Mitä EU voisi Lähi-idän kriisissä tehdä?

Perjantaina, 6. helmikuuta 2009     9 kommentti(a)
Tuulia Nieminen
tutkija

Kirjoitin tässä blogissa kolme viikkoa sitten siitä, kuinka epäyhtenäisen Euroopan unionin toimet eivät ole juurikaan edistäneet Gazan kriisin ratkaisua. EU:n toimet olisivat monen mielestä tervetulleita: viimeksi toissapäivänä palestiinalaisten presidentti Mahmud Abbas ehdotti, että EU lähettäisi rauhanturvaajia Gazaan. Tosiasiassa EU ei ole sanottavasti aktivoitunut kriisin verisimmän vaiheen jälkeenkään (ainakaan sen perusteella, mitä julkisuudessa tiedetään). Välillä on kuitenkin hauska leikkiä ”mitä jos” -ajatusleikkiä. Eurooppalaisen CEPS-tutkimuslaitoksen tutkijat nimittäin tuottivat kriisin kuumimpien päivien aikana mielenkiintoisen raportin siitä, millaisia peruslinjauksia unionin olisi syytä tehdä, mikäli se todella haluaisi aikaansaada pysyvän parannuksen alueella.

Kolmesivuiseen pakettiin on mahdutettu paljon tietoa alueen tilanteesta. Raportin ydin on kuitenkin tutkijoiden neljässä pääteesissä:

Ensinnäkin, niin kauan kuin Hamasia ei oteta mukaan konfliktin kansainvälisiin ratkaisuyrityksiin, tilanne hyödyttää kovan linjan kannattajia Hamasin sisällä. On harhaluulo kuvitella, että Hamasin sisällä kaikki olisivat täysin yksimielisiä, muistuttavat raportin kirjoittajat.

Toiseksi, tukiessaan nykyistä palestiinalaishallintoa eli epädemokraattisesti valtaan tullutta Fatahia unioni on vaarassa antaa vaikutelman siitä, että sen tavoitteena ei todellisuudessa olekaan tukea uudistuksia, vaan tukea liittolaistaan. EU:n linjaukselle on käytännöllinen syy: vuoden 2006 parlamenttivaalit voittanut Hamas on luokiteltu terroristijärjestöksi, joten EU ei voi sääntöjensä puitteissa jakaa apua sen kautta tai käydä neuvotteluja sen kanssa. Palestiinalaishallintoa johtavan, rauhanneuvottelujen osapuolena toimivan Fatahin kanssa se voi. Sinänsä aivan loogista. Tutkijat kuitenkin pelkäävät, miltä pitemmän päälle näyttää, jos EU tekee yhteistyötä vain sellaisen osapuolen kanssa, joka on EU:n omasta näkökulmasta hyödyllinen ja samanmielinen, vaikka virallisena tavoitteena on tukea demokraattista uudistusprosessia.

Kolmanneksi, EU pyrkii tällä hetkellä vaikuttamaan Lähi-idän tilanteeseen muun muassa naapuruuspolitiikan ja Välimeren unionin kaltaisin keinoin. Ne ovat luonteeltaan epäpoliittisia, minkä on ajateltu helpottavan politiikkojen hyväksyttävyyttä alueella. Käytännössä epäpoliittisuus on kuitenkin johtanut suurelta osin vaikutusvajeeseen, tutkijat toteavat.

Neljänneksi, lukuun ottamatta EU:n ja Israelin tammikuussa tekemää ratkaisua jäädyttää keskinäisten suhteidensa tiivistäminen, unionin politiikkaan ei ole aiemmin juuri vaikuttanut se, miten Israel on kulloinkin palestiinalaisia kohtaan toiminut. Sotarikoksista ja ihmisoikeusloukkauksista ei ole seurannut sanktioita, eikä rakentavasta toiminnasta positiivisia eleitä. Kyllä, tällainen toiminta olisi luonteeltaan poliittisempaa – ja siten todennäköisesti myös paljon tehokkaampaa. Itse lisäisin tähän sen, että kannustimien ja sanktioiden tulee koskea myös kaikkia palestiinalaisosapuolia, mukaan lukien Hamasia, jos se joskus maltillistuu ja pääsee eroon terroristiluokittelun tuottamasta limbotilasta.

Mikä näissä CEPS-tutkimuslaitoksen neuvoissa on niin erityistä, että ne ansaitsevat tulla esitellyiksi myös UPI:n sivuilla? Neuvot kannattaa huomioida siitä syystä, että ne eivät demonisoi ketään konfliktin osapuolista, mutteivät myöskään anna kenellekään synninpäästöä. Tilannetta ei pyritä raportissa ratkaisemaan pyyhkimällä yksi osapuolista pois ratkaisumallista, vaan kirjoittajat hyväksyvät, että konfliktin ratkaisun osapuolet ovat ne, jotka alueella todellisuudessakin vaikuttavat – hyvässä ja pahassa. Raportissa neuvotaankin EU:ta vaikuttamaan siihen, miten nämä osapuolet toimivat. Varsinaisiin rauhanneuvotteluihin raportti ei anna ohjeita, luultavasti siksi, että tutkijat osoittaisivat ne ohjeet ennemminkin USA:lle kuin EU:lle. Neuvojen lähtökohtana on usko siihen, että kaikki osapuolet pystyvät muuttumaan ja saattavat jopa muuttuakin, mikäli niillä on riittävästi syitä tehdä niin. Raportti kehottaa EU:ta tarjoamaan konfliktin osapuolille sekä porkkanaa että keppiä, mutta niin, että pääpaino on edellisellä. Raportti vaikuttaakin hätkähdyttävän normaalilta konfliktinratkaisulta. Sellainen onkin perinteisesti ollut turhan usein kadoksissa Israel-Palestiina-konfliktissa.

Koko raportti on luettavissa CEPSin sivuilta.

Kirjoitukset edustavat kirjoittajien henkilökohtaisia näkemyksiä

Keskustelu (9 kommenttia)

6.2.2009, Kenneth Sikorski
 

Excluding for a moment the phenomenon of humanitarian racism, how does a political researcher justify the inconsistencies in the notion that (a) the inclusion of an anti-Semitic and truly genocidal organization (Hamas) -that states in its charter the intention to destroy the state of Israel and murder Jews- ... is a positive development, while (b) in the heart of Europe, Belgium consistently sidelines a legitimate European party (Vlaams Belang) with a sensible charter, that is openly philo-Semitic and one of Israel's strongest supporters from political participation in it's own government?

What this tells me, is that political researchers, who feed reports to EU politicians could care less what a political charter actually says and stands for, when it runs counter to their own ideological perspectives. What I see is a frightening display of a cognitive dissonance that seems to be common place within that community of scientists.

What would it take for you as a researcher to conclude that a religious supremacist organization like the Hamas, is not reformable? Are you as open to the possibility of Hamas' "pragmatism evolving, and if so, what are the signs that give you hope for such a thing? Are you familiar with the Islamic concept of kitman and al-taqiyya which can be understood as religious sanctioned obfuscation and lying?

As for the "divisions" within Hamas, they rest in how best to obtain the over-all objective, the destruction of Israel with an Islamic state rising in its ashes, these researchers are splitting hairs, as much as the researchers that see distinct differences between Salafist and Wahhabist Islam. I'm more than certain that the KKK had "distinct differences" in within the ranks on how best to achieve and maintain a truly segregated USA, but their ideology was rightfully considered to be a danger to the political environment. Why would Euorpean researchers be willing to give the Hamas and like ilk a free pass, while it would refrain from doing so domestically,...if not for political expedience?

Best regaards,
Kenneth

11.2.2009, Tuulia Nieminen
 

With regard to the topic of my original posting: sidelining an affected party and/or its concerns altogether is seldom a formula for a permanent solution to a conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the party’s demands would (necessarily) be fulfilled.

As it currently is, I do not think that it would be possible to sideline Hamas altogether. This does not mean that I would give Hamas “a free pass”: my posting above advocates more active use of carrots and sticks, which I think would be more effective than the current approach (which clearly is not effective).

Best Regards,
Tuulia

11.2.2009, Tuulia Nieminen
 

With regard to the topic of my original posting: sidelining an affected party and/or its concerns altogether is seldom a formula for a permanent solution to a conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the party’s demands would (necessarily) be fulfilled.

As it currently is, I do not think that it would be possible to sideline Hamas altogether. This does not mean that I would give Hamas “a free pass”: my posting above advocates more active use of carrots and sticks, which I think would be more effective than the current approach (which clearly is not effective).

11.2.2009, Kenneth Sikorski
 

I understand your line of reasoning, but disagree nonetheless because it fails to consider the obvious.

Hamas is a one issue party that derives its legitimacy as a movement from its sole purpose to exist, which is the destruction of the Jewish state an Islamic state rising upon on its ashes.

The dilemma in your logic is this: In order for Hamas to be taken seriously as a movement that desires true peace with Israel, it would mean not only for it to recognize Israel, but also for it to cease existing as Hamas. It won't happen.

So my question to you is, "Why would you think that a "far worse version" of the KKK, due to the Hamas' genocidal agenda, should be brought into negotiations as a legitmate party, when ineed, it is not a legitimate party, any more than the KKK movement in the USA?

What do you discuss with them about? A time table attached to some very vague promise of refraining from violence for a certain period? They are a fanatical religious supremacist movement that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere in the EU or the US, and yet Europeans are ready to do business with them?

Pure folly.

18.2.2009, Tuulia Nieminen
 

The current approach has lead to a worsening of the situation; hence, I think that a different kind of approach is needed. It is impossible to predict the future, but the range of possible ways in which Hamas could develop is simply different in your and my prediction. Ultimately, only future will show which turns out to be the better prediction. However, guessing the right answer is not the issue here. What I am trying to say is that it is not a good idea to give the impression that a party to a conflict will never be approved to take part in the solution. That will weaken drastically the position of moderates inside the party whilst strengthening those who are strongly behind those exact policies which we hope would be given up. In other words, our own policy helps to lead the situation from bad to worse.

Giving up wrong ideals is never an easy and fast process and most of us require support to do so even with far less significant things. As you wrote, not accepting Israel is so central to Hamas that its members very likely fear that giving up that principle would make Hamas extinct. As any psychologist will tell you, nobody sees extinction as a desirable future scenario. We all need to have a vision of a different kind of future, which involves at least some "carrots", before we can even start considering any change. Providing Hamas a different scenario, (implicit and conditional, of course) does not automatically provoke a change inside the party, but this is better than continuing with the current no-hope scenario.

19.2.2009, Kenneth Sikorski
 

Hi Tuulia,

With all due respect, I'm stunned at your logic. The present day situation is soley due to Hamas' intense intransigence and lethal agenda vis-a-vis the Jewish state, nothing less, nothing more.

While Hamas fears political extinction, that fear cannot be compared in any way to the fear of "physical extinction", especially when the Hamas gloats on a daily basis that they love death more than the Israelis love life. The Hamas cannot diverge from the path they believe their diety has sworn them to. Period.

What I see however, is the unwillingness of a political analyst to contimplate the undesirable, that indeed, the only way to move forward, is for a complete and thorough boycott and deconstruction of Hamas, which contrary to public belief, has not been the case.

One has to recognize that any "carrot" offered to this group, will be taken as sign that they are indeed on the right course. Being patient as they are, they believe that they will have the upper hand in the end.

Tuulia, please point to a similar group, that through international pressure only (carrots and sticks), moderated its religious beliefs -that included the religious right to murder its enemies and confiscate its land- and made a durable peace.

What is crucial, is for the West to stop playing with peoples' lives, Jews and Arabs, and face facts, that the only solution to the conflict with Gaza's Muslim Brotherhood, is for its dissolving into a non-entitey.

Think tank analysts are helping to write the play book for future scenarios, and it's not wise to conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood is only interested in what happens in Gaza, they're also interested in seeing how the West behaves vis-a-vis Hamas, and dependin how tough we stand against them might forestall any future designs by the MB on Europe itself.

6.6.2010, JJR
 

I do not understand where you have got the idea that Hamas is going to destroy Israel and kill Jews. Why mention old charter when its real policy has long time being something else? It is not anti-Semitic organisation, and it is willing to recognise Israel, if Israel ends its oppression, occupation in West Bank and siege of Gaza.

Hamas is legal political party which believes in democracy and supports peaceful solution. This is something which Westerners do not seem to realise. Hamas won elections which were democratic according to West. So Hamas represents reaction against illegal occupation and Israeli racist politics.

Hamas has many times offered a peaceful resolution, but Israel and West do not care beacause Hamas is "the bad guy" no matter what it really says or does. Hamas will recognise Israel, if Israel ends occupation and siege. So Hamas is not the problem. It is just Islamophobic hysteria that Hamas is the source of all evil. Some Zionists blame supporters of Hamas as being anti-Semitic, but while supporters of Israel base their claims just Islamophobic delusions, their blames about anti-Semitism are very hard to take seriously.

Hamas is not anti-Semitic and it is not far-islamistic. There is lot of Christians also who are members of Hamas, and Hamas also supports womens right to participate politics and education. Hamas is democracit group and accusing it being "terrorist organisation" has no convincing basis.

Please, read this article about Hamas:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6388

8.6.2010, sid
 

JJR,

old Hamas charter should be mentioned because Hamas won't change it to give peaceful and clear message of their purposes to other countries/participants. Also their leaders and members keep quoting or have references to it in interviews every now and then.

You said that Hamas has many times offered a peaceful resolution. Every offer included demands that are impossible to archive. I have never heard or seen Hamas' offer for true peace, only temporary truces. Last offer, that actually had word "peace" in it, included demand that 6 million Palestinian should be transferred into Israel's cities that are not under PA's control from other Arab countries before going to the next stage of peace negotiations.

12.6.2010, JJR
 

When Hamas supports emigrant's right to return back to their historical homeland, that is NOT unreasonable demand.

Osallistu keskusteluun

Henkilötiedot
Nimi  
Sähköpostiosoite  
Web-sivusto  
Kommentti
  Lähetä