by Christian Henderson in Beirut
Tuesday 05 September 2006 2:13 AM GMT
Image URL:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/0391D81E-C704-4E7B-9058-4D561F30DDF6/137891/B96A5E7E31254ADF9FC557B2E3F58A12.jpg
On August 28, Reverend Jesse Jackson, the US civil rights leader, met
Lebanese government and Hezbollah officials as part of his bid to secure
the release of three Israeli soldiers seized before the July 12 eruption
of hostilities along the Lebanon-Israel border.
Jackson, who is meeting political and religious leaders in the Middle
East as the head of a 10-member ecumenical delegation, also held talks
with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, and Hamas leader Khaled
al-Meshaal in Damascus.
Jackson is a veteran at mediating between warring parties. During a 1990
visit to Baghdad when Saddam Hussein was president, he managed to secure
the release of 700 foreign women and children after the Iraqi invasion
of Kuwait.
He has also made successful mediation efforts during the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia and in Cuba, where he convinced Fidel Castro to
release 48 political prisoners.
Aljazeera.net: What was the purpose of your trip?
Jesse Jackson: There are four areas of focus. Firstly is to expand the
ceasefire, because there are some who want round two [of the war]. We
want the ceasefire to hold.
Secondly to get the UN troops in and to support the [UN Security Council
resolution] 1701, and there is the issue of the [Israeli] sea and air
blockade. Fourthly, the issue of those who are held captive.
They are four dimensions of those captives. There are the three Israeli
soldiers but there are also some Syrians which is of interest to Syrian
President Assad, there are some Lebanese that Hezbollah has interest in,
and there are some Palestinians that Hamas is interested in. So it's a
four-legged stool.
Who have you been meeting on your tour? How much progress have you made
in talks?
I met President Assad last Sunday for two hours and then we met in
private for two hours more on Sunday night. I was appealing to Syria to
play a role in these four concerns. President Assad expressed his
commitment to support our mission.
That night we met with the head of Hamas [Khaled Meshaal] in Syria. It
was a very significant meeting it lasted much of the night. He said the
Israeli prisoner in Gaza [Gilad Shalit] was alive and he is concerned
with a swap of a thousand people at least and about the Palestinian
elected officials who have been arrested [by Israeli forces].
We met with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Lebanese Prime Minister
Saniora; we met with [Minister of Energy Mohammed] Fneish, the member of
the cabinet, to get their interest, their concerns.
We met with the Israelis we met with [former Israeli prime minister]
Shimon Peres, we met with the families of the prisoners, we met with the
religious leaders.
Are you optimistic that you can negotiate a prisoner swap?
I don't know, I am hopeful. I do know that the longer they are held here
the more they become a magnet for round two, not just a bargaining chip.
I do know that the two prisoners have been a tremendous burden for
Lebanon, which bears the burden of them being here. Lebanon will be the
victim if tensions re-escalate. It stands to reason for me that
Hezbollah with minimum action can get maximum results.
What I heard from Fneish and Meshaal is their support they have for
this. What's clear on the Israeli side is that they want verification of
some physical status, some life signs that the soldiers are alive.
We asked the Hezbollah leader for a sign of life through the Red Cross
or maybe by video. They tend to want the whole of this status issue as a
negotiating tool.
The reason I appeal to them to show a sign of life is because it will
jumpstart discussions.
I am convinced that the longer they are held, they cease to be a
bargaining chip and become a pretext for expanding the second round of
violence, because there are those who feel that Israel stopped too
quickly [its Lebanon offensive]; that the error was not in the
assumption of the war but in the tactics.
I think that negotiating releasing the captives would defuse that second
round and reduce tensions.
Do you think US foreign policy has played a sufficient role in stopping
this conflict? Do you think the Bush administration should increase its
diplomatic efforts?
One of the great tragedies is that American foreign policy is being
exposed as weak, because by not talking it has eliminated its capacity
to help determine the outcome.
There is no talk with Iran, no talk with Syria or Hezbollah or Hamas.
These states who are getting involved are trying to gain the advantage
of an alliance with Iran for example.
Syria is too big a force to be isolated, Syria shares borders with Iraq,
Syria has Iraqi refugees, Palestinian refugees, Lebanese refugees, and
it's too strategic to be isolated.
The US is locked into dead-end diplomacy. It is pre-conditions for talks
that will not allow talks. You should talk unconditionally. But if you
don't talk you cannot enforce the outcome, so the US has opted for the
sideline.
On the basis of the meetings that you have had with leaders how
optimistic are you for prospects of peace in the region?
I think most of people have been devastated. People lost lives and money
and credibility and strength. Round two could be even worse and could
move closer to Syria and Iran which would mean World War Three, so the
stakes are so terribly high.
I think that if negotiations opened up if the two [prisoners] are
released and if there was enough global pressure. Israel would win;
Hezbollah would win so all of those are very crucial signs.
What about other US foreign policy issues? What are your views on the
US-led occupation of Iraq?
The presence of US soldiers is a magnet for the continuation of the war.
America's presence becomes a cause celebre. After all, America is there
as an occupying force so we could have the whole region in flames over
our presence.
We are not seen as saving Iraq from Saddam Hussein we are seen invading
and occupying Iraq for our own agenda and this is being deeply and
violently resented though out the entire region.
We went there on the pretext of protecting America from imminent threat
.... weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida connection we didn't find
that. Then we shifted the mission from saving ourselves from threat to
saving Iraqis from Hussein and for democracy.
We shifted our mission and it's odd when you fight a war of this sort
for democracy in Iraq and then not recognise the political parties of
Hezbollah and Hamas. This is a real contradiction.
Are you concerned about the state of civil liberties in the US?
The war has been a pretext to reduce civil liberties and basic freedoms.
You have warlike powers, which mean you suspend freedoms. Then they plan
wars based upon an unsound assumption. We have lost money, like $250
million a day, lives, between 2000 and 3000 Americans and 50,000 plus
Iraqis, we have lost honour.
America came out of World War II as the most revered nation, as the
saviour of people from fascism and occupation. Then we became seen as
the aggressor, we bombed Grenada, bombed Panama there was pre-emptive
strike in Iraq and the Kyoto treaty.
Within the American public there is some tension. The greatness of
America is that you have the right to fight. We have the right to
protest, the right to vote and come [November's midterm] elections you
might see some real protest at the polls.
This election in Connecticut [which saw the ousting of pro-Iraq war
Democrat Joe Lieberman] - this represents a very fundamental change.
This is very important. We are revisiting how we view the world
community and how it views us.
Aljazeera
By Christian Henderson in Beirut
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0391D81E-C704-4E7B-9058-4D561F30DDF6.htm
.
|
