secretary of state."
POLAND:
"A Light At The End Of The Tunnel"
Jerzy Haszczynski wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita
(4/18): "At first glance Powell's mission...has ended in a fiasco.... Has
the United States, the only country which could exert pressure on both sides of
the conflict, already suffered a diplomatic failure? Possibly not.
Even though Powell is returning to Washington, he may come back to the
Middle East soon."
"U.S. 'On Israel's Leash'"
Krzysztof Warecki wrote in Catholic Nasz
Dziennik (4/18): "The United
States clearly took Israel's side, in practice giving it carte blanche. The leniency with which the U.S. is treating
Israel's current offensive in the Palestinian territories and ensuing genocide
testifies to this, as well as the fact that the U.S. takes Sharon's promises to
withdraw soon from the occupied Palestinian towns at face value. On the other hand, the Americans are
obsessively demanding from the completely incapacitated Arafat that he 'hunt
for Palestinian terrorists' and 'prevent anti-Israeli attacks.'... Consciously or not, the U.S. has become
hostage to its own theory of war on terror which the Israeli authorities are so
willingly invoking."
PORTUGAL:
"Twenty Years After Sabra And Chatila"
Influential center-left P¡¦lico's deputy
editor-in-chief Nuno Pacheco editorialized (4/17): "The position adopted by the UN Human
Rights Commission, in its rush under Arab pressure to condemn Israel for the
'massacres' [in Jenin], can be taken as precipitous or even demagogic--given
that among the parties to the condemnation one finds countries whose morality
in human rights terms is zero or less than zero: Sudan, Sierra Leone or
Libya. However, independently of what
ends up being found out in Jenin, and of what Colin Powell comes up with in
this new round of talks, what cannot be done is avoid the essential: the
immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops...from the reoccupied Palestinian
territories."
SLOVENIA:
"Immediately Or As Soon As Possible"
Left-of-center Delo's Middle East
correspondent commented (4/17):
"Powell's Middle East mission may end without a success. This will be awkward--even humiliating--for
Washington, but excellent for Israel.
Although Israel--because of its brutality against civilians, a violation
of international law...has lost favor with the international community, it is
evident that Israel needs only one friend--America. America does not argue against criticism of
Sharon's deeds...but Bush merely warned Sharon not to cross the line that had
been drawn in the White House weeks ago."
SPAIN:
¡¦Powell¡¦s Fiasco¡¦
Left-of-center El Pais concluded
(4/18): "It appears that the Bush
administration, in which diverse opinions coexist, seems not to have clearly supported
Powell in his mission, who was sent to the Middle East without clear
instructions, under international and media pressure.¡¦ Sharon has humiliated
Europe, too."
¡¦Powell Fails, the U.S. Loses Credibility¡¦
Independent El Mundo judged (4/18): "The U.S. has taken a historical tumble
in being unable to achieve the imposition of a cease-fire on the Palestinians,
but especially on the Israelis.... If
stronger pressure is not put--with concrete threats of sanctions--a solution
will never be found. ¡¦
¡¦Powell¡¦s Humiliating Return¡¦
Conservative La Razon commented (4/18):
¡¦Powell...experienced his first big failure¡¦.
Powell¡¦s sad mediation can be read as a defeat before Sharon, as well a
frustration in the face of the lack of real will to achieve peace from either
party.... In the end, Sharon, with his
tiny state has shown up Bush -- the humiliated Cesar.¡¦
TURKEY:
"Super Powerless"
Sami Kohen opined in mass-appeal Milliyet
(4/18): "When the U.S. secretary of
state started his...mission ten days ago, his first aim was to stop Israeli
attacks on the West Bank and to force Sharon's forces to withdraw. Evaluated from this angle, Powell's visit
ended yesterday as a fiasco.... Powell's
unsuccessful trip casts doubts on U.S.' status as a 'super Power.' As a matter of fact, it is obvious that the
U.S. is "superpowerless,' at least in the Middle East.... Hearing Powell's remarks, it is perfectly
clear that Sharon imposes his own conditions on the U.S.... However, the Powell-Arafat meeting in
Ramallah pleased the Palestinians immensely, because it showed that the U.S.
believes finding a solution will not be possible without Arafat.... Although Powell's mission did not achieve
what was expected, at least it proved that the Bush administration is involved,
and their efforts to establish peace in the Middle East will continue."
##
Europe
Middle East
East Asia
South Asia
Western Hemisphere
