The multilateral track of the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) was
launched in January 1992, a few months following the start of
bilateral talks in Madrid. The purpose of the multilateral
negotiations were three¬fold: to complement and support the
bilateral process by engaging the inter¬national community in
addressing issues that extended beyond any two par¬ties; to
promote greater contact, trust and confidence-building among the
regional parties; and to accommodate views of the parties as to
both negoti¬ating frameworks (bilateral vs. multilateral) and
the issues to be discussed.
Of the five working tracks of the multilateral negotiations of the
MEPP, the Refugee Working Group (RWG) has been perhaps the most
difficult to manage; the other working groups (water, environment,
regional econom¬ic development, and arms control and regional
security) deal with techni¬cal issues on which progress is
less dependent on the bilateral negotiations. The refugee issue,
however, is at the core of the conflict and is the most
politically- and emotionally-laden question of the multilaterals.
Yet, with¬out a solution to this issue, true peace in the
region is unattainable.
The RWG is not the only or even the principal forum where refugee
issues are discussed. The Declaration of Principles (DOP) signed
between the PLO and Israel on September 13, 1993 reserves the 1948
refugee issue for final status negotiations which are scheduled to
begin in May 1996. The Quadripartite Committee, comprised of
Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian representatives, is
charged with deciding the modalities for the admission of persons
displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Nevertheless,
Article 8 of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty recognizes the RWG as
one forum outside of the bilateral arena where progress on the
refugee problem can be realized.
Canada was requested to assume the chairmanship or "gavel" of the
RWG in part due to its impartiality with respect to the
Arab-Israeli conflict and refugees. It was actively involved in
U.N. deliberations which led to Resolution 181 and the admission of
Israel into the U.N. Equally sensitive to the rights and needs of
Palestinians, it has been a major donor to the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA) since the beginning, and has explicitly upheld the
Palestinians' right to self-determination. Canada's peacekeeping
experi¬ence in every U.N. peacekeeping force in the Middle
East is another factor which enhances its credibility as gavel for
the RWG. In 1986, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) granted Canada the Nansen medal in recognition of its work
on behalf of refugees and dis¬placed persons. Finally, it
might also be noted that the close relationship between Canada and
the United States may have played a role too, with the latter
concerned that the sensitive refugee portfolio be entrusted to a
judicious and reliable third party.
In supporting the efforts of the bilateral negotiations on the
refugee issue, the role of the RWG is to improve the current living
conditions of refugees and displaced persons without "prejudice to
their rights and future status; to ease and extend access to family
reunification and to sup¬port the process of achieving a
viable and comprehensive solution to the refugee issue." The RWG
has defined refugees as those displaced as a result of the conflict
between Israel and its Arab neighbors, with the overwhelm¬ing
bulk of its attention paid, in fact, to the question of Palestinian
refugees.
Aims and Achievements
At the first full meeting of the RWG in Ottawa in May 1992, it was
decided to organize work on a thematic basis. Lead countries or
"shepherds" were iden¬tified to lead each theme: databases
(Norway); family reunification (France); human resources
development, job creation and vocational training (the United
States); economic and social infrastructure (the European Union);
public health (Italy) and child welfare (Sweden). The role of the
shepherds is to define the needs of each sector and to mobilize and
appropriate response.
Across all of these is defining the problem: members of the RWG
rec¬ognized a need for a common understanding of the scope of
the refugee problem and how to deal with it. The Working Group has
sponsored basic data collection and analysis to define the scope of
the refugee issues, establish priorities and assess the impact of
choices. This work has included two surveys of living conditions of
the West Bank and Gaza; needs assessments to identify refugee needs
in public health, child wel¬fare and economic and social
infrastructure; and an inventory of ongoing assistance programs.
The RWG is also sponsoring a living conditions sur¬vey of
Jordan which will include a study of Palestinians living inside and
outside the camps.
A second priority has been promoting dialogue: the Canadian gavel
sees the RWG as a forum for regional parties to state positions,
develop and test options and generally build confidence among the
members. As gavel-holder, Canada led an international mission in
April 1994 to Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. The
subsequent report identified a number of immediate pressing needs
for refugees outside the West Bank and Gaza, which the Working
Group has since attempted to carry out. Another key focus in this
area has been the question of policies and procedures for family
reunification. France has worked to bridge dif¬ferences
between the parties, and although the number of individuals
benefiting from family reunification has tripled since it began
these efforts, there are still major stumbling blocks.
Finally, the RWG has worked to mobilize resources for refugees. It
has worked with UNRWA to raise funds for UNRWA's Peace
Implementation Plan (PIP) for the West Bank and Gaza, an initiative
to improve infrastructure and create jobs. It has also supported
individual PIP projects, sponsored education and training of
Palestinian refugees' implemented credit schemes and job creation
programs; and tried to address the urgent health needs of refugees
by providing medical sup¬plies. One particularly noteworthy
project has been the reunification of Palestinian families living
in the Rafah area of Egypt ("Canada Camp") with their relatives in
Tal el-Sultan in Gaza. Canadian funds sponsored the transfer of 70
refugee families (800 individuals) in July 1994. There are plans to
relocate a larger group of families, with assistance from
Kuwait.
Obstacles and Challenges
In the seven plenary meetings of the RWG (with an eighth to be held
in December 1995), significant achievements have been registered.
Nevertheless the Working Group faces a number of stumbling blocks.
One set of these is financial: there is still a serious shortage of
resources to meet the pressing humanitarian needs of refugees,
particularly for those outside the West Bank and Gaza. This comes
at a time when UNRWA's future is uncertain, and the Palestinian
Authority is not yet in a position to take over. Moreover, the
RWG's efforts to mobilize resources substantially over¬lap
with those of others, notably UNRWA itself, as well as the
international donor group for the West Bank and Gaza. Consequently,
it is not always clear how much new funding for refugees is
actually generated by the RWG.
A second set of problems facing the Working Group is structural in
character. The RWG does not operate as a cohesive group, but rather
assembles periodically for plenary meetings or intersessional
activities. Consequently, the gavel-holder remains unsuccessful in
wielding influence outside of the working group structure, and has
not obtained a seat on the Quadripartite Committee. The RWG is also
forced to operate within the context of the peace process as a
whole, and consequently is affected by the ups and downs of the
peace process and by developments in the region.
The refugees of the Middle East diaspora - notably, the large
concen¬tration of Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan -
have yet to be addressed in peace agreements. Efforts of the RWG to
alleviate this situa¬tion have been frustrated by the decision
of Syria and Lebanon not to par¬ticipate in the multilateral
process until they deem that satisfactory progress has been made in
the bilateral negotiations. In turn, Syrian and Lebanese
non-participation in the RWG has hampered the Working Group's
efforts to target resources at refugee communities in those
coun¬tries. This problem is particularly acute in Lebanon,
where much of the refugee population endures extremely adverse
socioeconomic conditions.
Finally, the RWG faces formidable political obstacles in its work.
There remains a large gap between the publicly-articulated
positions of Israel and the Palestinians on the refugee issues,
with the former insisting on the "resettlement" and
"rehabilitation" of refugees, while the latter empha¬sizes the
Palestinians' right to compensation and "return." These sorts of
differences have been manifest in discussions on family
reunification, which have met with the most controversy and
resistance from Israel. The Israeli delegation is willing to
consider family reunification as a discre¬tionary humanitarian
issue, but not as a political right for Palestinians.
Ironically, the consensual format of the RWG, coupled with the
political differences evident within it, can also generate an
unfortunate degree of depoliticization in Working Group activities
- that is to say, a focus by default on less controversial
humanitarian issues. Indeed - and despite some reports - it is
striking that, with the exception of family reunification and the
pro forma declaratory statements of the parties during plenary
ses¬sions, the RWG has not discussed or addressed the core
political arrangements and compromises that must characterize any
ultimate resolution of the refugee issue. Israel insists that such
questions are appropriately dealt with in bilateral final status
negotiations or (in the case of 1967 displaced persons) the
Quadripartite Committee. Other participants in the RWG have also
often shied away from controversial areas. Past database
activi¬ties, for example, have largely focused on social
indicators, rather than those that might have greater significance
for political outcomes.
Palestinian participants have lamented the depoliticization of the
RWG.
However - with the senior Palestinian leadership focused on more
imme¬diate concerns in the West Bank and Gaza - the
Palestinian side has also shown little sustained effort in using
the RWG to explore or prenegotiate such issues at this time.
Compounding this, Palestinian delegations gener¬ally lack the
diplomatic, administrative, policy research and other support
enjoyed by their Israeli counterparts, further limiting their
ability to advance an effective political agenda.
Looking Ahead
In assessing the overall role and potential future contribution of
the RWG, it is important to recognize the constraints under which
it operates: sub¬stantial political differences, consensual
procedures, and subordination to the broader dynamics of the peace
process. The RWG has done important work in mobilizing resources
for refugee communities at a crucial time for them, and for the
region. It has also provided a valuable forum for the regional
parties to meet, and discuss, refugee-related issues.
In the future, as the Quadripartite negotiations continue and the
parties move closer to final status negotiations, there is even
more in these areas that the RWG might do. Resource mobilization
will continue to be impor¬tant, to address the social needs of
refugees, build support for the peace process, and facilitate the
transition to a settlement of the refugee issue. The RWG might
expand its dialogue function, not only facilitating official and
semi-official contacts but also encouraging the production of new
and innovative thinking about the refugee issue by scholars,
non-governmen¬tal organizations, and others within civil
society. Its database and research functions might also be focused
on more strategic refugee-related research, in areas ranging from
the absorptive capacity of the West Bank and Gaza, to compensation,
repatriation, refugee camp rehabilitation, residency rights, and so
forth.
In short, the Refugee Working Group cannot, by its very nature, be
in advance of the Middle East peace process. It can, however - by
address¬ing both the humanitarian and core political
dimensions of the refugee issue - play an important role in
advancing progress toward peace.
Bibliography
1. "Canada and the MEPP: Gavelling the Refugee Working Group,"
delivered by Marc Perron, to a conference sponsored by Medical Aid
for Palestine, "Development and Nation-Building: Canadian
Initiatives in the New Palestinian Context," February 8,
1995.
2. Remarks by Andrew Robinson to Middle East Working Group
Symposium, October 5, 1995.
3. Middle East Peace Process Refugee Working Group. Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada, August 1995.
4. Rosemary Sayigh, "Palestinians in Lebanon: Harsh Present,
Uncertain Future." Journal of Palestine Studies 25, 1 (Autumn
1995).