A French initiative?
IT IS encouraging to know that President Jacques Chirac intends to play a role in the Middle East. Traditionally, France has never pursued an unabashedly pro-Israeli policy that has been characteristic of the US and Britain since Israel’s founding in 1948. Even though, like Britain and the US, France had a role in the creation and consolidation of the Israeli state, France under Charles de Gaulle pursued a policy that was markedly independent and even-handed. Never pro-Arab, this policy maintained a balance in the approach to the Middle East question. Under this policy, Paris sold arms to the Arab world, and applied brakes on sales to Tel Aviv whenever it felt that Israel’s trigger-happy policy was a source of war and instability in the Middle East. Observers recall that France had withheld the delivery of six missile boats to Israel and how Tel Aviv managed to steal them from the Cherbourg harbour, thus further spoiling its relations with France.
However, since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, especially after the signing of the Camp David accords, the US has come to monopolize the Middle East’s political scene. The peak of the American diplomatic success came during the Clinton era when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin had that historic hand-shake on the White House lawns in 1993 and signed the “land for peace” agreement. Initially, the implementation of the accord went more or less smoothly, notwithstanding delays in the Israeli withdrawal schedule. However, after Yitzhak Rabin’s murder by a Jewish fanatic, his successors not only sabotaged the peace process; they had the Oslo accords re-negotiated. Even these fresh treaties were not fully honoured, for the final settlement should have been in place by Sept 19, 1999.
All through the year 2000, when the peace process could have been saved, American diplomacy lay low, because it was an election year. If it at all the Middle East was remembered it showed in the rivalry between the Democratic and Republican camps to outdo each other in wooing the Israeli lobby. This, then, is the main weakness of America’s Middle East policy, for it is hostage to its domestic politics. In the present situation, too, Washington is siding with Israel, and on Friday Colin Powell threatened to lower America’s relations with the Palestinian Authority and apply “a full range” of diplomatic and political measures.
It is here that France can play an effective role by restoring some balance to western diplomacy. While America, given its economic and military clout, will continue to play a preponderant role, France can make itself heard and do some prodding and nudging with the parties concerned for reviving the peace process. The present deadlock stems from America’s refusal to rein in Sharon, even though he has reduced the peace process to a shambles. Also, there have been dark hints in the western press that Sharon wanted to physically eliminate Arafat. If he succeeds in this diabolical design, the result would be the capture of Palestinian leadership by Islamic hard-liners. This would make a revival of the peace process an impossibility. President Chirac can play a vital role here by impressing upon American leaders the need for an even-handed approach to the Middle East. On a larger plane, France could, with the help of its EU partners, come up with a European initiative to break the present stalemate. A French-led European policy — vigorous and balanced — would not be that easy for the US to brush aside.
Misplaced zeal
LOCAL government officials would do well to stick to the task they were elected for — carrying out development work in their constituencies and providing people with basics like water, sanitation, schools, good roads, a safe and healthy living environment and so on. Unfortunately, from time to time functionaries such as these have taken it upon themselves to indulge in matters that have little to do with either good governance or good sense. Two recent examples stand out. The first comes from Lahore where the district Nazim has warned the city’s many commercial theatre groups against staging ‘obscene’ or ‘vulgar’ plays. Following his example, the Nazim of Sargodha has now decided to ban for a week all stage plays in his city. The Nazim did this after local producers fought a successful legal battle against an earlier directive by the administration to halt their performances.
No one is defending either vulgarity or obscenity. However, the fact remains that such labellings can be quite subjective: what constitutes vulgar may vary from person to person. In any case, the fact that theatre companies in many smaller towns and cities churn out the usual trite fare with little artistic merit has been known for a long time, so it seems arbitrary to suddenly ban some of these shows now. It might have made more sense if such productions were faulted for their utter lack of sense, a story line or aesthetics. Banning them not only deprives ordinary people of the little entertainment that is there for them, it also stifles any chances of growth as far as indigenous theatre is concerned. What local actors, playwrights and producers need is not censorship but some sort of encouragement and guidance to put on plays that are more meaningful, and entertaining and that do not offend the sensibilities of a large part of the audience.
‘Toothy’ terrorism
WHETHER Tyson’s ‘biting’ bout with Lewis in Nevada was a pre-conceived stunt that accidentally turned into a nasty melee is not so much a cause for worry as the ‘toothy terrorism’ that is the problem in the present-day global climate. After the ‘bite of the ear’ in the 1997 bout against Evander Holyfield, this ugly episode has once again demonstrated that the ‘dental weapon’ is more lethal than a powerful punch. It shows that the fist alone is not enough in or out of the ring. Regardless of the rules, one has to fight tooth and nail for survival at least in the publicity arena. Mike’s promise that he will use his skill and technique to do the talking in future will rob the blood-thirsty watchers of their gory delight. Noting his irresistible urge for a fulsome bite this undertaking is not enough. When he put his teeth again at work — after a lapse of so many years even at the risk of losing the licence — how can his verbal assurance be believed. But sadly he alone is not responsible for igniting this bestial impulse. A perverse pack of boxing fans enjoys such savagery in sport. Gone are the days when hitting below the belt was deemed unsporting. According to Mike’s mouthful taste ‘no holds barred’ should be the current rage. The healthy and humane approach of Muhammad Ali that in a way romanticized the ring atmosphere, is losing its charm at the hands of ruthless promoters out to make money at any cost. Unless the regulatory body prescribes a uniform code of conduct tailored to the ways of a self-proclaimed civilized world, boxing like wrestling will soon assume frightening dimensions. Such a reformatory revolution can only be successful if backed by a world coalition of Athletic Federations.