Maybe history does repeat itself after all. Recent developments in the Middle East suggest that this is the case, because the situation as the end of US President George W. Bush's term draws near is increasingly similar to president Bill Clinton's final year in the White House. Both presidents, at the end of their terms, sought to resolve one of the world's most dangerous conflicts, while facing the threat that time was running out on them.
One could despair: the Bush administration has obviously wasted almost seven years, during which it could have pursued a solution. We are now back to square one: The Camp David and Taba talks -- flippantly abandoned in January 2001 -- are to be taken up again.
Still, as the saying goes, better late than never!
The Middle East conference to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, should be a forum for final negotiations between all parties, dealing above all with the establishment of a Palestinian state and its borders -- those that existed in June 1967, with some negotiated exchanges of territory -- its capital (Jerusalem), Israeli settlements and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
It should also address questions of security, the termination of the decades-long state of war and recognition of Israel by the Arab states.
It is high time for progress on a two-state solution, because the Palestinians are increasingly losing hope of ever having a state of their own. Without it, the Middle East conflict will remain at a stalemate and violence will only intensify.
Acceptable compromises on all of these questions have been negotiated repeatedly by the parties and stowed away for many years. The only missing ingredient is the political will and strength to enter into a peace agreement.
But this very political strength is precisely what both the Israeli and Palestinian governments lack. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are very weak domestically and, given the compromises needed from both sides, they will be putting themselves on the line.
The same is true of Bush. The US government is not united behind the Annapolis initiative. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants the conference to happen and has done much to push for it. But how much risk is Bush -- without whom a real breakthrough will be impossible -- prepared to accept?
Fortunately, some taboos about what is an acceptable solution have dissolved on both sides. The parallel weakness of Olmert and Abbas has produced a parallel interest in a peace settlement. Indeed, both men hope for political survival through a peace agreement: Olmert by means of new elections and Abbas by a referendum through which he can regain ascendancy over Hamas.
So will a failed "peace of the strong" be followed by a successful "peace of the weak?"
Even as the situation in Israel and Palestine has changed, the regional political environment has seen a shift, because most Arab states today are more afraid of Iran's regional domination than they are of Israel. This development offers an unprecedented opportunity.
There are obvious pitfalls, to be sure. Olmert's room for maneuver within his party -- ?and particularly within his coalition -- is very small.
Can he make sufficient concessions on borders and Jerusalem? Similar doubts apply to Abbas. Can he deliver the security guarantees that Olmert needs, especially given the Palestinians' fear that, in the end, they will give too much, without getting back concessions on what they see as their fundamental demands?
The critical hurdle in reaching peace will not be negotiations, but rather implementing whatever agreement is inked -- and its political cost will be very high.
The Palestinians are already in the midst of a civil war. The compromises necessary for peace are likely to lead to a stark political confrontation in Israel as well. Obviously, Olmert is thinking of reaching an agreement on borders using the Road Map mechanism. Such an agreement should be implemented gradually and its progress should depend on the parties' fulfillment of their obligations each step of the way.
Yet a mechanism of this kind can only work if a third party (such as the US or the Middle East Quartet) monitors its implementation. Otherwise, disputes about the fulfillment of this or that provision will lead the entire process back into the familiar quicksand of Middle East futility.
So, from a realistic point of view, a positive outcome for the Annapolis talks seems almost impossible. Why should this conflict, which has proven unsolvable in the past, suddenly end, or come closer to a solution. How is this possible with Bush, Olmert and Abbas, all of whom are weak in their domestic political scenes?
Karl Marx wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. One might fear that Camp David proves to be the tragedy and Annapolis the farce. But, then, this is the Middle East, where earlier breakthroughs grew out of defeat, not victory. So one should never give up hope, even when progress seems impossible.
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005, led Germany's Green Party for nearly 20 years.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS