Stardate 20020130.1550

Solana told reporters after seeing Powell that the United States and the Europeans should keep using pressure to curb terrorism.

But, he said, the 15-nation European Union considers the Palestinian Authority the continuing "interlocutor, the only interlocutor, elected by the people, and we would like to maintain that."

Solana seems to have lost sight of his goal. He seems to think that there is a value in negotiation, irrespective of whether it actually accomplishes anything. If there is no Arafat, then there is no-one with whom to negotiate, no "interlocutor". Therefore cutting him off is a failure.

Our attitude is different: the goal of negotiation is to actually cause a substantive change in the situation. The problem with Arafat as an interlocutor is that there seems to be no point in talking to him. Why negotiate with someone who can't actually deliver any change?

Either he has the ability to stop the violence and won't do so, or he actually cannot. Either way, why bother talking to him at all? The evidence is that he actually has no control. In that case, why is talking to Arafat any more useful than taking to a randomly selected Palestinian taken off the street of Gaza City?

I think the answer is one of face saving. Not Arafat's, the EU's. If one stands by and does nothing at all, then when the roof caves in one has to feel guilty. (Or has to apologize to your voters.) But if one is making a good faith to try to resolve the situation, then when it goes bad anyway well, at least we tried, didn't we?

Which is partially why the EU is so entranced with diplomatic pressure, and targeted sanctions, and expressions of disapproval, and other empty gestures. They are cheap gestures, low risk (for the EU) and even if they don't work they get the EU off the hook. Pointless negotiations and useless sanctions give EU politicians plausible deniability when disaster happens.

Will "targeted sanctions" have any affect on Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Exceedingly unlikely. But sending in two battalions of the Royal Marines surely would affect things dramatically -- except that is dangerous and expensive and really risky and some of them would probably die. Better to try (and fail) to shove him out of the Commonwealth, and to threaten to freeze his bank accounts, and to refuse him travel visas to European destinations. (Like he gives a damn about any of that.)

Solana wants to use pressure to curb terrorism. We tried that for ten years and it didn't work. Isn't it time to give up on that and try something more forceful?

But he's missing a different point: cutting off contact with Arafat is "pressure", to try to get him to really work internally to stop the attacks.

More to the point, it is realistic. There isn't any point in talking to Arafat any more because Arafat is either a liar or is powerless. The sooner we cut off contact with him completely, the better. Perhaps that, finally, will get his attention.