Six long years of failed Middle East policies have finally brought US President George W. Bush to recognize that the alliance of moderates in the region that he covets can only be forged through an Arab-Israeli peace. Indeed, only by effectively addressing the Israeli-Arab dispute can he possibly salvage the standing of the US in the region.
But the round of peacemaking that the US has recently embarked upon not only comes too late in the political life of a lame-duck president who has been defeated at home and abroad; it is also ill-conceived and unconvincing.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's adamant resistance to engage the Syrians is not exactly wise policy. The stakes for a peaceful regional order are too high for Israel and the US to persist in refusing to put Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's current peace offensive to the test. The bones of contention that wrecked previous attempts to reach an Israeli-Syrian peace have realistic solutions, as was shown by the back-channel peace talks recently held between an Israeli ex-official and a Syrian with close connections to the regime.
Nor is Rice's insistence on sticking to the failed "road map" for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement promising. Susceptible to procrastination and evasion by both sides, the road map was stillborn. Almost four years after it was first launched, neither of the parties has managed to muster the political will necessary to implement its primary provisions. Not even the bizarre idea, reserved for the second stage, of a Palestinian state with "temporary borders" is enticing for the Palestinians.
This Gordian knot needs to be cut, not untied. The concept of interim agreements has now become utterly obsolete, if only because the parties are incapable of paying the political price inherent in an open-ended, piecemeal process.
Instead, what is called for is a sweeping solution to all the core issues. We now stand at the end of the peace process as we have known it. From now on, our options will be a violent and unilateral disengagement, such as the one that ushered in the current war in Gaza, and a comprehensive peace plan that will have to be annexed to the road map and validated by an international peace conference. Only such "reverse engineering," starting at the end and working backward -- and legitimized and monitored by strict international mechanisms -- might yet save the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace from ruin.
As the launch of the peace process at the 1991 Madrid International Peace Conference demonstrated, the prospects for peace in the Middle East always needed a concerted international push to exploit windows of opportunity. Wars in the Middle East, especially those such as Israel's recent war against Hezbollah, which ended inconclusively, have almost invariably created the conditions for major political breakthroughs, because they taught the warring parties the limits of power. Trapped in a momentous struggle between the forces of peaceful change and those committed to Doomsday, the Middle East is once again calling for a major international effort at peacemaking.
The initiators of the 2002 Arab peace initiative likewise understood that a strictly bilateral approach might be inadequate, and instead called to regionalize the solution to the conflict. Loss of mutual trust between the parties, and their total incapacity to take even the smallest step towards each other, let alone to observe their commitments without prodding by third parties, made (and still makes) an international framework for peace the only way out of the dangerous impasse.
The end of bilateralism stems also from the dysfunctional political systems of both Palestine and Israel. Today, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is gasping for political air under the smothering control of Hamas. On her recent trip to Israel, Rice had to listen to four different peace plans from the prime minister, the foreign minister, the minister for strategic threats and the defense minister. For both Israelis and Palestinians, achieving internal peace might prove as formidable a challenge as establishing peace with each other.
Any reformed peace process is doomed if it is guided by a road map within which, on the core issues, the parties have diametrically opposed views. But there is no need to reinvent the wheel, because the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is embodied in the main peace plans that are already on the table -- the Clinton peace parameters and the all-Arab peace initiative.
Fifteen years after the Madrid Conference began a formal peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, the parties are wiser as to what is inevitable if this tortuous process is to lead to a permanent settlement. In 1991, they convened on a platform of "land for peace." But the Israelis never believed they would have to give back all the land, while the Arabs did not think they might have to offer "all the peace." Today, at long last, everyone knows what is meant by "land," and everyone knows what is meant by "peace."
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former foreign minister of Israel, was the chief negotiator of the Camp David and Taba peace talks in 2000 and 2001 respectively. He now serves as the vice-president of the Toledo International Center for Peace.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs