Europe's Moment?
The Palestinian Right of Return in European Middle East Policy
The European Union
"On hearing the title of my chapter, a friend of mine burst out
laughing, 'But there is nothing to say. The European Union has
never taken a clear stand on the right of return of refugees,'"
recounts French journalist Alain Gresh.(1) "The European Union certainly has taken a stand
on the national rights of the Palestinians, on settlement policy,
Jerusalem, the creation of the Palestinian state and Israel's right
to security, but any references to refugees were vague and the term
'right of return' was never used. I was on the point of giving up
when I stumbled, almost by chance, on a text dated 1971 known as
the 'Schumann document,' named after Maurice Schumann, the French
Foreign Minister at the time, under President Georges
Pompidue."
A year earlier, in 1970, the European Community, then composed of only six member states, had launched an initiative for European Political Cooperation, which provided for regular consultations on important foreign policy issues in order to "strengthen their solidarity by favoring harmonization of points of view, concerted attitudes and, wherever possible and desirable, common actions." This initiative marked the beginning of a process aimed at clarifying common strategic interests and unifying foreign policy on the European level, especially with regard to regional and international crises that might jeopardize economic and political stability in Europe itself.
Since the 1970s, and over a period of about 30 years, the European Union has come a long way towards recognizing the national rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to self-determination and independent statehood (e.g. 1980 Venice declaration; 1997 Amsterdam European Council declaration; 1999 Berlin declaration). Despite the substantial increase i European involvement in the Middle East, however, explicit reference to Palestinian refugees' right of return has remained absent from statements and declarations issued by the European Union since 1971.
|
Advocacy, Lobbying and Campaigns in the UK Arab Media Watch is an independent, non-partisan Media Monitoring coalition, with supporters among Britain's different religious communities and of every political persuasion. AMW works closely with a variety of individuals and institutions concerned with human rights issues in the Middle East region. Since September 2000, when the second Intifada began in the Palestinian Territories illegally occupied by Israel, the Western media has seen a dismaying explosion of stereotyping of Arabic culture and, closely allied to that, of misreporting or distorted reporting about the Arabic world. The major news stories have concerned the plight of the
Palestinians but Arab Media Watch was CAABU - Council for the Advancement of
Arab-British Understanding was formed after the 1967 Middle East
war, when a questionnaire revealed that 98 per cent of the British
public had no knowledge of the Arab world. There was clear need to
present the Arab perspective and thus advance understanding between
the Arab and British peoples. CAABU has sympathy for the
aspirations, achievements and rights of the Arab peoples,
especially for the |
Throughout the Oslo process, Europe accepted the lead-role of the United States and remained unable and/or unwilling to launch independent political initiatives, especially on issues perceived as sensitive as the Palestinian refugee question. The hesitant European stand can be attributed to the fact that the European Union, originating in common economic interests, has been slow to develop mechanisms required for exerting joint political influence and power.
The lack of consensus among member states about a more pro-active political role on the one hand, and the almost exclusive focus of Arab states, the PLO, and Israel on United States policy have contributed to a situation where - throughout the Oslo process - the role of the European Union was reduced to acting as a funding agency supporting the implementation of a political process lead by the United States. The fact that Javier Solana, based on the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam including provisions "relating to a common foreign and security policy" (CFSP), was appointed EU Special Middle East Envoy has done little to change this situation.
European complacence with this role must also be understood against the historic prominence of economy in European policy making, a tradition which makes European policy makers receptive to the notion that political crises, rooted in massive violations of basic human rights, can be resolved by improving the economic living conditions of the victims. This "economic" or "developmental approach," has characterized European Union involvement also in the search for a durable solution of the Palestinian Refugee question in the 1990s.
Continued funding of UNRWA services, especially through UNRWA's Peace Implementation Program, accompanied by EU sponsored research into the capacity of Arab host countries and the future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to absorb and re-settle Palestinian refugees, represented the pillars of European intervention during the Oslo process. A more principled approach based on relevant international law and UN Resolutions, especially UN Resolution 194, and affirming Palestinian refugees' right to return to their places of origin now located in Israel and their right to real property restitution was considered as "too sensitive politically."
EU Member States
Coordinating the Middle East policies of 15 memberstates as
politically diverse as the United Kingdom and France, Greece and
the Netherlands or Germany, has remained a difficult task.
Recognition of Palestinian refugees' right of return in accordance
with UN Resolution 194 is part of the traditional officially
declared government policy of some member states, among them France
and Britain. Representatives of other EU member states, such as
Denmark and the Netherlands, have made express statements affirming
Palestinian refugees' right of return in their national parliaments
and/or the European parliament only in response to explicit
inquiries by lobby initiatives supportive of the Palestinian
refugee rights awareness campaign that accompanied
Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations in 1999 - 2000.
Such long-standing and recent declaratory support for Palestinian refugees' right of return by European officials and parliamentary groups, moreover, has yet to be translated into political action. In Britain, the 1997 election victory of Labor Party head Tony Blair interrupted the course of traditional British Foreign Office diplomacy in the Middle East.
|
The Campaign for Palestinian Rights was
launched at a rally in January 2001with Tony Benn, Paul Foot,
Susannah Yorke, with a determination to shift public opinion in
Britain to look honestly at what is happening in the Middle East,
and to demand justice for the Palestinians. CPR is linked to the
Socialist Workers Party. The Palestinian Return Centre is an independent academic/media consultancy founded and registered in the United Kingdom in 1996. It specializes in research, analysis, and monitoring of issues pertaining to the dispersed Palestinians and their right to return. It also serves as an information repository on other related aspects of the Palestine Question and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although our Centre is Palestinian in its nature and character, it is not affiliated to any particular organization or party. It, however, fully respects the political beliefs and persuasion of anyone who participates in a personal capacity in its activities. Because the Palestinian people have never exercised or enjoyed the right to live in their homeland in peace, freedom and dignity, our Centre remains resolutely committed to the mobilization of Palestinian and Arab efforts to secure the restoration of all the usurped Palestinian national rights. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) was established during the build-up to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and support for the new organisation was greatly strengthened by subsequent events, and particularly by the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla. Since then PSC has become the largest and most active campaigning organisation in the UK on the issue of Palestine. We aim to build an effective mass campaign, organising protests, political lobbying and raising public awareness. Through our web site and publications we also provide a source of accurate and reliable information on the Palestine-Israel conflict and the social and political conditions within Palestine. To this end we also aim to build real contacts between Palestinian people and those who support them. We are an independent, non-governmental and non-party political organisation with members from many communities across Britain. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, with the support of many individuals and organisations in Britain, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel, has launched a campaign to boycott Israeli products and tourism. The campaign was launched in the House of Commons on the 4th July 2001. There have been calls for a boycott from within Israel itself as well as in the Occupied Territories. Our decision to launch this campaign follows decades of Israel's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions, International Humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. We will organise supporters to boycott Israeli goods and services, to persuade businesses to stop trading with Israel and to campaign for an end to European Union and British government trade agreements with Israel. |
While Labor had supported Israel since its creationin 1948 when its was perceived "by many in the party as an underdog surrounded by hostile Arab states" the sympathies of many Labor MPs shifted to the Palestinians after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, led by Ariel Sharon, and the massacres in Sabra and Shatila camps. The election of Tony Blair, however, marked "a tilt towards Israel clearly [reflecting] a wider ideological shift in New Labor thinking away from causes such as the Palestinians."
Blair's "unofficial" and overtly pro-Israeli initiatives, and
his "presidential" style of government characterized by disregard
for
parliamentary accountability have resulted in new internal tension
and conflict over British Middle East policy between the Foreign
Office and Blair's Downing Street. This tension is evident, for
example, in comments by recent British Foreign Secretaries,
including Robin Cook and current Foreign Secretary Jack Straw,
critical of Israeli policies in the 1967 occupied territories and
the immediate response from 10 Downing Street attempting to pacify
Israel's "outrage."
The tension is also evident in Blair's appointment of Michael Levi, a Zionist-Jewish British national with influence in British and Israeli economic and political circles, as a sp cial Middle East envoy unaccountable to the parliament, was met with heavy criticism by politicians and the press, especially because Levy appears among the major financial contributors to Blair's 1997 election campaign (Guardian, 23 February 2000).
According to the Independent, Levy is "thought to have raised
12-25 million pounds spent by the Labor Party in the 1997 election
campaign and hived away millions more into Mr. Blair's 'blind
trust' in the opposition years." (Independent, 7 January 2001).
According to the principle that he who pays the piper thus began to play the tune, Levy, who also owns a house in Tel Aviv and has close ties with Ehud Barak and Yossi Beilan, appears to have played a central role in bringing about Labor's political tilt towards Israel (Guardian, 14 July 2001).
Since Blair's election, the British government has not always been quick to condemn Israeli actions and abuses: in early 2001, for example, "when the Israeli government announced an expansion of Jewish settlements on the Israeli-occupied West Bank, condemnation by France the US, Israel's closest ally, came within hours. The Foreign Office finally put is hand up 24 hours after the rest of the world, signalling pathetically that it too wanted to join in the criticism." (Guardian, 14 July 2001) When faced with accusations of bias towards Israel, Blair responded: "My job is not to shout the odds, but to bring the two sides together." So much for the principles of international law.
Europe's Moment?
"There is just a chance," argued the Financial Times in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "that the terrible bloodshed in America could prove a catalyst for change." As events unfold in the wake of the terror attacks in the United States, initiatives aimed at building the "international coalition against terrorism" have highlighted the internal dynamics and political pressures which might force European governments and the European Union into taking a more explicit political stand on foreign policy issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Increased European concern over the root-causes of terrorism is expressed in recent statements by government representatives, including British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in Tehran and Jerusalem: "One of the factors that helps breed terrorism is the anger which many people in this region feel at events over the years in Palestine."
"There is an obvious need to understand the environment in which terrorism breeds. That is why the whole of the international community is so concerned to see a lasting peace in the Middle East." Straw's historic visit to Iran, as part of an effort to gain widespread support for the US- and British-lead international coalition against terrorism, might become indicative for a new model of international alliances, which diminishes the role of Israel as Europe's major strategic partner in the region.
While it is yet too early to determine whether this process of
re-thinking of European Middle East policy will result in a more
critical approach towards Israel and a clearer stand on Palestinian
rights, including refugees' right of return, much will depend on
the role taken by European civil society and the Palestinian
solidarity movement in defining a new and principled European
approach. The failure in Europe of Israel's efforts to exploit the
terror attacks in the United States for a massive campaign of
delegitimization of the Palestinian freedom struggle and the
re-invasion of Palestinian- controlled areas in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip gives reason for hope.
Footnote:
(1) In his paper presented to the conference
"The Right of Return" organized by TARI, Boston, April 2000,
reprinted in: Palestinian Refugees, The Right of Return; Naseer
Arouri, editor; Pluto Press, 2001).