European Press Reacts With Dismay to Election of Ariel Sharon

 

By Lucy Jones

Israelis elected Ariel Sharon as their fifth prime minister in less than six years on Feb. 6 by a 26-point margin of victory—the widest in any election since Israel’s independence in 1948. That margin, however, is offset by the fact that the 62 percent turnout was the lowest in Israel’s history.

Most European newspapers viewed Sharon’s victory with dismay. “Israel, by a massive landslide, turned to a man who has spent two decades as an international byword for extremism—a global hate-figure—and elevated him to the country’s top job.…For anyone who wishes peace for that nation and its neighbors, today is among the darkest of days,” said a writer in London’s Guardian of Feb. 7.

Le Monde of Paris on the same day called Barak’s downfall “a terrible waste,” and concluded, “Mr. Barak lacked political talent, not historical vision. Sharon’s success is that of demagoguery over the sense of history.”

Also on the day following the election, the Italian paper La Repubblica said the fact that the Israelis voted en masse for the former army general means they have made the path to a solution for the Middle East conflict all the more difficult. According to the Swiss paper the Basler Zeitung of Feb. 7, the election result was a protest vote. “[Sharon] is a man of yesteryear, who made more of a name for himself in war than in the cause of peace,” said the newspaper.

Madrid’s ABC newspaper said on the same day that Sharon’s victory means a hawk is now in office, one “with a dark past full of death and destruction. Israel faces a turbulent future.”

The British tabloid The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch,was one of the few newspapers to defend Sharon. “More than ever, Israel needs a tough guy as its leader. You would, too, if you lived in a small country like Israel surrounded by hostile and undemocratic forces,” proclaimed an editorial the day after the election.

The Feb. 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung conceded, “The election of ‘bulldozer’ Ariel Sharon is not a disaster.”

The Times of London attempted to explain why the Israelis voted for Sharon. “The perceived threat to their personal security was more important than the continuation of political dialogue in which a compromise seemed impossible,” said the newspaper on Feb. 7.

 

Mixed Response to U.S.-British Strikes on Iraq

The U.S.-British bombing of Iraqi radar stations Feb. 16 elicited a backfire of comment in the European press. Saddam Hussain’s regime won the public relations battle, many papers claimed. The Independent of London said on Feb. 17 that Saddam “can use the sanctions as an excuse for his own incompetent and ruthless leadership in Iraq. He and his people have been given a common enemy. He must be delighted that Mr. Bush is displaying a crude lack of subtlety.…Saddam Hussain is a murderous tyrant. Iraq and the world would be well rid of him. But by their action, George Bush and Tony Blair have made Saddam even more secure.”

Madrid’s El Pais of Feb. 18 declared that airstrikes “kill innocent people, provide the dictator with excuses, and don’t do anything except dangerously distance Washington and London from the rest of their Western allies.”

Le Monde of France suggested on the same day that the president was “finishing his father’s work.” Other newspapers thought the attacks would lead to a worsening of the Middle East peace process. “The belief on the Arab streets is that President Bush has used the pretext of Iraq upgrading its air defense to punish Saddam for the vocal and material support he is providing to the Palestinian intifada,” said the Observer of London on Feb. 19.

A handful of papers supported President Bush. On Feb. 19 ABC newspaper of Spain thundered, “Interpreting the bombing of Baghdad as the attack of an imperialist power against a defenseless nation is a cynical exercise in irresponsible demagoguery that gives a distorted picture of the situation.”

The same day Britain’s Sunday Telegraph ran an op-ed headlined, “Bush was asking for this,” while the Sunday Times saw the bombings as a preventive measure: “Saddam Hussain will not be deterred by this weekend’s allied airstrikes against his Baghdad defenses from plotting further mayhem. But he may think twice before again testing the resolve of the new American president to keep him in check.…If [Bush] had not acted, Saddam’s installation of improved radar missile technology would have led to a greater risk of allied air losses and an enhancement of his prestige in the Arab world. He would have taken a giant step toward asserting himself as a powerful military force again,” said the newspaper.

 

Questions Remain After Lockerbie Verdict

At the end of January, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish court in the Netherlands of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in which 270 people died. He remains in custody pending the appeal at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, which his co-defendent, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, left to return home to Libya after being acquitted. “Megrahi’s conviction is seen by many as tantamount to Qaddafi’s conviction,” reported the BBC on Jan. 31. “That is not, however, the argument being advanced by the United States and Britain—although the American line may be presented in a slightly harder way. The sanctions were suspended as part of a political deal in return for the two Libyans accused being handed over for trial. The conditions for lifting the sanctions permanently were set out in a Security Council resolution several years ago, which endorsed demands made by the Western powers. In essence, Libya still has to accept responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials and pay appropriate compensation to the victims’ families,” the news service continued.

“The truth is still hidden,” said London’s Guardian on Feb. 1. “There will be relief in Scotland that this lengthy process has reached a conclusion; …But just as the pain continues, so too do the questions. It is plainly absurd to suggest that Megrahi acted alone…From whom did he take his orders? Given all that is known about Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s paranoid, autocratic regime in the ’80s, it is inconceivable that such an atrocity could have been executed without the knowledge and perhaps involvement of the country’s leadership. There is also nothing in the court’s findings, necessarily confined to the facts of the case as presented, to dispel long-held suspicions that Palestinian radicals and the Syrian and Iranian governments were also complicit. Thus the answer to the question ‘who did it?’ remains incomplete,” said the newspaper’s editorial.

The sentence does not mean that the international debate about terrorism is over, wrote Italy’s La Stampa on Feb. 1. “The objective of the trial was not only to clarify the circumstances leading to this atrocious massacre, but also to determine the degree of responsibility that the Libyan state carries for it, as well as the usefulness of U.N. sanctions against Libya. The verdict allows two different interpretations: In the eyes of Libya, it proves that Tripoli accepts international justice so that the sanctions should now be lifted. But in the eyes of Washington and London, it proves that there has been a conspiracy, so that the sanctions must continue.”

According to the Feb. 1 Fuldaer Zeitung, “Nobody has any doubts that with the sentence justice has been done.” The newspaper went on to make the point that, during the past few years, Qaddafi’s regime has become more cooperative with the international community and its relations enhanced.

The Scotsman of Feb 1 said, “Col. Qaddafi must take the pragmatic approach and do what his neighbors Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria have done in opening their economies and their culture to the world.”

 

French Fears of U.S. Influence in Europe Keep Turks out of EU club, Says Russian Daily

French attempts to keep Turkey out of the European Union made headlines in the Russian daily Kommersant on Feb. 15. “France fears the increasing influence of Turkey, and indirectly the United States, in Europe,” the paper editorialized. “Therefore, Paris is doing everything it can to prevent Turkey from joining the EU. France wants to underline that Turkey does not form part of Europe.”

The Turkish lira has been in free fall. The BBC reported Feb. 23 that the lira had plunged more than 35 percent since Ankara suspended pegging the currency to the U.S. dollar. “Many consumers will soon find that they can afford only three-quarters of the goods that they could buy before…Turkish exporters, though, can expect a boost to business. Their products have suddenly become much cheaper and thus more competitive on world markets,” said a BBC commentator.

 

Russian Troops Withdrawn From Chechnya

On Jan. 21, President Vladimir Putin announced that some Russian army units will be withdrawn from Chechnya, and overall command of the region will be given to the Federal Security Service, the successor organization to the KGB. According to the Moscow Times of Jan. 24,the Kremlin claimed that “the armed forces had completed their tasks in Chechnya” and the new structure would “enable the federal forces to cope more effectively with the rebels’ guerrilla tactics.” The FSB’s focus, the report continued, will be on “special operations for the search for and neutralization of the ringleaders of the bandit formations and their adherents.” An opinion piece dismissed the official line that occupation equals victory: “On the contrary, it has turned into a bloody quagmire with casualties continuing to mount.…The change of direction announced by Putin is not a sign of strength, but an act of desperation.”

A Jan. 24 editorial in Britain’s Guardian worried that the FSB’s tactics would include “state-sponsored terrorism and assassination,” and concluded, “Russia’s leader should stop shooting, start talking, and prove he is not just a thug in a sharp suit.”

The UK’s Independent wrote the previous day that the timing of Putin’s announcement was driven by “a meeting of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly which is due to debate the suspension of Russia’s voting rights because of human rights abuses in Chechnya.”

Le Temps of Geneva said on Jan. 23 that Putin, faced with a stalemate in Chechnya, wanted “to move symbolically to the next stage, to give the impression that the army fulfilled its mission.” But, the paper concluded, “Meanwhile, the average age of the rebels is decreasing as teen-agers join the ranks, and they don’t much care which ministry is in charge of the war, as long as the enemy is Russian.”

 

Festive Vote for Bahrain Democracy

Voting took place amid a festive atmosphere in the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain in a referendum on democracy, reported the BBC on Feb. 14. The vote approved a charter—put forward by Bahrain’s ruler, Emir Sheikh Hamad Al-Khalifa—to introduce political reforms, which will restore an elected parliament and make the judiciary independent. Former critics of the government, as well as international organizations, have welcomed the referendum as a step toward a more representative government in Bahrain. Figures released by the Justice Ministry said more than 98 percent of voters backed the reforms, which are due to be implemented by 2004.

Israel relinquishing or transferring sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, for the simple reason that Israel currently possesses no such sovereignty. Indeed, the only way that Israel will ever acquire sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem is by agreeing with Palestine on a fair basis for either sharing or dividing sovereignty over the city (or doing a bit of both) which is recognized as fair and accepted by the international community.

This distinction is of fundamental intellectual and psychological importance for Israeli public opinion. For an Israeli leader there is a world of difference between being perceived as the man who achieved Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem for the first time in 2000 years and being perceived as the man who relinquished some measure of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. It could be a life-or-death distinction.

 

Justice as Well as Peace

One word which has been too rarely used in connection with the “peace process” (and which should be invoked more often) is “justice.” For obvious reasons, it is never used by Israeli or American politicians as a component of the “peace” they envision. Yet a true and lasting “peace,” as opposed to a mere temporary cessation of hostilities, is inconceivable unless some measure of justice not only is achieved but is perceived, by both sides, to have been achieved.

Palestine is not seeking concessions from Israel, only compliance. The Palestinian territories conquered in 1967 are not disputed, simply illegally occupied. Israel is not generously offering to cede its land to Palestine but insisting that Palestine cede indisputably Palestinian lands to Israel. The only way Israel will ever acquire sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem is by agreeing to share or divide the city with Palestine. Any true peace requires some measure of justice.

It is high time for all involved to recognize and speak clearly about these fundamental realities. If a new “language of peace” can be propagated and take root during the Sharon interlude, the difficult months ahead will not be wasted and a true and lasting peace may finally be achievable when this interlude ends.

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in New York.