 The Government of Spain convened a 15th anniversary conference to commemorate the historic Madrid Conference on Middle East. The original conference was held in 1991. It led to the Oslo process, mutual recognition by the PLO and Israel, peace between Israel and Jordan and a near deal between Israel and Syria.
The optimism of the 1990s was short-circuited in 2000 with the failure of Camp David, Intifada-II, and the gradual sidelining of the Palestinian issue by Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially Iran.
Felipe Gonzalez, former President of Spain, who had chaired Madrid 1991, also chaired Madrid +15. Jonas Store, Foreign Minister of Norway, outlined milestones for the way ahead.
- There should be regional approach to peace.
- Ideally, the Quartet should be activated; otherwise each component can take initiative (he was clearly referring to EU).
- Hamas and Hezbollah should be engaged.
- Iran should be engaged.
Per Stig Moller, Denmark’s Foreign Minister, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU Commissioner for External Relations, added an economic dimension to Jonas Store’s agenda. Unfortunately, his suggestion of engaging Hamas and Hezbollah was not discussed seriously. It was left to the three non-politicians at the table – Irine Zryagelskaya of Russia, Gabriele Rifkind of Oxford Research Group and myself – to focus on the importance of inclusion as a principle and engagement with Hamas and Hezbollah in the concluding session. Of course, inclusion should also mean engaging Israel’s ultra-nationalists. Also, there was not much interest in Jonas Store’s very thoughtful idea of engaging Iran. In fact, Iran was projected as a mere problem with its nuclear programme looming large.
The point is that in the 1990s there was no question of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran entering the scene. If there had been concrete progress on the final status and a deal between Israel and Syria, the history of the Middle East in the first decade of the 21st century would have been fundamentally different.
Amre Moussa, Arab League Secretary General, and others clarified that the Arab League Plan of 2002 (conceptualised by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia) provides full security guarantees and recognition to Israel by all 22 members of the Arab League. Despite the violence of the last 2 years, no Arab state has withdrawn signature from the Plan. However, there has been no response from Israel or the international community. The main achievement of Madrid +15 was an open invitation by Dalia Rabin, former Deputy Defence Minister, to hold a public debate in Israel with Arab interlocutors, on the Arab League Plan. She went to the extent of offering the auspices of the Rabin Centre to make this possible.
If Israel responds to the Arab League Plan and makes comprehensive peace with Syria, it would be obligatory for the collective Arab leadership to persuade Hamas and Hezbollah. If this does not happen, it is only a question of time before Hamas and Hezbollah become crucial forces to determine the future of the region.
Also, if peace is not seriously and urgently sought on the basis of the Arab League Plan, the entry of Iran into the ring is inevitable. The West may see Iran as a mere troublemaker. It may not like to believe the facts on ground, but an important reality is that Iran is a rising power – thanks to the American invasion of Iraq and the missile exchange in the summer of 2006. The Arabs, Israelis and Americans have 2-3 years to solve the problem between them. Otherwise, Iran will force itself at the table by the end of the decade.
If they wait longer, China will enter the scene in the next decade. The current Chinese engagement in the region is mainly commercial. In a decade from now, that will not be the case. The Israeli participants in Madrid +15 felt that US engagement was essential for any solution. They will say the same thing about China at Madrid +25 if the status quo has not changed by then.
Basically, Israel’s silence on the Arab League Plan may mean that Israel finds some conditions unacceptable. This should be a subject for discussion. Perhaps, some modification to include a couple of Clinton parameters could help. Silence is an open invitation to new actors – Hamas and Hezbollah today, Iran tomorrow and China the day after.
I used my opportunity of saying the last word at the working part of the conference to alert the participants about the future changes. I also said that the business of running the world with an enforcement model of global governance by a Concert of Powers was not working. We need to move to a collaborative problem solving and inclusive approach towards Middle East in particular, and global conflicts in general.
<- Back to Archives
|
