News

Europe and United Nations must rethink approach to Arafat

In his speech at Boston University last week, the Israeli minister and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky posited that a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would come only when the Palestinians achieve democracy. In practical terms Mr. Sharansky suggested that ‘the depths of [Israeli] concessions should be the depths of democracy on the other side.’

他已经认真考虑过的观念,接受ed in the West, that democracies do not go to war with each other. All leaders want to stay in power but in a democracy, Sharansky argues, those leaders are beholden to the interests of the public and preserve their authority by either bettering or attempting to better their constituents. Dictators, by contrast, subjugate their people and deflect criticism and resentment by maintaining an enemy. Mr. Sharansky refuted the specious argument that Arabs or Muslims are inherently incapable of democracy. He rightly asserts it is racist to argue that whole groups of people are excluded from democratic prospects.

Internal political division and socio-economic conditions make the creation of a stable Palestinian democracy a difficult task, but these difficulties are only exacerbated by the Palestinians’ Western allies. The European Union and the United Nations, bodies that should contribute to the task of democratization, have proven themselves roadblocks to democracy.

If democracy is desirable in its own right, then it is clearly a laudable goal. That the continued rule of an autocrat like Yasir Arafat is the main obstacle to democracy and reform should be a top priority to any casual observer, but that concept eludes many of the high minds in the United Nations and Western Europe.

It is Mr. Arafat’s obstinate grip on his dictatorial seat of power that forced the resignation after just over 100 days of his new Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was a pragmatist who had condemned terror and embraced the peace initiative known as the ‘road map,’ but unfortunately for him he was also his own man who declined to be Mr. Arafat’s pawn. He left his post because Mr. Arafat refused to cede any real authority to him in pursuing reforms and compromise with the Israelis.

Abbas’ inability to wrest a margin of power confirmed that democracy and peace are only verbal fineries for Mr. Arafat, tools for appealing to the exuberant naïveté of his advocates in the west. With Abbas perhaps the last best hope for Palestinian reform out of the picture, Mr. Arafat has abandoned any pretenses of sharing power. His new appointment, Ahmed Qorei, will have no say in the formation of the government he will ostensibly lead. Unlike Mr. Abbas, he does not appear to be troubled by this. In yet another abuse of power by Mr. Arafat, IMF officials have reported that between 1995 and 2000 he diverted $900 million, or about 19 percent of the Palestinian Authority’s revenue, into private bank accounts. What are the consequences of Mr. Arafat’s actions? He is given yet another vote of confidence in the United Nations while the Palestinian people lose one more opportunity for progress and stability.

For all its platitudes about democratization and reform, the United Nations has long demonstrated a commitment to the most autocratic elements of Palestinian society and has allowed its monetary aid to fund terrorism and institutional corruption. Consider the recent vote in the United Nations General Assembly condemning the Israeli government for authorizing Mr. Arafat’s expulsion.

这里真正的不公是否定的t that the United Nations disapproves of Mr. Arafat’s removal the United States and, of course, many Israelis do as well. It is the unfettered support that has been extended to this despot and terrorist mastermind. Israel would not be forced to remove Mr. Arafat if he could be diplomatically isolated, but he cannot be as long as he can count on support from the United Nations and his allies in Europe. Therefore, the prospect of Palestinian democracy is held hostage to the whim of a few unelected bureaucrats and a blood stained demagogue.

Despite the United Nations votes, there are signs that world opinion is finally accepting that progress is impossible with Mr. Arafat in power. On Sept. 16 in the U.N. Security Council, the United Kingdom and Germany abstained from the vote condemning Israel. Even France, Europe’s hub of anti-Israeli action, has moved in the right direction. Although the French have yet to offer substantive criticism of Mr. Arafat, they have finally allowed the E.U. to add the ‘political’ wing of Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) to their list of terrorist organizations. The French had previously maintained the fiction that the group’s political unit was untainted by its military wing.

President Bush put it plainly when he said the Palestinians ‘need leadership committed to fighting terror, not compromised by terror.’ Now we must ask Europe and the United Nations to question their own commitment to fighting terror and helping the Palestinians. As long as Mr. Arafat’s moribund rule is preserved by foreign governments and dignitaries, both Palestinians and Israelis will continue to suffer.

Jake Siegel is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Comments are closed.