STAR- Columnist Semih Idiz writes on the Middle East problem and the policies of the US and the EU on the issue. A summary of his column is as follows:
My first impression after listening to President Bush’s address on the Middle East crisis was that it would help to solve the problem. President Bush had expressed a determined stance towards both sides and stated that he would send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region. At first glance, these actions seemed important to me. However, Foreign Ministry officials with whom I had the chance to speak said that they had come too late, too little. Another official said that the US administration had given Israel the chance to finish its occupation and added that Bush had been obliged to say something on the situation. Even with its inaction the US is right in the middle of the Middle East problem. It is turning a blind eye to the ongoing violence as it knows that Sharon, who has completed his occupation plan of the Palestinian territories, will have a better bargaining hand. This gives time to Sharon. Meanwhile, by consistently accusing Arafat, this tries to counter the increasing sympathy felt for the Palestinian leader on the part of the international community. By doing so, Bush demonstrates that the US is directly or indirectly involved in this problem and using its weight in line with US interests. On the other hand, when we take a look at Europe, we can see a paper tiger both as individual countries and as a whole. The EU’s influence in the Middle East is nonexistent. What is more, it has to accept Israel’s diplomatic insults directed at it. The most concrete example of this is that Israel did not allow a high-level EU delegation to meet with Arafat. It is highly noteworthy that the same Israel is permitting special US presidential envoy Anthony Zinni to meet with the besieged Palestinian leader. A few days ago, one of Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen’s chief advisors said that Copenhagen was unsure about establishing a European-based collective defense organization. He added that Denmark, like Turkey, was against the weakening of NATO, that is to say the Atlantic tie. The advisor also said that the views on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) should be clarified after reaching a better understanding of what it is. He added that presently there were varied views on the topic. To clarify the issue, the EU had first to develop a common foreign policy. At the moment there are differing calculations on the crises in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Middle East in all the various European countries. Today the EU may in fact be an economic power. However, it has not yet become as a political power. It has not evolved beyond than being a paper tiger in view of certain matters. There are two important examples of this. The first is that it was unable to define a terrorist organisation such as the PKK, which has an international network, for what it is, and secondly with a near-sighted approach has come to the point of apparently importing a complicated international problem such as ‘Cyprus’ into its fold.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION