Archives

by Lynn Ockersz

Reverberations from the stormy global political arena were felt strongly at the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism which was held in Durban, South Africa when the US and Israeli delegations to the forum strode out of it in protest against references to Israel in the final draft declaration of the meeting.

Two issues which US officials said provoked this response on their part was the attempt by the conference to equate Zionism with racism and the question of slavery and reparations for it which were brooched by some African states.

Democratic lawmaker Tom Lantos who headed the US delegation to the conference was quoted saying that the forum was "hijacked by extremist elements" and that "the conference will stand self-condemned". Apparently, the use of "hateful language" on Israel gravely destabilised the proceedings at the historic forum.

The US and Israeli decision to walk out of the conference, however, is being seen as precipitate and uncalled for among some sections of world opinion. No less a group of nations than the EU which continued to participate in the meet see the problem over which a storm has thus been raised as "a matter of reconciling the language" of the several draft declarations. Implicitly, these states do not object to the substance of the declaration which includes formulations on the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Admittedly, the US has missed an opportunity - a very valuable one at that - to engage adversarial opinion in a constructive dialogue on the Arab-Israeli problem. Instead of taking on these sections of opinion and attempting to narrow down differences in the debate on the Middle-East conflict, the US has virtually side-stepped the issue by choosing to leave the conference. Enlightened opinion is likely to wish for a re-think on this issue on the part of the US and Israel. A patient engagement with pro-Arab voices at the conference would have not only enabled more conciliatory language to be used in the final declaration on the Arab-Israeli dispute but also brought about a greater degree of understanding among the numerous parties to the conflict on the central issues dividing them.

At present the Middle-East theatre doesn't seem to provide sufficient grounds for hope in quickly reconciling the warring parties but global opinion is also less divided than before on the gut issues in the conflict. To be sure, the violence in the Middle East has been spiralling very dangerously in recent weeks but we have also seen an encouraging acceleration of diplomacy among the states which have been and are closely involved in the conflict. There has been, for instance, an interesting meeting of minds between the Russian and Israeli leadership in the wake of the violence and counter-violence in the disputed territories.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon apparently had a fruitful meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin a few days back with talks focussing on the current violence in the Middle East. "There can be no justification for terrorist acts against civilians," Putin was quoted telling the Israeli Prime Minister. Russia is "alarmed" by the violence in West Asia, Putin said, "all the more since a large part of Israel's population comes from the former Soviet Union and Russia... It is a very good basis for Russia to make a weighty contribution to the course of settlement".

It could be clearly seen from these pronouncements that we have come quite a long way from the bitter antagonisms of the Cold War era when the Soviet Union was a staunch ally of the Arab world. Russia's own problems in Chechniya and the wastefulness of violence is apparently tipping the scales of world opinion against the irrational use of coercion and violence.

This changing opinion climate on the use of force in the resolution of disputes and the increasing importance being attached to the promotion of human rights in global fora along with the intensifying accent worldwide on democratisation, should be judiciously used by the major powers of the West in particular to constructively engage their opponents in debates on humanising the world system.

The West could take the cue from Iranian President Mohammed Khatami who has been a consistent advocate of "civilisational dialogue" as a means of bringing about harmonious relations among the peoples of the world. They would do well to remember that conflict is an opportunity for change.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager