If an extraterrestrial had observed the Middle East from his
distant planet over the last two to three years, he would probably
have come to the conclusion that the most influential external
power in the Middle East is the European Union. The number of heads
of governments, foreign ministers, special emissaries and technical
assistants from the European Union who have roamed the Middle East,
and Israel and the Palestinian territories, in particular, has been
overwhelming and extremely impressive. So also was the flow of
European material assistance to the Palestinian territories. But
not only visits, diplomatic contacts and technical assistance
characterize the EU's activities in the Middle East. A very active
elaboration of peace plans that carry names of European capitals,
politicians and diplomats, have floated over the Middle East. From
the nomination of the special EU envoy to the Middle East peace
process, Ambassador Miguel Moratinos, all the way through to the
constitution of the Quartet and the essentially European initiation
and elaboration of the Road Map, European activity seems to be
incessant.
But does all this feverish activity yield some results? Does it at
least serve as a source of hope? One doesn't have to be a blind
admirer of the Israeli government to come to the conclusion that
the European Union, like any other country in this world except the
United States, does not carry any weight in the Middle East. The
European activity can be described by the French saying un coup
d'epee dans l'eau (a sword strike in the water).
As long as the European Union does not formulate a common foreign
and defense policy it will remain a giant on the doorsteps of the
Middle East. It will be considered, at best, with politeness,
nothing more.
Does this mean the European Union is condemned forever to a lack of
influence in the Middle East?
For now, the influence of the European Union can be exercised - if
at all - only via its presumed pressure on the United States.
Siding with the United States in its Mideast peace efforts, if one
believes such efforts exist, is today the only contribution the
European Union can make. This is certainly the way Israelis and
Americans view the EU role, even if they do not express this
opinion openly and officially.
This vision is, however, very shortsighted.
Local Populations: The Driving Force for Peace in the Middle
East
For the very immediate future the Americans are the only ones who
hold a position of influence in the Middle East. It remains,
however, unclear for what purpose they hold this position of power.
What should be clear is that whether they really want to make use
of their influence in order to pressure the belligerents toward a
peace process or not, a peace process will eventually take place.
The driving force behind every peace process in the Middle East has
always been the local population, not the outside world, not even
the local governments, but the inhabitants of the region, who in
their exasperation pushed their own governments toward negotiations
and concessions. Today, we are once again witnessing the first
signs of such exasperation. This is a result of the experiences of
the last four years. In the near future we will certainly witness
the growth of public opinion on both sides forcing the authorities
to undertake a peace process.
Key Role of the EU After the Treaty is Signed
Throughout history, in war or even only in a state of war, peace
seemed and still seems to most people to be out of reach. Yet no
war lasts forever. And ours has already surpassed almost all norms
and conventions. The question is not if we will have a peace
agreement. We will have one. The question is what will happen once
we have signed a peace agreement. Peace treaties have been signed
throughout history. In most cases they have not prevented a renewed
outbreak of wars after a certain period of provisional calm. How
does one transform a peace treaty into a reality of stable and
permanent peace? This will soon be the major question and challenge
for the Middle East. The key to solving this riddle will lie in the
hands of the European Union.
It is human nature to accept as a given a reality in which one has
settled down, instead of thinking about possible future changes. In
the Middle East, people are familiar with the permanent reality of
the state of war. It is hard for them to imagine another future,
particularly after the many hopes that have already been dashed.
Indeed, people generally have difficulties imagining the future.
Thinking about it causes anguish, a certain fear of the unknown.
Instead, people are much more comfortable with the past and the
present, which are familiar to them and to which they can
accommodate themselves. This principle of human nature fits
particularly well into the Middle East, hence the gloomy
perspective people have about the chances of a peace process. It
also suits their outlook about the European Union. If Israelis
think about Europe today, they think of a continent that belongs to
the past or they envision it in connection with its supposed
hostile attitude concerning today's Middle East conflict. Very few
Israelis will attempt to elaborate on the question of the future
meaning of the relations between Europe and the Middle East.
Integration into a Greater Middle East?
Yet the Middle East, and Israel in particular, is and will be
connected with Europe. After all, the State of Israel is situated
at the geographic threshold of the European Union, which cannot be
ignored. Just recently the EU's extension reached Cyprus and now
only 250 kilometers separate Israel's coastline from the European
Union. We certainly are of interest to our new giant neighbor. For
the European Union, the unstable situation in the Middle East, just
as in the Mediterranean and the Arab world in general, constitutes
an ongoing problem. The political earthquakes of the Middle East
shake Europe, and not only due to the waves of illegal immigrants
caused by our turbulences.
For Israel, on the other hand, the European Union is by far its
greatest trading partner worldwide. And much more important: The
question of what direction the Jewish state will aspire to after
the termination of the state of war is crucial. Will it be possible
for the country to fully integrate into its immediate Arab
surrounding once it has achieved a lasting peace with all its
neighbors? This appears impossible. The Jewish state will, of
course, cooperate with its neighbors as deeply and diversely as its
neighbors allow. Yet it will never be able to become an integral
part of the Middle Eastern family. Unlike Europe, with its variety
of cultures, religions, languages and histories, the Middle East
consists of an almost monolithic bloc. All Middle Eastern states
have one common language, one common history, the same culture and
to a great extent one common religion. Israel is not part of all
this, and it also does not wish to renounce its own culture,
language, tradition and history, its own identity. Had this not
been a basic factor for the Jews, there would not have been any
reason to establish a Jewish state in the first place.
No State Stands Alone
But if Israel is not able to be an integral part of the Middle
East, what does this mean for its future? Is it destined to stand
alone, not to belong to any community and to act totally
independently? Such an idea would seem to belong to the Old World,
to the world of nation states, and it loses its validity in the
modern world. True, the tiniest country in the world today may
preserve its political independence, at least in theory. But such
political independence is clearly not sufficient any more. Israel
draws its vitality, energy and perspectives for the future from
modern science, technology and a global economy. Thus, it cannot
confidently hope to keep its place in the top ranks of the most
progressive states if it remains a tiny, isolated entity. Even the
big European countries that are 10 or 15 times bigger than Israel
have understood that in the modern world they have no competitive
capabilities if they stand alone opposite current giants, like the
U.S. and Japan, and future economic giants like China, India and
Russia. The European Union rests and develops on this basic
understanding. If this applies to countries like Germany, France,
Italy and England, than it undoubtedly applies to Israel.
Not Only With America
After peace is achieved, Israel's first interest will be to become
attached to one of the great powers. Obviously this will not be the
United States. Indeed, Washington supports Israel almost
unconditionally, and it can be assumed that it will continue to do
so for many years to come. Washington will, however, not be ready
to integrate Israel into the American economic system. The U.S.
thinks about a big economic system that will embrace Canada and
Latin America. Moreover, it considers economic ties with South-East
Asia and the European Union to be of paramount importance. In this
context, the Middle East is a priority only as long as it is being
shaken by crises and conflicts, and only where oil must be secured.
An economic integration of Israel is out of the question, and will
remain even more so in the future.
Looking Toward Europe
Israel's interests are clear even if its population is not yet
ready to analyze and appreciate them. Although Israel cannot become
a member of the European Union, this is where it must firmly be
anchored. Only then will it be able to preserve its position as a
scientifically, technologically and economically advanced nation,
thus guaranteeing its future. But is there also an EU interest in
developing such close ties with Israel? After all, it is no secret
in Europe that Israel is suspicious of the EU and insists on
keeping its distance. Why should Europe show any interest in Israel
and the Middle East if it is being swept aside, and if the peace
process is being led exclusively by the Americans?
Europe's weakness is a transitory situation; in the final analysis
it will have to assume a common foreign and defense policy, even if
only for the sake of protecting its economic union and common
currency. But, as we have seen, until this happens the EU cannot
play a major part in the forging of a peace process. In the
meantime, a certain reality has imposed itself on the region, an
American one. We all know that too many cooks spoil the broth, and
the longstanding cook in the Middle East is the United States. This
is also understood by the Europeans. Yet their negligible influence
in the Middle East will not last forever. Its weakness will be
transformed into strength upon the achievement of a peace treaty in
the Middle East. The real work will start after the treaty takes
effect: The task of securing a vital, lasting everyday peace will
then belong to the Europeans. It will also be in their
interest.
REDWG - The Regional Economic Development Working
Group
During the Oslo negotiations 1992/93, Israelis as well as
Palestinians were (in their optimisic period) farsighted enough to
think about the future that would follow the signing of the
permanent peace treaty between the Palestinian state-to-be and
Israel. They convinced the world community to try to elaborate a
working plan for the region that would be implemented the day after
the conclusion of peace. An international body known as REDWG
(Regional Economic Development Working Group) was set up. Its
mission was to draw up future regional development plans.
Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians,
Jordanians and sometimes even Syrians and Lebanese participated in
this working group. The underlying idea was based on a double
assumption: First, the Middle East cannot find its way to real
development, similar to the example of South-East Asia, if every
country in the region continues to rely only on its own efforts and
capacities. The countries of the Middle East are all too small, too
weak and too poor to be able to undertake such aims on their own.
Second, only a concerted action will transform the backward Middle
East into a modern, prosperous region.
Thus, for instance, projects like the development of water
resources were thoroughly examined. We all know the lack of water
is the Middle East's biggest problem, were it not for the question
of war and peace. Furthermore, in view of the galloping demographic
development of Middle Eastern nations, the lack of water will
become dangerously crucial within a very short time. There is only
one way to overcome this problem - to produce water. That means,
first and foremost, the desalination of sea water. Today, we all
know how to desalinate sea water, but the production of water in
every country separately is far too expensive and therefore not
economically feasible for agriculture and industry. Should we
produce water on a much larger scale, on a regional scale,
incorporating all the countries of the Middle East, the cost of
water production would sink considerably and become feasible.
The problem of modern transportation is another example where
development can be carried out only on a regional basis. The future
of transportation on a scale like that of the Middle East belongs
to modern rapid trains like the Shinkansen in Japan or the French
TGV, but these trains need long distances in order to develop their
speed and to be rendered profitable. No country can afford a train
of this kind on its own. On a regional basis, however, such a
project can well be envisaged.
Similarly, one would consider the development of tourism on a
regional basis. The Middle East offers what most tourists are
looking for: Sun, sea and history. But people don't like to travel
long distances for a limited number of objectives. Japanese groups
will not travel only to Israel or Jordan or even Egypt. They will
go to the Middle East if it is offered as a "package". In other
words, it will have to be done on a regional basis.
And, of course, one cannot solve ecological problems within
political boundaries. Pollution and mosquitoes do not respect
national frontiers. Only on a regional basis can we tackle basic
problems of modern life. The idea of REDWG was simple: First, to
develop the Middle East, second, to create common interests between
the former belligerents of the region and bind them together, thus
guaranteeing the stability of peace.
The European Economic Interest
There is, however, another element tied to the idea of common
regional development projects. Somebody from outside the Middle
East will have to invest, and more than just seed money, in these
projects. At the discussions within the REDWG group it has become
increasingly obvious that this role will belong mainly to the
European Union. The Europeans will be the ones who will have the
greatest and most immediate interest in preserving the newly
achieved delicate peace in their neighborhood. They will also be
the ones who will have the greatest interest in securing a
developing Middle East as a client for their economy. They will
have an interest in playing the role of the main economic partner
of an emerging peaceful Middle East. Investing in regional
development projects will not be a matter of so-called technical
assistance. It will be based solely on economic viability. That
means it will be of interest for private investors. These investors
will however, at least in the beginning, need political support and
guarantees. If the EU undertakes this mission it will guarantee
peace in the Middle East and at the same time invest on a long-term
basis for the benefit of its own economy. It will become the most
influential economic partner for the Middle East and, as everybody
knows, he who exercises the main economic influence also ends up
exercising the major political influence.
Looking Toward the Future
With the eruption of the second intifada, REDWG was put on ice. It
will certainly be revived with the institution of a new peace
process. This means that Israel, with its special relationship with
the European Union, should become the link between the neighbors
with whom it will sign the peace treaty, on the one hand, and the
European Union on the other. This way it will serve its own
interests, the interests of its neighbors, particularly those of
the Palestinians, as well as the interests of the European Union.