Amman Views Bush Administration With Hope and Skepticism

By Najwa Naijar

Although there is little disagreement among analysts and diplomats in Amman that the Reagan administration's opening of formal contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization after a 13-year hiatus was a step in the right direction, the question that lingers is whether the Bush administration will undertake the substantial changes necessary to make 1989 the year of peace in the Middle East.

While some analysts believe that Washington is serious in its declared drive for Middle East peace, others argue that the US dialogue with the PLO is aimed at easing international pressure and isolation, and at quelling the year-long intifadah, the catalyst in the entire process.

In any case, most observers here believe Soviet moves, European pressure, Arab unity and support for the intifadah, and Jordanian-Palestinian relations all will force the US to pressure Israel to drop its objections to an international peace conference.

The optimists see an international conference being held within the next six months. Meanwhile, as contacts among concerned parties continue, some predict that a preparatory committee may attempt to iron out some differences in advance of such an international conference.

Analysts here say it is highly improbable that Bush will be coaxed by Zionist pressure into swimming against the international tide by reneging on the US-PLO dialogue. They do, however, believe Bush must choose between working with the international community to encourage Israel to enter an international peace conference or defending the status quo.

Most analysts believe that the Bush administration will choose to work for peace, since the PLO has met US demands. Furthermore, Bush's familiarity with the region and the conflict, warmer relations between the US and the Soviet Union and the change in attitudes in the US and Israel are seen as positive indicators of serious efforts for peace.

The Soviet Ambassador in Jordan, Alexander Zinchuk, believes that chances of the US applying pressure on Israel have improved considerably.

"The inflexible Israeli stand can be changed through American pressure," Zinchuk said. Meanwhile through on-going Soviet-Israeli contacts, "we are talking to the Israelis to convince them that the situation cannot continue, nor is it in the Israelis' interest for it to continue."

Another diplomat who follows American policies closely contends that the US will pressure Israel to soften its stand both to protect US interests in the region and to protect "Israel against its own will."

"It is in the American best interest to advise Israeli policy makers to realize that the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people," this diplomat said. "For Israel to live in peace with its neighbors it has to negotiate a peace agreement with the PLO and the Arabs."

Amman Editor and Publisher Rarni Khoury believes the US decision to talk to the PLO was historically inevitable. "The US has already made the most important pressure move by recognizing the PLO," he said.

Assad Abdul Rahman, a member of the Palestine National Council (PNC) and General Director of the Abdul Hamid Shoman Foundation is optimistic about George Bush the man, and about Bush's past as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, since it will steer his policies away from ideology. "Bush has learned to be practical and pragmatic. He is a bureaucrat, which is especially important in this new age of pragmatism," Shoman said.

Jordan Times political editor P.V. Vivikanand points out that, as Vice President, Bush has been closely identified with the Reagan administration's loss of credibility in the region since 1982. "This is a chance for the US to redeem itself," said Vivikanand. "it is in a better position now to settle the problem, especially since Bush was right there all along and can no longer argue for time to 'study' the situation.

"Washington can no longer effectively use its old arguments based on 'fears of Soviet domination' of the region and of an independent Palestinian state becoming a Soviet satellite," Vivikanand says. "It is now clear to the world that the Soviet leadership is no longer inclined to get embroiled in costly regional rivalry."

The US administration is also seen as possibly more willing to apply pressure on Israel because of the shift in American public opinion and the polarization within Israel and among world Jews. Increasing Jewish sympathy for the Palestinians, Abdul Rahman maintains, is demonstrated by an opinion poll published on Dec. 23 which showed that 54 per cent of the Israeli public wanted their government to talk to the PLO if it lived up to its commitment to halt "terrorism."

A former Jordanian Minister and leader of the Democratic Unionist Gathering, Jamal al-Shaer, says the intifadah's success, PLO unity, and emerging unity of nearly all Arab countries have changed attitudes even within the Jewish community in the US, which exerts such obvious influence on policymakers in the US Congress, the White House and the State Department.

Other Jordanian analysts, however, are not optimistic that Bush will be dealing with the Middle East issue immediately, or will pressure Israel to enter the peace process on internationally-agreed terms. They say that US-Israeli ties and Israeli intransigence will result in a US policy aimed at promoting the status quo, easing international pressure and isolation, and ending the intifadah.

Political Science Professor Kamel Abu Jaber of the University Of Jordan does not see the Bush administration dealing with "such a thorny issue" in any hurry. The Bush administration is more likely to choose an issue with immediate prospects of success, "especially since Bush is very familiar with the negativism of both Labor and Likud."

The US administration is also seen as possibly more willing to apply pressure on Israel because of the shift in American public opinion and the polarization within Israel and among world Jews.

Abu Jaber maintained that the American decision to talk with the PLO "needs time to ferment in the minds of most Americans, who until recently have been filled with anti-PLO slogans."

Another pessimist is a former political columnist for Al Rai newspaper, Tareq Masarweh. In the 1970s "conditions were more favorable for peace, and yet nothing materialized," Masarweh says. "During those years the US did not have a strategic alliance: It did not give such enormous quantities of weapons to Israel. Actually ex-President Carter tied an Israeli weapons deal to an arms package for Saudi Arabia. Carter also spoke of the rights of the Palestinian people and said that they were to enter the peace process under the name Palestine.

"Since Carter's time, each consecutive American administration has become progressively more pro-Israel. The Bush administration may lessen its support for Israel but there will be no essential change."

Supporting Masarweb, PNC member and head of the Jerusalem Centre for Development Studies, Abdul Jawad Saleh, maintains that the US, not the PLO, has been reluctant to move toward peace. "The PLO's position has been clear since 1974 and the PNC resolutions of 1974 indicate to anyone who wants to proceed with peace efforts that the PLO wants peace."

Other indicators of a lack of US seriousness, he says, are Washington's demand for further concessions from the PLO in an attempt to end the intifadah, its push for confederation ties prior to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, and its attempt to sidestep an effective international conference by calling for direct Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Ex-minister AI-Shaer says any action taken independently by the PLO and any distancing from Jordan will negatively influence some in the US and in a few European countries that are sensitive to Jordanian-Palestinian relations.

Professor Abu Jaber notes that American officials indicated that "they can go either way depending on the negotiations between the Jordanians and Palestinians." He said that there must be coordination between the PLO and Jordan "if any steps are to be taken in the right direction."

Abdullah Ramdan, Amman correspondent for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Watan, expects the PLO to enter a joint delegation with Jordan or to be part of an Arab delegation in peace talks with Israel. "The international community is pushing for this line," he said, "although the PLO would prefer to enter the international conference as a separate delegation."

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) member Ibrahim Kopa sees more American concessions in the coming six months. "We shall see the US heading toward an international conference and toward the PLO being a separate delegation," Koba said, adding that the step by step process will "slowly uncover and clarify the American stand."

PNC Member Saleh says, however, that if the US is truly seeking peace in the region and not aiming only to put an end to the intifadah, then it must take more courageous steps.

"Instead of signing another agreement to send more money and weapons to Israel, the US should just delay aid to Israel for three months ... This will bring different songs from Tel Aviv and will show how serious the US really is in finding a solution," Saleh said. He added that recognition of the Palestinian state will be the most important indicator of US seriousness. "if the US continues to call for autonomy plans," he said, "then nothing concrete will be formulated."

Najwa Naijar is a staff reporter for the Jordan Times and Amman correspondent for Middle Eastern and European periodicals.