The roadmap: hopes & fears

THE long-awaited ‘roadmap to peace’ in the Middle East was unveiled in Washington on Wednesday, evoking feelings of both hope and scepticism. Hope, because a peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis is back on track after a complete breakdown of dialogue between the two sides and more than two years of bloody violence. Scepticism, because all previous attempts at brokering peace between the two parties, and more particularly the 1993 Oslo peace process, have ended in failure, largely because of Israeli obduracy and intransigence. Put together by the ‘quartet’ comprising the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, the roadmap proposes a two-nation, mutual security solution to the long-running conflict and aims at a three-phased creation of a viable Palestinian state by 2005. The document calls for both sides to take reciprocal steps on a number of key issues and sets targets for each step. In the first phase, the Palestinians are required to end all acts of terrorism while the Israelis must curb the expansion of settlements and put an end to the military crackdown on the West Bank and Gaza.

The document has finally seen the light of day following the sidelining of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the swearing-in of a new reformist Palestinian cabinet headed by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The new prime minister swiftly pledged to do his utmost to curb militant attacks on Israeli civilians. By and large, the mainstream Palestinian leadership has welcomed the proposals contained in the roadmap, hoping that the process will ultimately lead to Palestinian statehood. The Israelis appear to have reluctantly accepted the proposals but have expressed reservations about a number of points. However, more radical Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, have rejected the roadmap seeing it as a ploy designed to pit sections of Palestinians against each other. What is unusual about the new peace plan is that it does not envisage any direct dialogue between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Instead, it requires both sides to take a series of steps specified in the plan and create the right kind of environment to allow progress towards the ultimate goal of Palestinian statehood and peaceful coexistence between the Palestinians and Israel within defined boundaries. The Palestinians have already taken steps to reform their institutions, including the Palestinian Authority, and have pledged to curb terrorism. It is now up to Israelis to freeze the building of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and to rein in its army in the West Bank and Gaza.

The next phase envisages Palestinian elections and the creation by 2003 of a state with provisional borders. Members of the quartet will monitor each step and decide whether all commitments have been met to allow the process to go forward. There are some key omissions in the roadmap that must ultimately be addressed. There is no mention of the future status of Jerusalem or of the right of return of Palestinian refugees — two crucial and highly emotive issues that could yet become major stumbling blocks in the way of a just and lasting settlement. The success or otherwise of the new peace formula will depend primarily on two inter-linked factors: Israel’s readiness to accept an independent and viable Palestinian state and Washington’s ability and willingness to exert the needed pressure on Tel Aviv to keep the process on rails. However, Israel has a dismal record of not keeping its part of the bargain. The Oslo accords, brokered by President Clinton, were deliberately sabotaged by the Israelis who continued to build illegal settlements on Palestinian territories. Benyamin Netanyahu began the process of scuttling the Oslo process and Ariel Sharon performed the last rites over its death.

Sharon’s inflammatory statements against the Palestinians and his decision to march into the Al-Aqsa mosque in Al-Quds in September, 2000 touched off the second intifada and won him an election on the crest of an anti-Palestinian wave. During his tenure, he adopted an increasingly hard line and tried to crush the Palestinians by sheer military might. The spate of suicide attacks that followed were the response of a desperate and heavily outgunned population with its back to the wall. Sharon also skilfully exploited the post-September 11 mood against terrorism and pursued a policy of brutal suppression of Palestinians in the name of fighting terrorism while the US looked the other way. This time round, Israel is likely to resist the dismantling of settlements as in the past. It will also exploit any eruption of violence in Israel or the Palestinian territories and use it as a pretext to renege on its obligations. President Bush must not allow Sharon to destroy yet another bid for peace in the Middle East.

However, in his bid for re-election in 2004, President Bush will be particularly vulnerable to the strong pro-Israel lobby in the US. Furthermore, the influential neo-conservatives close to the White House have close links with hawkish elements in Israel’s Likud Party and are clearly unhappy with the prospect of the creation of a Palestinian state. Like Sharon, they would rather see Israel use force to impose a settlement on the Palestinians on its own terms. The other members of the quartet must exert pressure on President Bush to resist powerful lobbies eager to sabotage the peace process. Allowing yet another peace process to be sabotaged by the Israelis would only further destabilize the region and could snuff out all hopes for a peaceful resolution of this intractable conflict for years to come.

Donation scam

A BIZARRE donation fraud had surfaced in Rawalpindi division in which officers in the education directorate are alleged to be involved. The victims include thousands of students and teachers who have been asked to give money on one pretext or the other — as donation for patients, for checking of documents or for conducting some survey or the other. The people who go round the local schools collecting the donations bear letters signed by officers from the education directorate. The letters ask the heads of educational institutions to collect money from the students and teachers within a stipulated time failing which they would face consequences. One such letter bore the name and signature of the district education officer asking the heads of schools in Rawalpindi division to collect five rupees from each of their students within a stipulated time. The fraud is believed to have been going on unnoticed for over a year with tens of thousands of rupees collected. It only came to light when a teacher contacted the education directorate to find out if it had really sent someone for such a collection. The fact that the directorate of education and the district Nazim have both denied authorizing such collections confirms that some racketeering has been going on.

The district nazim has said that a full-scale inquiry into the fraud will be launched. But even without that, the directorate of education has already denied the involvement of any education officer. The district government should therefore ensure that the inquiry be conducted by an independent, impartial authority or committee formed specially for the purpose. The inquiry certainly should not be conducted by the education directorate since some of its officers may well be involved. The district government ought to ensure that the real culprits, rather than some scapegoats, in this fraud are caught and proceeded against.