Commentary

31st May 1998

Why Netanyahu goes to China?

By Mervyn de Silva

Give the.... man, well Mr. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu his due. He does exactly what he wants, though he leads an alliance of ideologically assorted parties, which could crack-up on any day of the week, the Sabbath included. In this, his public - political profile offers a striking contrast to poor, embattled Chairman yasser Arafat of the PLO, who is now evidently entitled to the grander title.... President, President of the Palestine Authority, which some Israelis, including ministers in Netanyahu's Cabinet, describe as a "mini-state" or the scaffolding of the future Palestine, and internationally recognised. President Arafat's critics, including many in the upper reaches of the PLO call a "municipality". They see no hope whatsoever of this PA ever ruling any part of East Jerusalem. "There is a growing current of Palestinian and Arab opinion which believes Israel under Netanyahu will only understand force. In this view, although a conventional military contest with Israel is not an option". No chance of breakthrough at all? Of course, there is, and even the most casual student of the regional Arab-Israeli conflict, has recognised it.....the United States, the post-war United States that created Israel, using the newly established United Nations as its instrument. Yes, the sole superpower has the clout, diplomacy in the first place. And not even Washington's most uncompromising critics can deny that the Clinton administration did make a serious effort.....in Mr. Clinton's second term, most publicly. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visits to Jerusalem, confirm this. It is only when Mr. Netanyahu got tough and stubborn, and the going got tougher, that Washington quietly co-opted President Hosni Mubarak, an obvious choice. Egypt not only remains the major political and military Arab power but the first frontline country to negotiate a so-called land-for-peace. Arab critics, including Egyptian, of the land-for-peace formula pointed out that " the land" was in the first place territory seized by the IDF the Israeli army! Nonetheless, the truce did open up political-diplomatic "space" for Cairo to re-assert its regional influence, precisely because it had recovered its traditional-regional role, a role that new ambitious, and younger daring leaders with ready access to oil-revenues, could seize. President Saddam's oil-grab-cum-invasion, on the tenuous claim that Kuwait had been a province of ancient Iraq, was the most spectacular demonstration... and warning to the Egyptian political elite. Since then President Mubarak has adopted a regional role and cultivated a sophisticated diplomacy that has restored Egyptian influence and authority.

US Strategey

The change in the global balance also eroded Arab power.....the Soviet implosion and the end to bi-polarity. The impact on American foreign policy makers was already clear in the butt- end of the Bush years, a single four-year term, despite the "victories' in the desert. The four crucial concerns of the sole superpower were identified by Fred Halliday, professor of International relations at the LSE and a prolific contributor to the elite European press, mainly the London and Paris based.

Since policy is founded on fundamental interests, and perceived dangers, Prof. Halliday listed the principal concerns:

(i) Narcotics and (ii) Japan, the economic; japan's exports in the main. While the developing (Third) world claimed lesser concern, an issue like drug production in other countries (Colombia, for instance) kept the lights on at the White House.....certainly when Mr. George Bush was in charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union and rapidly declining Russian interest in the Third World, also saw NAM, the largest group in the UN claim much less interest in the State Dept.

Middle-East

"A similar shift can be noted on the Arab-Israeli dispute" that would surely disappoint the Israeli administration, rightwing LIKUD or Labour? Dr. Halliday did not join that school of Middle-East punditry. Lesser American interest would leave the Israeli foreign policy establishment with much wider room for manoeuvre.

Some of the basic tenets and tactics of the Reagan administration (it acquired we should remember, the status of "Reagan Doctrine") did survive..... most plainly the special targets: Cuba, the small but defiant neighbour, was No. 1; Gaddafi's Libya, and Afghanistan, probably the last anti Soviet war.

US Diplomacy

No conflict has claimed more American attention and energy than Israel. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visits do suggest that Israel and the Middle-East remain top priority items on Washington's agenda. And yet the Middle-East is no longer an area there could be sudden armed clash or explosion. Without the Soviet challenger, American diplomacy moves at a quieter, unhurried pace. No alarm bells anywhere. Besides, Mr. Clinton confronts no formidable foe.....except the GOP rivals in the Senate, an internal challenger but operating within the rules.

A new world order is taking shape at its own pace. There is a parallel development: economic strength rather than military power as the more index of a country's place and role in the world; and there is a geographic shift, West to East, meaning to the main population centres. Asia, East Asia, and maybe South Asia... which explains why we are preoccupied right now with India's bomb, Shuharto's exit in Indonesia, and Mr. Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to China... trouble on the West Bank, Madeleine Albright is planning another trip to Israel...? Wake me when the EL AL pilot sees the lights of LOD airport.....

A new century may require a new approach to a new world that has seen a radical transformation of the nature of power.

Hulftsdorp Hill

Editorial/Opinion Contents