Once again the
Middle East is facing a crisis with rising levels of hatred and violence on
all sides. The death toll in the "second" intifadah stands at 450
Palestinians and around 100 Israelis and is rising. As a result, the prospects
for a comprehensive peace accord are slipping ever further away. The outside
world, meanwhile, is at a loss over how to stop the conflict and how to salvage
anything from the now defunct Middle East Peace Process.
Against this background, it is inevitable that the Europeans, like the Americans,
are asking themselves what role they can play. The answer will be important
not just for the Middle East itself, but also for the future of European foreign
policy.
In recent years, the European Union (EU) has been trying to assert itself on
the global stage, projecting its values and defending its interests world-wide.
Many across Europe argue that the EU's external and political dimension will
drive future integration.
But these attempts to forge a credible Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
have been fraught with difficulties such as diplomatic incoherence and military
weakness. As Javier Solana - the EU's High Representative for foreign policy
- has said, for too long the EU has behaved like the World Bank: it was a place
where people handed out money.
Now the EU must learn to use its considerable economic clout and the various
Community instruments at its disposal - such as trade policy, humanitarian aid
and economic and technical assistance - to support a political strategy. In
other words, the EU's "first pillar" has to join up and support the
aims of its "second pillar", which deals with foreign and security
policy. The EU also has to overcome its aversion to setting clear political
priorities and sticking to them in the face of external opposition. Sometimes
in foreign policy it is necessary to antagonise people in order to achieve your
political objectives.
What does this mean in concrete terms for the Middle East? Part of any European
involvement will be declaratory in nature and focused on the short-term - the
inevitable statement expressing "deep concern" over the violence and
urging the parties to resume negotiations. That was the message delivered by
Mr Solana during his recent trips to the region. It is encouraging that the
US and the Europeans are for once working closely together in this "firefighting"
strategy. Historically, transatlantic co-operation on the Middle East has been
a direct function of the situation on the ground: when regional tensions are
high, Americans and Europeans are prone to fall out.
But the EU must also develop its medium-term strategy. For instance, if the
Europeans are serious about their claim that Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories - the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem - are
illegal and an obstacle to peace, they should accept the consequences. This
means that exports from these settlements should not enter the EU market on
the preferential terms offered to Israel in the EU-Israel association agreement.
The Commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten, deserves full support
in his attempt to make this clear to the Israelis. The EU should also stress
that Israeli obstruction of Palestinian exports to the EU is wholly unacceptable.
The same is true of the Israeli refusal to transfer the import duties and tax
receipts it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The EU is
entitled to take a hard line on these issues because of the large sums of money
it gives to the Palestinians, which total around 800 million euros a year. But
this financial effort is seriously undermined by Israeli policy.
By the same token, the EU should not hesitate to use its extensive aid to the
PA to demand tangible progress on standards of democracy, civil society and
"good governance". So far, Yasser Arafat has exercised an unhealthy
control over the PA. The EU could strengthen the Palestinian Legislative Council
by insisting that it have the ultimate say over the distribution of donations.
The EU should also
support those Palestinians who strive for a clearly defined constitution. This
would benefit the Palestinians themselves, but more importantly, an autocratic
and illiberal PA is not an acceptable partner for the Israelis. The EU can also
use training programmes to enhance the standards of the Palestinian security
forces. And to prepare for the eventual creation of a viable Palestinian state
with East Jerusalem as its capital, the EU could offer financial assistance
for infrastructural works connecting East Jerusalem with the Palestinian hinterland.
The point of all these measures should be to provide meaningful support for
the EU?s overall diplomatic strategy. Both Israelis and Palestinians would doubtless
object to some of these steps. Similarly, some in Washington will assert that
the Middle East is the preserve of US diplomacy; that the Europeans are too
pro-Arab; and that EU involvement should be limited to providing financial support.
But the EU should have the courage of its convictions. Thankfully, the majority
of American officials, aware of the failure of previous US administrations to
resolve the problems, now welcome a constructive European role. The principles
underpinning the EU?s approach to the Middle East are sound. The challenge ahead
is to put words into action.
Steven Everts is senior research fellow at the CER.
