| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
March
27, 2000
CLINTON-ASSAD SUMMIT: DESPITE 'FAILURE,' U.S. IS STILL MIDEAST'S
'SAFETY VALVE'
Middle Eastern and European commentators regretted
the "failure" of the summit meeting between President Clinton and Syrian
President Assad in Geneva yesterday. Nevertheless,
most judged that region-wide
"peace is near," not because of altruism or war weariness, but
because "Syria is alone" in its opposition to Israel,
"supported, if at all, by the mullahs in Iran and the dictator in
Baghdad." Israeli papers, for
their part, judged that the
"Geneva setback" had dealt "a heavy blow" to Israeli Prime
Minister Barak's "Syria first" policy, and that both he and
President Clinton will now "invest [their] energies" in the
Palestinian track. Syrian newspapers
were still somewhat upbeat about the prospects of resuming the Syrian track
but insisted that Israel accept the June 4, 1967 Syrian-Israeli border as the
basis on which to resume talks. With
the exception of the Palestinian press, Arab papers uniformly praised
the "indispensable role" of the U.S. in solving the problems in
the region and deemed that the U.S has become "the converging point
for Arab diplomacy." "This
also means that the United States shoulders a bigger responsibility towards
this region and its future," a Jordanian paper held. Palestinian papers, however, criticized U.S.
policy for its "serious failure... to stop Israeli policies from exposing
the region to the risk of destruction."
These were major themes:
U.S.-SYRIA: Pundits
characterized Syria as one of "a vanishing brand of dictatorships"
and noted the end of "Syrian dominance" as "none of its former
war allies would be willing to start another war with Israel." Most judged that for Mr. Assad the
"strengthening of his ties with the U.S. superpower was worth the
trip" to Geneva, as he seeks to bring his country out of "deep
economic crisis" and eyes a potentially "threatening"
relationship between Turkey and Israel.
LEBANON WITHDRAWAL: In Israel, mainstream papers judged that
the lack of a breakthrough in Geneva had all but scuttled Mr. Barak's
"Syria first" policy.
"Mr. Barak is going to have to proceed without [Mr. Assad] to get the
Lebanon pullout going in earnest," despite "the risks" of going
ahead without first establishing peace with Lebanon's powerbroker, Tel Aviv's
popular, pluralist Maariv declared.
A German paper held out hope that "the word 'pullout,' spoken
loudly and clearly" by Mr. Barak would open the way to "the final
breakthrough" in an Israeli deal with Syria.
'CROSSROADS FOR ARABS': The press in
Kuwait, Jordan and some European capitals determined that Geneva had
constituted a "crossroads" for many Arabs who are now stranded
between war and peace with Israel.
According to these writers, "The Arab front against Israel has long
since crumbled" as Arab nations, one by one, make peace with Israel and
seek to modernize their economies. In
the words of a Kuwaiti paper: While
"Arabs are 100 percent behind Syria and its bid to reach a peaceful
settlement with Israel," the reality is that "Israel, is a fact, a
political entity...much as it sticks in Arab throats."
EDITOR: Gail Hamer
Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
survey is based on 24 reports from 16 countries, march 25 - 27. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region;
editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
MIDDLE EAST
SYRIA: "The
Geneva Summit And Israeli Positions"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Bath
read (3/27): "Syria has shown its
interest in helping any effort spent to salvage the peace process so the region
would reach a real peace which would insure the return of rights and provide
security and stability for all. It is
well known that the objective of the Geneva summit was to remove the obstacles
placed by Israel during Shepherdstown talks, which led to its suspension. Barak, who was supposed to take positions
which would contribute to the salvation of the peace process, shed doubts on
the possibility of returning the peace process to its natural path.... This proves that although Israel keeps
talking about peace and its necessity, it is not concerned with the real peace
that the international community is seeking.
It has been proven that Israel's objective is to maintain tension in the
region. Therefore Israel is the only
party responsible for the failure of the peace process and the deterioration of
the situation in the region."
"Geneva And The Requirements Of Peace"
Majed Mo'Awad commented in government-owned Al-Thawra
(3/27): "The Geneva summit is
over, but the level of its success is dependent on Israel's commitment to the
principles of peace, resuming negotiations with the acceptance of demarcating
the June 4 border, and acceptance of what assurances the American president
would offer to bring about required changes in Israeli policy. However, there is no cause for optimism with
the declarations of Israeli officials."
"Geneva Summit"
An
unsigned editorial in government-owned Tishreen held (3/26): "Advancement of the process does not
depend on Syria alone. There must be a
radical change in the Israeli position towards a decisive commitment to full withdrawal
from the Golan to the June 4th line....
No doubt the Americans have many pressure cards to play to convince the
rulers of Tel Aviv to be committed to Security Council resolutions.... The coming days will reveal if there is a
change in the Israeli position toward a real just peace."
ISRAEL:
"Downhill"
Senior analyst Nachum Barnea wrote in a frontpage commentary
in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot (3/27): "Very few foreign
rulers managed to embarrass the American president again and again. Assad came back to the same city and the
same hotel to slap Clinton on the face for a second time.... Having missed all the trains, Assad missed
the peace train too. He moved his dry
bones to Geneva because he hoped to get a free ride. But to pay the fee was too much for Syrian honor.... Fortunately, Syria belongs to a vanishing
brand of dictatorships. If Saddam can
do it in Iraq, there is no reason why Assad could not survive in Damascus, but
both are ossified relics of the past....
Barak is going to have to proceed without him, to get the Lebanon
pullout going in earnest and turn his energies to the Palestinian track. Practical as always, the Americans last
night turned their attention to the Palestinian track."
"Assad Is Out"
Analyst Hemmi Shalev wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv
(3/27): "Aging and ailing,
President Assad proved last night in Geneva that he is still second to none in
making life miserable, particularly for the Americans. Assad did not let the opportunity to
embarrass President Clinton for a third time slip away.... The Geneva setback dealt a heavy blow to
Barak's 'Syria first' policy, and brought a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from
Lebanon and the risks it entails even closer.
On the other hand, Chairman Arafat may now find a completely transformed
and eager-for-a-deal Israeli prime minister.... That said, it is too early to write the Syrian track off as
dead. There is still enough time and
the numerous interests at play make a deal with Syria possible. True, Assad did not blink in Geneva, but
neither did he slam the door."
"It Was The Last Chance"
Washington correspondent Orly Azolai-Katz commented in
mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot (3/27): "As long as President Clinton is in office, he will never
say no to two countries asking him to help them move from hostility to
peace. Still, for Clinton, Geneva was
the summit of the last chance. The
Middle East is going to remain on the president's agenda, but there is little
hope left for the Syrian track after Geneva.
However, since he is determined to conclude his presidency with another
spectacular peace ceremony, Clinton is going to invest his energies in the
Palestinian track. This, too, is where
he can carve for himself a Nobel Peace Prize."
WEST BANK:
"Serious Failure"
Independent, moderate Al-Quds editorialized
(3/27): "The gloomy and
pessimistic atmosphere
that had overshadowed the conclusion of the Geneva summit
did not differ so much from that dominating the Palestinian-Israeli talks held
in the United States. These
developments come as no surprise, due to the inflexible positions of the
Israeli government on both the Palestinian and Syrian tracks. Adding to these unfortunate facts, the
United States has been unable to utilize this golden opportunity to efficiently
push the peace process any further along.
Instead, the United States has refused any effective intervention in the
peace process from the international community and particularly from
Europe. It is time for the United
States to recognize the serious failure [of its policy] and the need to allow a
more expanded and effective international role, capable of stopping Israeli
policies from exposing the region to the risk of destruction. It is Washington's chance at this time to
re-examine its whole policy in the Middle East, which has proven unable to
achieve peace, security or stability in this region."
"Intensifying The U.S. Role"
In another editorial, Al-Quds opined (3/27): "It seems that the U.S. president is
determined to make a mark on the history of the Middle East by exerting efforts
to activate the various tracks in the Arab-Israeli peace talks.... No one doubts that the United States is exerting
efforts to make a breakthrough in the current conflict. However, if those efforts are to achieve any
concrete results towards a just and everlasting peace, the United States has to
intensify its efforts and assume a more active and serious role in the peace
process, especially regarding the Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967
borders with all the Arab lands."
EGYPT: "Clinton
With An Eye On History"
Salama Ahmed Salama, columnist for pro-government Al
Ahram, judged (3/26):
"Certainly, the heated activity by President Clinton these days is
unique, since he will be leaving the White House shortly without a major
historic achievement.... He is like a
student who, without having studied, was surprised by exams. The whole Clinton administration is tight on
time.... [It] has invested more time in
the Middle East settlement than any other international issue. The importance of the Geneva meeting between
Presidents Assad and Clinton may be far more
important than any other international achievement for
Washington. Clearly, many issues
between Syria and Israel have been solved.
If the Geneva summit succeeds, a positive impact may occur on the
Palestinian track as well. In this way,
Clinton would enter history through the eye of the Middle East's needle, and
maybe others as well."
JORDAN: "The
U.S. Is The Converging Point For Arab Diplomacy"
Center-left, influential Al-Dustur (3/27)
editorialized: "The United States
seems to be, now more than ever, the center of attention for Arab leaders, who
realize the amount of American influence on the various developments, and for
Arab countries, the majority of which has ties of extensive cooperation with
the only superpower capable of playing the indispensable role of solving the
problems in this region. The Geneva
summit meeting between Presidents Assad and Clinton is the best example of the
vital and pivotal role of the United States in the Middle East peace process. The U.S.-Syrian Geneva summit, although not
successful according to the White House, and the upcoming Egyptian-U.S. summit
are strong proof that that the United States has increased its involvement in
Middle East affairs. They are also
proof that the United States is the only power capable of playing a role that
is acceptable to all the countries of the region. This also means that the United States shoulders a bigger
responsibility toward this region and its future."
"Before The Last Opportunity Lost"
Semi-official, influential Al-Ray opined (3/27):
"Skeptical remarks made by the Israeli prime minister about a fifty
percent rate of success of the Clinton-Assad meeting and Syria's doubtful
partnership in the negotiations are particularly interesting. These remarks reflect a stand that is
arrogant and oblivious of U.S. efforts and of Syria's genuine desire to achieve
just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
This in turn shows the nature of the solution that Barak would love to
impose upon the Arabs. Prejudging the
Geneva summit in this manner shows irresponsibility on the part of Barak and
suggests that Barak is not providing the climate that the U.S. administration
had worked so hard for. We hope that
the U.S. administration will continue its efforts and would pressure Barak to
abide by what has been agreed upon since the Madrid Conference on all the
negotiating tracks. Otherwise, the
fragile stability of this region will be jeopardized and Barak's pushing the
region toward the abyss would bring neither benefit nor security to
Israel."
ALGERIA: "Israel Must Withdraw From The Golan"
French-language, independent El Watan ran this
pre-summit front-page editorial (3/26):
"There is a sense of resignation from Albright, who declined to
make any prediction. For Damascus,
things are clear. Assad will not
compromise on basic principles.
President Clinton will see that Syria is ready for peace, if its rights
are preserved. Everything is possible
if Israel withdraws from the Golan."
BAHRAIN:
"Clinton Cannot Offer Something Israel Doesn't Like"
In
pre-summit commentary by Sayed Zahra, semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij
said (3/25): "The question is not
what Clinton knows and what he does not know, nor what he wants to do or
not. It is what Israel wants to offer. Clinton cannot offer something which Israel
does not like."
KUWAIT: "Crossroads For Arabs"
Independent
Al-Siyassah ran this pre-summit comment by Ahmad Al-Jarallah
(3/26): "The Geneva summit between
President Assad and Clinton represents a crossroads for the Arabs. The Syrian leader is no longer interested in
outdated ideologies. Assad knows clinging to faded
grandeur
and making emotional, impassioned speeches will not improve people's living
standards and will definitely not lead to political, economic and social
advances in Syria. Arabs have tried
before to recover their lost fights by waging war and have failed. It is clear that diplomacy is the only
option. Arabs are 100 percent behind
Syria and its bid to reach a peaceful settlement with Israel. Much as it sticks in Arab throats, Israel is
a fact, a political entity. In Geneva, on Sunday, Assad will try and show the
West that we in the Middle East no longer waste our chances to achieve peace
and stability in our region."
SAUDI ARABIA:
"Poisons Of Israel Assassinates Peace Dream In Geneva"
Riyadh-based, moderate Al-Jazira opined (3/27): "What everyone feared--that Israel's
extensive delays and pressure would lead to a collapse of the fourth summit
between Presidents Clinton and Assad--has occurred. The summit has collapsed
and a chance for peace in the region has diminished. A golden opportunity to accomplish
peace in the era of President Clinton has been lost. The peoples of Syria,
Lebanon and Israel will have to wait for a long time until such an opportunity,
which Israeli has wasted, to appear once again."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
"Safety Valve Of American Diplomacy"
In
pre-summit commentary, semi-official Al-Ittihad opined (3/25): "Despite the success of U.S. diplomacy
in helping pacify most Arab fronts with Israel, the Syrian-Lebanese front has
remained hot.... However, it has not reached the level of explosion, due to the
safety valves of American diplomacy as well as other regional and international
considerations. The summit scheduled in
Geneva tomorrow comes as a link in the chain of American diplomacy.... We believe that the summit will not come up
with positive results unless the United States takes the side of objectivity
and deals with the Middle East peace process file fairly and without bias. We also believe that peace requires an
American courage which will define the obstacles and convince Israel that
settlement with Syria is a necessary link in a comprehensive peace which will
never be just unless Israeli occupation of the Golan and South Lebanon is
eliminated."
EUROPE
RUSSIA: "Is Israel Ready For Concessions?"
Vladimir Dunayev wrote (3/25) in reformist Izvestiya: "If Israel were to promise today to
return the Golan Heights, a bilateral peace could be concluded already
tomorrow."
FRANCE:
"Failure Of Bill Clinton's Mediation"
Claude Lorieux and Laurent Mossu commented from Geneva in
right-of-center Le Figaro (3/27): "Failure in Geneva. President Clinton did not manage to restart
the Israel-Syria peace process.... The
three actors of this process are now caught up by the calendar.... It is in the interest of the sphinx of Damascus
to make peace.... The Israeli prime
minister's interest lies in a stable situation on his northern border....
Obviously, it is the American who is in the greatest hurry.... He would very much like to conclude his
second term with a historic success....
Assad does not usually make a trip for nothing. Strengthening his ties with the superpower
was worth the trip."
GERMANY: "Assad
Can Only Win"
Jacques Schuster noted in a pre-summit editorial in
right-of-center Die Welt of Hamburg (3/26): "Peace is nevertheless
near--not because of love for humanity, weariness of war, or the desire to
reconcile, but simply because Syria would otherwise be isolated. For Damascus, nothing is as it was before. Assad has lost the Soviet Union--his most
important ally and largest arms supplier.
The Arab front against Israel has long since crumbled. None of its former war allies
would be willing to start another war with Israel. On the contrary, even the...Palestinians are
in the final stage of negotiations with Jerusalem. Syria is alone, its opposition to Israel only supported, if at
all, by the mullahs in Iran and the dictator in Baghdad. One can also no longer speak of Syrian
dominance. Too deep is the economic
crisis in the country, and too threatening is the coalition between Turkey and
Israel."
"Chances Are Good"
Peter
Wendt noted in an editorial in Maerkische Oderzeitung of Frankfurt/Oder
(3/27): "Chances are good for
achieving peace between Syria and Israel.
The fact that President Assad traveled to Geneva, despite his alleged
illness to meet with President Clinton is a clear sign that decisions are about
to be made that will lead to real change in the Near East.... Assad lacks the kind of decisiveness that
belonged to Sadat, who started the Syrian-Israeli negotiations with his trip to
Jerusalem in 1977. Nevertheless, the
Egyptian-Israeli negotiations have been jump-started, even though no direct
negotiations are following immediately.
The word 'pullout,' spoken loudly and clearly in Jerusalem, could bring
the final breakthrough."
ITALY: "U.S. Pressures Have Not Bent
Assad"
Umberto
De Giovannangeli reported from Jerusalem in pro-DS (leading government party) L'Unita
(3/27): "U.S. pressures have not bent Assad.... Instead of the announcement of the resumption of Israeli-Syrian
negotiations that everybody expected, the umpteenth installment of the 'war of
declarations' was aired from Geneva....For the time being, U.S. mediation does
not seem to have achieved any results.
Clinton returns to Washington empty-handed but he won't give up. He will meet Egyptian President Mubarak
tomorrow at the White House."
"Impasse
Remains"
A
report from Geneva in leading, rightist opposition Il Giornale stressed
(3/27): "U.S. attempts at
resolving the impasse in the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations seem to meet
with more problems than it was expected. Yesterday's long meeting in Geneva
between Clinton and Assad...does not seem to have produced the results that
were hoped for. Secretary Albright let
that be understood during an interview with CNN."
HUNGARY: "In Syria's Interests"
Center-left
Magyar Hirlap said (3/27):
"It is not just in Clinton's, but in Assad's best interest to
achieve results from the talks. Experts
of the region agree that Syria has remained very alone in the Middle East,
although the country very much needs the United States' support, money and
extensive trade relations."
SWITZERLAND:
"The Waltzing Among Israelis, Syrians And Americans"
Luis Lema, foreign editor of Geneva's leading,
French-language Le Temps, wrote (3/27), "First of all, there is the
measure that marks the rhythm of numerous diplomatic sommersaults in the Middle
East. Then, there is the political
measure. Clinton, at the end of his
mandate, would like to leave to Vice President
Al Gore the legacy of two former enemies shaking hands at the White
House. And Hafez el-Assad, having to
leave to his son the heritage of a weakened country, would like to spare him
this additional burden. There is still
the measure that ticks between the moment when a grenade is thrown and when it
actually explodes. The grenade is
located in the southern region of Lebanon occupied by Israel since 1982. It is expected that the grenade will explode
this summer when the Israeli army withdraws.
That will bring for the region a snowball effect of convulsions.
"Peace negotiations have once again stumbled over two
constant measures. First, that Assad
has always made it clear that 'Syria will defend its rights without giving up an inch of the national
territory.' Second, what he calls his
'defense of Arab honor,' thrashed by separate peace agreements made with the
Israelis by the Jordanians, Egyptians and Palestinians."
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Office of Research -- Media Reaction
Telephone: (202) 619-6511
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
