SA Engagement with Israel: In order to further the objectives of the Presidential Peace Initiative in the Middle East, the South African Government embarked on a programme to heighten engagement with the Israeli Government. This was done with the aim of ensuring Israeli support for the projects that give effect to the Presidential Peace Initiative, thus minimising Israeli strategy of countering our initiatives with criticism of non-involvement, lack of information and extreme bias. To this effect, a series of meetings between South Africa and Israel has since been held. This included the visit of Ms Ziv, the Likud Party and Minister Ehud Olmert to South Africa and that of the Director-General to Israel in 2004. In addition, an agreement on the Protection and the Promotion of Investment has been concluded. It seems that this strategy has produced the desired result, given the atmosphere that prevailed during the meeting under discussion. In a meeting with the Deputy Director-General for Africa of the Foreign Ministry of Israel, on 07 March 2005 in Cape Town, the Director-General undertook to fast-track the process of granting Israel’s Ambassador-designate to South Africa agrèment, as well as to facilitate a possible visit of Minister Thoko Didiza, Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs, to Israel. It was also agreed that the next political dialogue will be held in South Africa on 20 and 21 June 2005, when the new Director-General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry would be visiting South Africa. It should be noted that on 30 March 2005, the Israeli Ambassador-designate, stationed in Ethiopia, was reportedly shot.
Sharm Al Sheikh Summit: The meeting between Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon and the Palestinian President, Mr Mahmoud Abbas in Sharm al-Sheikh on 08 February 2005 was the highest-level talks between the two sides since the Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, began on 29 September 2000. Since then 1,042 Israelis and 3135 Palestinians have been killed. Despite the fact that the mutual cease-fire declaration by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders reinforces the existing exhilaration that there will be peace in the Middle East, it remains important that both parties must seize the moment as it is presenting itself again. The most notable and major significance of the meeting was the change in the psychological condition that accompanied and exacerbated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the last four years. While the leaders from both sides have committed themselves to a new chapter of dialogue, there is an apparent struggle within these two communities between the forces that want to stop this march to peace and those that want to move it forward.
The Cairo Declaration: The Egyptian sponsored Palestinian meeting in Cairo from the 13 to 17 March 2005 was an attempt to reach a cease-fire to calm down tension in the Palestinian territories. Abu Mazen, the Palestinian National Authority President went to Cairo with a full hope that the meeting will agree on a cease-fire, this ostensibly to give and allow negotiations with Israel a chance. The Cairo meeting, even though it did not achieve the intended cease-fire goal, did manage for the first time to bring a large number of Palestinian factions together to deliberate on a very important issue, a cease-fire, which would constitute serving higher interests of the Palestinians. The meeting was a serious step towards political partnership by Palestinian factions. Although Sharon's response to the meeting was the insistence on the disarming of the factions, he did declare that the declaration is a first positive step, while Washington's response was that the declaration does not meet the US demands.
Visit of Kofi Annan to the Region: Kofi Annan's visit to Ramallah in March 2005 affirmed to the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, that the international community supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. Agreeing with Annan on the importance of the UN Security Council, Palestinians do not, however, go along with Annan's declaration that 'some resolutions can be implemented faster than other resolutions'. Speaking on behalf of Palestine, Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser Al-Qidwa, pointed out that "Palestinians cling and honour international law and believe in the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions as the basis for any settlement of the conflict with Israel". Some Palestinians feel that Annan's visit to the Middle East has done more harm than good and left an impression that Annan and the UN are biased towards Israel. Issues of Annan's visit to the holocaust museum while refusing to visit the Wall site and the refugee camps damaged his and the UN's image in the eyes of many a Palestinian.
Sharon wins Budget vote: Israel's parliament has approved the 2005 budget, clearing the way for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to carry out his Gaza withdrawal plan. Members of the Knesset endorsed the spending package by 58 votes to 36, with one abstention. The vote was the last political obstacle to the withdrawal, after deputies on Monday rejected an attempt by opponents to force a referendum. If Mr Sharon had failed to pass his budget by the 31 March deadline, elections would have had to be called and withdrawal from Gaza could have been delayed or derailed. Mr Sharon proposes pulling out all settlers and the soldiers who protect them. Israel will maintain control of Gaza's borders, air space and coastline. The Palestinians have welcomed the Gaza withdrawal plan, but say the continued existence of large Israeli settlements on the West Bank will prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
Syria and Lebanon
Lebanon continues to be riddled by political tension since the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri on 14th February 2005. President Lahoud and the current Prime Minister-designate have repeatedly urged the anti-Syrian opposition to be part of the Government of national unity. The opposition has however expressed its reluctance to be part of that Government before Syrian withdrawal is completely effected. As a result, Prime Minister-designate Umar Karami plans to stand down because of his failure to form a Government of national unity, according to his adviser. It is expected that Karami will make an official explanation as to why he would decline to form a new national unity government after meeting the parliamentary speaker Nabih Birri this week. Reports say that Karami had implied it was impossible to balance foreign interests in Paris and Washington with the interests of leading political parties in Lebanon, so he was not in a position to set up a government.
In a related development, the general in charge of Lebanese military intelligence - whose resignation the opposition is demanding - stepped aside on Tuesday by taking a one-month leave, a military official said. He is not expected to return to duty. Major-General Raymond Azar, the director of military intelligence, took a one-month "administrative leave", a government official said. The anti-Syrian opposition had been demanding the resignation of Azar, four other generals and the prosecutor-general. The head of intelligence in the Mount Lebanon province was appointed to fill the post in Azar's absence.
UN diplomats have begun talks on a new draft Security Council resolution to set up an international inquiry into February's assassination of former Lebanese Prime minister Rafik al-Hariri.The draft, backed by Britain, France and the United States, calls for the "full cooperation of Lebanese authorities" with an investigation commission to be set up by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. A UN fact-finding report last week accused neighbouring Syria of creating an unstable environment that led to the 14 February killing of al-Hariri. Among other charges, the report said Syrian President Bashar al-Asad had threatened physical harm against al-Hariri over his opposition to Damascus, and it called for an international investigation. It also said the Lebanese investigation into the blast that killed al-Hariri had been flawed. Damascus says it had nothing to do with al-Hariri’s killing and accuses its political opponents of opportunism.
The world has witnessed Syria comply with the United Nation’s Security Council resolution 1559 by removing its troops from the north and central of Beirut to the Beka’a Valley. The move was welcomed by the UN and the United States, the latter has however repeatedly emphasised that it will accept nothing less than a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. In its quest to ensure complete compliance with resolution 1559, the US has stepped up demands for Hizb Allah to disarm.
Syria has now committed that it will withdraw all its forces from Lebanon before Lebanese elections due in May 2005. This was pledged in a letter from Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The letter said long-time co-operation between Syria and Lebanon had enabled Syria to already decrease its troop levels to 10,000 from 40,000, "coupled with the full withdrawal of these troops before the forthcoming elections in Lebanon". Syria's ambassador to UN, Faysal Miqdad, said a joint Syrian-Lebanese co-ordinating committee would meet before Saturday to set a timetable for the withdrawal.
South Africa has very serious concerns about the unfolding situation in the region. Emphasis should be put on the need to adhere to a multilateral approach when dealing with a situation of this nature and magnitude. South Africa has up to this stage been able to maintain an unbiased perspective on how the dispute should be resolved. Our Government should encourage a peaceful resolution of the matter, as there exists a risk of a spill over in the event of there being any form of physical confrontation between the parties involved.
The South African Government should maintain the position that international law and the UN resolutions passed on the Syria-Lebanon affair must be given recognition and be adhered to by relevant parties. It is expected that democratic principles will be reinforced by compliance with the UN resolutions and the holding of successful parliamentary elections in Lebanon in May 2005. South Africa should continue to support an eventual withdrawal from Lebanon of all foreign forces and the concept that Lebanon must finally be allowed to enjoy the freedom and sovereignty it is entitled to.
Jordan
Jordan recently came in the line of fire from its neighbours pertaining to various issues:
Accused by Iraq for alleged involvement in terrorist activities
When a suicide bomber in Hilla, Iraq killed 120 people, a newspaper journalist wrongly identified a Jordanian citizen as the bomber. The latter turned out to be an innocent victim. The incident though caused friction between the Jordanian and Iraqi governments which resulted in a temporary withdrawal of envoys and the burning of the Jordanian flag in the streets of Baghdad. The government of Iraq accepted Jordan’s assurances that the country was, under no circumstances, involved in terrorist activities in Iraq, and normal relations were resumed. King Abdullah II pointed out during an interview with a London based newspaper that Jordan has the most secure borders with Iraq and that Iraqi police and army officers are in fact trained by Jordan. He further pointed out that Jordan was deploying sustained efforts in co-ordination with the Iraqi government to hunt rebels who are creating problems like Abu Mussab Zarqawi.
Accused by the Syrian press for supporting SCR 1559 and for returning its Ambassador to Tel Aviv.
The Syrian government launched a scathing attack on Jordan for its support of UNSC resolution 1559 and for returning its ambassador to Tel Aviv. A Syrian editorial in the Daily Teshreen stated "that Jordan has taken on itself to represent the Devil by adopting a policy similar to that of the US and Israel on 1559 and that this was like being stabbed by a brother and a partner". Pertaining to the return of Jordan's Ambassador to Tel Aviv, the newspaper wrote " Jordan has rewarded Israel for its crimes and massacres of the last four years by returning its Ambassador to Tel Aviv".
In reaction to the Teshreen editorial, the Jordanian government daily, Al Rai wrote the following: " The brothers at Teshreen, not to say in Syria, still live in the Middle Ages in isolation from the world, and don't know what is happening around them.... Furthermore, the real devils are those who have bartered in the Arab Nation for four decades, bringing it to a state of weakness, humiliation and repeated defeat while displaying no kind of self criticism. We said that we must honour the UN resolutions comprehensively, not selectively, because if we do not, then our constantly repeated demands regarding the implementation of UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 are meaningless.
Both King Abdullah and Foreign Minister Al-Mulki have constantly emphasised the fact that Jordan cannot be selective in its support for UN resolutions. It therefore has no choice but to support the implementation of UNSC resolution 1559, which calls for the withdrawal of all Syrian troops form Lebanese soil.
Suspected of modifying the Beirut Initiative.
Some neighbouring countries suspected Jordan of trying to modify the Beirut Initiative, which called for normalisation of relations with Israel on condition that Israel returns to the pre-1967 borders. King Abdullah reacted by saying that it was not a question of modification. Jordan's proposed amendments to the Beirut Initiative was simply intended to activate the Arab Peace Initiative in line with agreements reached between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Mahmoud Abbas in Sharm El Sheikh. The King insisted that the aforesaid amendments were not a modification but merely a clarification.
Rumours have it in diplomatic circles that Chalabi, a candidate for the premiership in Iraq but wanted for Fraud in Jordan, is behind the smear campaign against Jordan.
King Abdullah attributed the misunderstanding re Jordan's amendments to the Beirut Initiative to a misunderstanding caused by the Foreign Minister of Jordan and the King stopped short of criticizing the Foreign Minister openly in the press.
Iraq
Iraqi elections, held in January 2005 have been hailed as a partial victory in Iraq’s political history by many international observer, world leaders and political commentators. The members of Iraq's newly elected National Assembly have gathered in the capital Baghdad - but deadlock persists over the formation of a new government. The long delay in forming a new government has dismayed many Iraqis who defied the violence to vote on 30 January.
Iraqi lawmakers have now regrouped in a further effort to break the deadlock over the appointment of a president and a speaker of parliament. The second session of the assembly, held on Tuesday, ended in chaos with arguing MPs failing to nominate anyone. The delay raised questions about whether the country's volatile communal mix could write a permanent legal charter by mid-August, the deadline set in the interim constitution or Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). The new basic law is due to be drafted by 15 August 2005. Ministers insisted that while the deadline was tight, a draft constitution could be ready on time. But work on the constitution cannot begin until a new government is formed. Officials from the Shi’a Muslim majority say the delay is due to efforts to find a Sunni Muslim candidate for speaker acceptable to all parties. Interim President Ghazi Yawer, a Sunni, was offered the position but declined, hoping to get one of two vice-presidential posts.
Meanwhile, the violence and insurgency continues, with attacks on all communities. Addressing the security issues would be high on the agenda of the new Government, followed by the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces.