Does Powell Return Empty-handed or with Some Results?

Home>>World

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Sunday, April 28, 2002

Does Powell Return Empty-handed or with Some Results?

Following are talks by People's Daily Correspondent Ren Yujun to the United States; Xu Ping to Egypt and PD International Department Editor Xu Hongzhi on Colin Powell's Mideast mediation.

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

Xu Hongzhi: US Secretary of State Colin Powell's Middle East tour came to an end on April 17. He visited in succession Morocco, Egypt, Spain, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. During the period, he had talks three times with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and went to Ramallah, a city on the west bank of the Jordan River to have talks twice with Yasser Arafat besieged by Israeli army, but he failed to spur the two sides to reach any agreement. When interviewed by journalists on April 17, Powell said his Mideast visit was successful. Please tell me what's your view about this.

Ren Yujun: Powell's Mideast tour this time had neither got Israel and Palestine to reach a cease-fire agreement, nor Israel to promise withdrawal of its troops from Palestine-controlled areas. Many US media use such phrases as "no breakthroughs", "without results" and even the words "came back empty-handed" to sum up Powell's Mideast visit.

As expected, Powell's recent Mideast visit could hardly achieve anything. And his mediation mission can be described as "without justice on his side, he lacks courage and confidence". Judged from his talks two times with Arafat, the conditions he raised to the Palestinian side can be described as "without reasons", these conditions are hardly acceptable and are impossible to fulfill for Arafat. Powell repeatedly demanded the Palestinian side to hand over so-called "wanted criminals" listed by Israel, and claimed that these wanted criminals were hidden at the compound of Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. Having conducted the second talks with Arafat, the US State Secretary said to reporters that Arafat must make a decision to end terrorism. Powell indicated that he was disappointed at Arafat's failure to stop Palestinian "terrorists'" attacks on Israeli civilians. Since the end of March, Arafat has lost his personal freedom, thus making it very difficult for him to see even his assistants. Under such circumstances, how is it possible to "remove the facilities of the terrorists" and stop "incidents of suicidal explosions"?

As regards US demands on Sharon, Powell can be regarded as "lacking courage". As analysis puts it Israel's attacks on Palestine can be described as "following America's footsteps". In order to seize Ben Laden, the United States sent out troops to Afghanistan. As Bush once argued that attacking another country was not aggression, but was a "self-defense action". So Sharon said Israel's attack on Palestine meant exercise of its "self-defense right". The war against terrorists was a war without boundary. In the world today, the United States and Israel are "comrades-in-arms in the same trench". Israel's action means "dancing to the beat of the United States". American criticism of Israel is actually "minor abuse, but big help". When Israeli forces launched large-scale offensive against Palestine-controlled areas on the west bank of the Jordan River, Bush time and again expressed his "understanding" of Sharon's actions, and claimed that the tense situation in Palestine and Israel was "created by Arafat himself" for he "failed to honor his anti-terror commitments".

Xu Hongzhi: Israel and Palestine hold categorically different views on Powell's mediation. Israeli Defense Minister Binjamin Ben Eliezer held that Powell had "successfully fulfilled the mission of his Mideast tour". Whereas Palestinian chief negotiator noted that at the time of Bowell's departure, the Mideast situation had been "worse than" that before his arrival. The Palestinian side issued a statement, saying that the talks between Arafat and Powell came to naught, the talks were "distressing". Apparently, the various parties are divided in their appraisals of Powell's Mideast trips.

Xu Ping: Powell's Mideast tours do fail to achieve the anticipated results. Fundamentally speaking, this is because the US basic policy on supporting Israel's "anti-terrorism in the Middle East" under the pretext of "Israel having the right of self-defense" has not changed; although verbally the United States recognizes Arafat as Palestinian President elected by the people, its fundamental stand of ignoring the status and existence of Arafat remains unchanged. As a result, Powell's mediation in the end greatly disappointed the Arab side, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak even refused to meet with Powell. Seeing that the United States still adopts a stand of partiality toward Israel, the latter naturally feels satisfied.

The Arab world insists that the just struggle against Israel's occupation cannot be regarded as terrorist action. Whereas Israel not only attacks Palestinian extreme organization as a terrorist organization, but regards Arafat as a terrorist chieftain, trying to depose him. It is not hard to know the result of Powell's Mideast mediation conducted under such circumstances. Israel promised to pull out its troops within one week, but it would not lift the ban on him. The Arab side demands a just and reasonable solution to the Palestine-Israel issue. It seems that a considerably long period of time is still needed for the solution of the Mideast issue.

Xu Hongzhi: While concluding his Mideast tour, Powell indicated that the United States would continue its Mideast mediation. What is the United States up to?

Xu Ping: Powell noted that his mediation efforts had not ended, but instead would go on; although no concrete time was fixed, he would soon return to the Middle East. In doing so the United States naturally has its aim. It wants to maintain the international anti-terror league and will carry out military attacks on Iraq at an opportune time. While resolutely opposing American use of forces against Iraq, the Arab world transmits this strongest information: "The Mideast region cannot simultaneously sustain two battlefields. The Arab world has expressed the hope that the United States will try as far as possible to first help solve Palestine-Israel conflicts, at the same time, Arab countries will try their best to persuade Iraq to accept and meet the US demand concerning arms check and verification of weapons, thereby avoiding possible military attacks on Iraq. The United States, of course, shows tacit understanding of this. This being the case, there is the view of outsiders who think some change has taken place in US attitude toward the Mideast issue.

Ren Yujun: US decision on asking Israel to withdraw its troops from the Palestinian territory and dispatching Powell to visit the Middle East, was not made by the Bush administration on its own initiative, but because what Sharon has done has seriously affected US reputation in the Arab world and its "anti-terrorist strategy". Israel's military moves have aroused the strong opposition from the international community, especially from the Arab world, some Muslim countries which originally supported American use of forces against Iraq have also expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the United States. So Bush is compelled to appear personally to stop Sharon. The United States will keep to its "anti-terrorist strategy", and so it will continue its Mideast mediation.

By People's Daily Online

Questions?Comments? Click here

Bush Asserts Powell Achieves Progress in Middle East Mission

Powell Leaves Mideast with No Results

>> Full Coverage

Be Vigilant against 'New Empire Theory' ( 4 Messages)

Know Who to Love, Who to Hate ( 35 Messages)

China Expresses Strong Dissatisfaction over Japanese PM's Shrine Visit ( 93 Messages)

Jiang Calls for Joint Efforts Towards Growth of Sino-US Ties ( 3 Messages)

Protests Prompt Retailer to Pull T-shirts Mocking Chinese-Americans ( 129 Messages)