The Middle East peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors
is fal¬tering and is in danger of collapse. The co-sponsors of
the peace talks - the United States and Russia - cannot escape part
of the blame.
By definition, co-sponsorship implies an equal role in terms of
influence and activity, if not in the nature of that role. The
U.S.-Russian partnership in the co-sponsorship is lopsided. Russia
has accepted a junior, if not an insignificant and often symbolic
role in the sponsorship of the Middle East peace talks. The United
States has been allowed to play the key role in bringing parties
together, in setting agendas and venues, in pushing and prodding,
and in allowing one party or the other to unjustifiably flaunt an
existing agreement or understanding.
Russia's apparent weakness can be blamed on its preoccupation with
its internal political situation. The current phase of the Middle
East peace process was launched at the Madrid peace conference
convened by the United States and the former Soviet Union October
30-November 1, 1991. Two months later, the Soviet Union ceased to
exist. The Soviet Empire col¬lapsed, and the Soviet Union as
it was known at the end of 1991 began to unravel. A weakened,
chaotic, and smaller Russia inherited the mantel of the Soviet
Union in the co-sponsorship of the Middle East peace talks.
Hitherto, Russia has been preoccupied with challenges to its
territorial integrity, to its internal economic and political
stability, and to its vastly diminishing role as superpower.
Russia, this "new" co-sponsor, lacks the political, financial, and
econom¬ic clout in comparison to the United States and, for
that matter, in compar¬ison to the former Soviet Union. This,
in turn, has meant that many Arab countries engaged in the peace
process which had viewed the Soviet Union as their ally, their main
source of advanced military equipment, and their political patron,
have lost their "real" sponsor in the Middle East peace
talks.
Washington's Monopoly of Influence
Undoubtedly, this has created a serious imbalance in the
"co-sponsorship" aspect of the Middle East peace process. The
United States, Israel's staunchest ally, has effectively become the
predominant sponsor of the peace talks. Ironically, this has meant
that not only are Israel and the United States not taking Russia's
concerns and views as seriously, but also that the Arab side has
been forced to place a much diminished weight on Russia's views and
initiatives. Even the selection of Washington, D.C. as the venue
for the bilateral peace talks between Israel and the Arabs
reflect¬ed the predominant concern among the parties of the
region to be close to the center of power - the United
States.
This new-found monopoly on influence in the peace process has not
escaped Washington's astute policymakers. Although the United
States professes to be an "honest broker" in the peace talks,
actions speak louder than words. Former President George Bush and
his Secretary of State James Baker III came the closest of any U.S.
administration since President Dwight Eisenhower to being honest
brokers. By comparison, the Clinton Administration is
unquestionably the most pro-Israeli administration ever. This has
been demonstrated in the U.S. attitude toward the peace talks,
particularly between Israel and the PLO.
The failure of the U.S. sponsorship of the peace talks and its
failure to rec¬ognize and keep up with the changes in the
Middle East itself was high¬lighted to the world when Israel
and the PLO, on their own and without U.S. involvement or even
knowledge, decided that the bilateral peace talks in Washington
were on a dead-end path. They both began direct secret talks in
Oslo.
The moment the announcement was made about the successful
conclu¬sion of the Oslo talks, the United States scrambled to
redefine its role and give new impetus to its faltering leadership.
Washington tempted both Israel and the PLO with an elaborate White
House ceremony to formally sign the Declaration of Principles
between Israel and the PLO. To the hun¬dreds of millions of
spectators worldwide, President Clinton became the "chief" sponsor
of the historic event. Clinton was seen gently prodding Yitzhak
Rabin to shake Yasser Arafat's hand.
To its credit, Washington then took the lead in quickly organizing
a donors' conference to provide aid to the new fledgling
Palestinian entity. It contributed about twenty per¬cent of
the funds raised. In real terms, however, the $500 mil¬lion,
over a four-year period, pledged by the United States paled in
comparison to the $3 billion in cash Israel receives annually from
the United States.
On other matters, the United States has taken Israel's side and
adopted its viewpoint whenever conflicts have arisen between Israel
and the PLO. When Israel declared that it was not ready to meet the
very first deadline agreed upon in the Declaration of Principles,
the United States accepted Israel's decision and justification for
the delay. More recently, the Clinton Administration has tolerated
¬- with no criticism - the Israeli Government's decision to
delay
the redeployment of its troops from populated areas in the West
Bank, its active plans to expand West Bank settlements, and its
balking at allowing Palestinian elections, all in the name of
security. Clearly, the U.S. position comes at the Palestinians'
expense.
In a sign of frustration with both the United States and Israel,
Yasser Arafat appealed for European help. On a visit to France in
February of this year, Mr. Arafat called upon France and the
European Union to give impe¬tus to the peace process to pull
it out of its current impasse.
Even in terms of the economic aid pledged to the Palestinians, the
United States has failed to effectively help the Palestinians set
up their institutions to carry out the huge task of development.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has been slow,
clumsy, and confused. The World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) have not fared any better. For most Palestinians, the
peace process has ushered in a new level of misery. Maj. Gen. Danny
Rothschild, who recently retired as Israeli military
coor¬dinator for the Palestinian Occupied Territories,
estimates that the stan¬dard of living among Palestinians in
the West Bank and Gaza has dropped by one-fourth since the
establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) last
summer.
Syria
With regard to Syria, it seems that Israel is convinced that this
is one case that warrants direct and active U.S. involvement.
Although many of Secretary of State Warren Christopher's visits to
the region in the past eigh¬teen months were geared to nudge
Syria and Israel to reach an agreement, little progress has been
achieved. Syria has stated consistently and unequivocally that it
is willing to make full peace with Israel in exchange for full
Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. The
United States has been unable, or possibly unwilling, to secure a
com¬mitment from Israel that it would withdraw fully from
these territories.
To complicate matters, Israel's Minister of Construction and
Housing, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, declared on a recent visit to
Washington, D.C., and for the first time ever by a member of
Israel's current cabinet, that "there will be no total return to
the borders that separated Syria from Israel prior to the 6th of
June, 1967."
Since Syria has been unambiguous about its main requirement for
full-fledged peace with Israel, it is clear that no movement is
likely to occur on the Syrian-Israeli front. The Clinton
Administration had indicated its will¬ingness to support the
positioning of U.S. observers on the Golan Heights. The United
States understands that any significant Israeli withdrawal from the
Golan Heights will require massive U.S. aid to help Israel relocate
its key military installations. Nevertheless, the Clinton
Administration is unwilling or unable to extract a clear commitment
from Israel on its terri¬torial intentions in the Golan
Heights.
In Israel's dealings with Arab countries, Jordan has been the least
com¬plicated interlocutor. Very little U.S. intervention was
needed to move both sides to agree on the elements of a peace
treaty. Jordan requested that its debt to the United States be
forgiven. The United States accepted in princi¬ple to reward
Jordan and forgive, albeit gradually, this debt.
With regard to the multilateral peace talks, here again, the United
States has been playing the key role in pushing the process
forward. Russia's con¬tribution, in terms of policy,
direction, and resources, has been minimal. Although other
countries were shut out by the co-sponsors from the bilateral peace
negotiations, on the multilateral peace talks, other parties,
partic¬ularly the European Union (EU), Japan, and Canada were
allowed leading roles in organizing the multilateral working
groups. More importantly, the EU and Japan have emerged as the key
financiers of this process - a role the United States has been
happy to relegate to them, given the onslaught on U.S. foreign aid
by Republican Congressional leaders.
U.S. Role Critical
When it was agreed by all the participants that the multilateral
peace talks should be directed by a steering committee, the primary
function of this steering group was to oversee the activities of
the five working groups and to affect any changes in the structure,
composition, and the operating pro¬cedures of these
talks.
Although the steering group has been the supreme body in the
multi¬laterals, up until early 1994, it played an essentially
passive ceremonial role - with the exception of the United States
itself. The steering group was intended to acknowledge the receipt
of reports from the working groups and set the dates and venues for
the next round of talks.
In early 1994, a new phase emerged in the role of the steering
committee of the multilateral peace talks. According to Daniel
Kurtzer, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs, and at the urging of the regional parties in the
multilateral steering group, the steering group planned to take a
much more active role in trying to increase the pace and scope of
the working groups.
In this new and redefined mandate, the United States continues to
play the critical role in moving the process forward.
This critical assessment of the role of the co-sponsors of the
Middle East peace is in no way intended to imply that there is no
need for sponsorship of the Middle East peace talks. My main
conclusions are twofold: the first is that Russia has effectively
played a minor role in its co-sponsorship of the peace talks, and
the second is that the United States has not fulfilled its role as
an honest and fair broker. Its approach is one-sided and in most
cases favors Israel.
The United States needs to reassess the function and approach of
its co-sponsorship of the Middle East peace talks if it is to
positively affect any progress in the talks between Israel and
Syria, and if it is serious about sal¬vaging the stalled peace
talks between Israel and the PLO.