Mideast conference - Mr Bush Takes A Major Initiative

Salman Haidar
The Statesman, 6 December

Finally, in its last year, the Bush Administration has undertaken a peace initiative in the Middle East. Until this point, it had remained conspicuously detached while the unsolved problems of the region simmered and occasionally erupted in strife and tension, adding further burdens to the already overburdened lives of the local people, especially the Palestinians. US quiescence meant that Israel remained virtually unchecked while it embarked upon a series of measures, including military strikes, against Arab targets, like assaults on persons believed to be Hamas activists in Gaza, with civilian bystanders often caught in the fire.

We were also obliged to witness the last months of Yasser Arafat besieged by Israeli armour in a crumbling redoubt in Ramallah. A massive wall came up to divide Israel from Palestine, encroaching openly on Palestinian lands. Even severe military action between Israel and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon did not procure early diplomatic intervention by the UN owing to US reluctance: many lives had to be lost and much damage done before that took place.

The quicksands

With these and other incidents, great and small, it seemed evident that the Bush Administration had no intention of plunging into the Middle East in any serious way. Earlier US Presidents had made their respective bids, most recently Mr Clinton, but Mr Bush was not inclined, it seemed, to enter the Middle East quicksands. Yet now, as the lights begin to dim and the campaign to elect the next incumbent takes centre stage, a major initiative has been taken by him to revive talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and to address other regional questions that remain troublingly unresolved. A two-day conference under US auspices brought the principals together at Annapolis. While deliberately short of the pomp and circumstance of a great international occasion, it was nevertheless a major diplomatic initiative by Mr Bush, who was himself noticeably in the foreground. The leaders of Israel and Palestine were there, as well as senior representatives of other Arab countries, especially significant among them being Syria and Saudi Arabia, who were persuaded to attend even though they have no relations with Israel. The conference was bulked out by adding representatives of several organisations and countries, including India. It was carefully prepared, the Secretary of State herself undertaking the task of bringing the protagonists together through an extended series of visits to the region, and by prolonged talks and persuasion. There is no mistaking the scale of the US effort. While this late initiative has received a considerable welcome, it is not clear why it was pursued at this juncture. The well-known problems of the Middle East may continue to bubble beneath the surface but the region is relatively calm at present. Nor can there be any expectation of a quick or simple outcome to Arab-Israeli issues, to provide a diplomatic bouquet to send off a departing Administration. It would not take much for either side, if it fears disappointment, merely to go through the motions and wait for a new President to arrive in Washington. So to take the steps it has now done is a considerable act of commitment on the part of the present Administration. Perhaps even at this late stage it feels the need to contribute as best it can to easing the chronically dangerous Middle East situation.

In view of the intense preparatory work, expectations had been building up as the conference convened. Some leading experts were of the view that this was a real opportunity for the elusive two-state solution to emerge, and with it permanent peace in the Middle East. Many issues divide the parties, among them the boundary question, the status of Jerusalem, including special arrangements for the Old City where the holy places of three religions are to be found, the refugee problem, which could be among the most difficult, and arrangements to assure Israel’s security. This is a big and complex agenda which is not to be solved in a single meeting. Hence the best that could be expected from the conference was that it would restart the negotiations and put them on a track that stretches out ahead, probably beyond the term of the current White House incumbent.

At the same time, everyone recognised that the difficulties were not to be underrated. Within the region itself, the Hamas group, which now controls Gaza, dissociated itself from the proceedings and said it did not recognise the credentials of Mr Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian spokesperson.

In Israel, Right-wing groups staged large-scale protests to underline their fear that undue concessions might be made by Prime Minister Olmert, who has no end of political troubles to face at home. Thus neither of the chief protagonists has a strong domestic base that could encourage bold action in the negotiations.

In the event, the conference delivered as much as could be expected. A process of talks between Palestine and Israel has been initiated. The hope has been expressed that the outlines of a full peace deal may be shaped by the end of 2008, by the time Mr Bush’s term comes to an end. All outstanding issues are on the table, for there are complex inter-linkages between the many outstanding issues.

The leaders of the two states chiefly concerned made guarded but basically affirmative remarks when the meeting ended. Mr Abbas drew particular attention to the need to talk about the status of Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and about the future of the refugees. Mr Olmert said Israel would make compromises for peace.

Central role

The venues, timings and other details of the impending talks have not been spelt out and it seems that the parties themselves will be in charge of such matters, in contrast to past meetings at Camp David, where the US President was actively involved. However, in recognition of the obvious reality that US good offices are indispensable, Mr Bush has moved swiftly to appoint a special envoy to the talks: no doubt his role will be central.

With a negotiating process now initiated between Israel and Palestine, the Annapolis conference achieved what seems to have been its principal objective. Bringing Syria and Saudi Arabia into it was a considerable achievement in itself. But there is no room for any complacency, and the conference hosts have been careful not to build false expectation. There is a long history of failure in Israel-Arab talks, so one must be cautious while assessing the prospects this time.

Moreover, even if the two principals should be willing to make progress, their cause may fall foul of the wider problems of the region: the situation in Lebanon, Iraq or Iran could flare up and derail the talks. Yet with all the caveats, something useful has been done, bringing with it a mild revival of expectation.

(The author is India’s former Foreign Secretary)