Ma‘an - A week ago, on 10 January 2006, an international, unofficial conference opened in Madrid, the Spanish capital, entitled ‘Madrid+15 - Towards Peace in the Middle East: Addressing Concerns and Expectations‘.
In the words of the organisers, Madrid+15 took place in order to ‘commemorate the 15th anniversary of the 1991 Madrid peace conference and ignite the spirit of regional peacemaking that prevailed in that era‘.
The organisers came from civil society: the Toledo International Center for Peace, Search for Common Ground, Fundación Tres Culturas, the FAFO Institute and the International Crisis Group. They made it very clear that this international conference was ‘an unofficial gathering and not a negotiation‘ representing a ‘mapping [out] of opportunities, constraints, fears and expectations of all sides‘.
However, they had four main objectives: 1) To deliver a message that all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict can convene and discuss the issues of contention between the sides frankly and constructively; 2) To map the expectations and concerns of all parties, especially in light of existing proposals such as the Arab League Initiative of 2002, the Clinton Parameters, and other instruments, including the recent Iraq Study Group report; 3) To serve as an example and springboard for official talks; 4) To catalyze cooperative efforts between current officials, former officials, and civil society actors.
Broadly speaking, the participants in the conference represented the same parties who attended the 1991 Madrid conference, in addition to Saudi Arabia in light of the Arab League initiative of 2002, and USA and Russia due to their critical role in the peace process. Many senior officials from governments and institutions including a number of EU foreign ministers and UN representatives were also present. Representatives from civil society such as academics, journalists, and NGO representatives, were also invited as guests and observers.
The 1991 Madrid conference: ‘It did not create peace. But it gave hope‘
A number of senior figures harked back to the Madrid talks in 1991 as a turning point in Middle East relations.
Former US President Bill Clinton, though not present at the conference, sent a message of support to the conference, saying: ‘Madrid [1991] was the culmination of an energetic diplomatic mission, and the beginning of an inspiring political mission: to reach a comprehensive, just, and viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was the first time that Israelis and Arabs met together at a conference table rather than on the battlefield‘.
Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, also recalled the hopeful days of 1991: ‘It was the first time a Syrian delegation sat across the table from an Israeli delegation to formally discuss a peace agreement… So was the case with the Jordanian and the Lebanese.‘
Amr Moussa, however, also pointed to the shortcomings of the Madrid conference in 1991: ‘The first was the exclusion of the United Nations, which constituted, in my opinion, one of the major deficiencies of the Madrid process. We, at the Arab side, paid dearly for that exclusion‘.
Gareth Evan, the president of one of the organising bodies, the International Crisis Group, described some of the main flaws in the Madrid and subsequent Oslo peace processes as ‘their focus on sequentialism, incrementalism and confidence building at the expense of the endgame; inadequate preparation – and time – when a more comprehensive (or ‘totalist‘, as Terje Roed Larsen puts it) approach has been adopted, as by Barak in 2000; dysfunctional Palestinian – and, let‘s be frank, Israeli - political systems; U.S. disengagement; European divisions; and insufficient, and inadequately sustained, Arab leadership.‘
Israeli-Palestinian peace: the cornerstone to global harmony?
Amr Moussa of the Arab League said, ‘The peace process should no longer be considered as secondary to the war against terrorism, for the opposite is true. The success of the peace process is one of the prerequisites for winning the fight against terrorism. And the process has to focus on reaching a genuine and just peace.‘
‘For this‘, Moussa said, ‘a viable Palestinian state enjoying full sovereignty is a must and the removal of the settlements and the wall is an equal must‘.
Norwegian foreign minister, Gahr Store, told Israel clearly: ‘We object to the occupation and illegal settlements‘. He continued, ‘Israel has to do its part to lift restrictions on the Palestinians and deliver tangible outcomes of political talks and pledges‘.
Amr Moussa of the Arab League went further: ‘So is the return of the Golan Heights to Syria and the Sheba farms to Lebanon [a must]. Halting all military nuclear capacities and the threats they pose to the region is also a must to create a wider regional security scheme.‘
The former Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Shlomo Ben Ami, seemed to concur: ‘There is no chance that any of us can build a future on the denial of the other‘s fundamental rights. Jewish statehood is a genuine reality, a powerful conviction, a historic necessity. The legitimate rights of the Palestinians in all their aspects, a formula endorsed by Menachem Begin at Camp David, can only mean one thing: Palestinian statehood is not only a vital component of a stable regional order, it is also a moral imperative.‘
As the head of the Arab League, the body responsible for the Arab Initiative in 2002 in which the Arab states called for the normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, Amr Moussa issued the following invitation: ‘I seize the opportunity of this meeting to invite Israel not to be afraid of peace and to extend the hand of peace as we have done. Israel should work to be a full member of the Middle Eastern society of nations. ‘
From the Israeli side, Shlomo Ben Ami said, ‘Many of us remain convinced that it is only after the core Arab-Israeli dispute has been resolved that he conditions might be created for an accommodation between Israel and the entire Arab and Muslim world, and a regional system of security can perhaps be made possible‘.
Absent friends?
Perhaps in reference to Hamas or Hezbollah, the Norwegian foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Store, stated at the conference: ‘For various reasons some parties to the wider Middle Eastern conflicts are absent from our gathering. I believe we should recall that a prerequisite for peace is that we make all parties stakeholders – that we seek to engage countries as well as key groups‘.
‘We should recall that engagement does not mean tolerating obstructionism and extremism. We reject violence and terrorism. We expect countries and groups of the region to live up to their international obligations and to abide by international law.‘
Gahr Store added, ‘To halt violent extremism, we must engage all parties, including non-state actors in dialogue and responsible engagement. Failing to do so would leave the initiative to extremists and to those who refuse compromise. Groups cannot be eradicated by military force or eliminated by decree. They too need to be engaged and held responsible‘.
Gareth Evan of the International Crisis Group said frankly, ‘Peacemaking needs to be comprehensive. For most of us around this table, for example, it makes no sense at all to leave Syria aside, at a time when we have heard so clearly from its president, and delegation here, that it wants to resume negotiations without preconditions. Ten years ago, the US and Israel would have dreamt of getting the Syrians so readily to the starting line; today, they are doing everything possible to hold them back. ‘
The search for an ‘honest broker‘
Like many other speakers at the conference, the Norwegian foreign minister, Gahr Store supported strengthening the role of outsiders to the conflict, particularly, the European Union. ‘I believe it is fair to say that now is the time for the Quartet to demonstrate leadership‘, he said. ‘And if the Quartet is unable to do that as a group, then each part should not refrain from engaging. That challenge goes in particular to the European Union.‘
Gahr Store continued: ‘But if there is to be any such process, let us be realistic: The United States has to engage and promote a new dialogue and a new way forward.‘
As an unofficial gathering organised by five key international civil society organisations, discussions also focussed on how outside, apolitical players can couch the process forward.
Gareth Evan, the president of the International Crisis Group, asked during the concluding plenary session: ‘What in particular should be the role of the outside players - the major states, major intergovernmental organizations and major civil society actors - who are not immediate parties to the inter-related Israel-Palestine-Syria-Lebanon conflicts but have been generally acknowledged as having an important part to play in settling them?‘
Evans‘ main suggestion was: ‘Do No Harm. Always the first rule in any kind of crisis management, this means here, putting it very simply, that outside parties should do nothing that makes peacemaking more difficult. This may sound self-evident, but as often as not is honoured in the breach, as again is the case today. The US is actively hindering the resumption of Israeli-Syrian negotiation. And the US, along with many others, is actively hindering achievement of an inter-Palestinian consensus, doing more to incite internal conflict than to prevent it: if Hamas is groping for a way to square the circle on the issue of recognizing Israel (of which we have seen some further evidence with Meshaal‘s statement this week – which Osama al-Baz [of Syria] emphasized in his contribution to our debate) then this is surely the time to be searching for common ground, not dismissing that possibility.‘
To counter this, Evans revealed that the International Crisis Group has been conducting ‘A U.S.-directed effort, aimed at trying to get the Bush administration to alter what, up until now, have been extremely damaging policies toward the peace process; to that end, we have been working, so far behind the scenes, with a bipartisan group of prominent Republicans and Democrats. So far this has not borne visible fruit, but we live in hope.‘
Amr Moussa stressed, however, that any ‘active peace process should always have an objective point of reference with a higher potential for neutrality and capability of upholding international legality and lawfulness. This would only come within the framework of the United Nations.‘
‘Therefore‘, Moussa said, ‘I invite the meeting to call for the urgent convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the UN to re-launch the process of peace.‘