State Dept. Official on Middle East Peace Obstacles
REMARKS BY
EDWARD S. WALKER, JR.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
AT THE MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Friday, October 20, 2000, 7:30 p.m.
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
I want to congratulate the Middle East Institute for another
successful annual conference, and for its important work over the
years. "MEI" has been a haven for intelligent discussion, honest
analysis, and frank consideration of issues of critical importance to
both the Middle East and the United States. Since its creation in
1946, the Institute has educated generations of scholars, diplomats,
business people, and non-governmental leaders on the wonders and
challenges of the Middle East.
I had planned several weeks ago to address the issue of a modernizing
Middle East and the emerging generation of leadership. However, after
this exhausting week I feel I need to update you on the current
situation first. At Sharm el Sheikh we went straight through with
virtually no sleep. If I fall asleep at the podium, I can assure you
it's not the company, it's the time. Some day someone will do a
scientific study of the impact of sleep deprivation on diplomatic
negotiations. I am convinced that it plays an important part. We
already know that it is a critical component in hostage negotiations.
So what about Wye, Camp David and Sharm - to mention a few recent
occasions when critical decisions were made when the decision makers
had little or no sleep for extended periods?
Let me say a few words about the Sharm summit. Two things stand out in
my mind. First, Bill Clinton made the difference. I use "Bill Clinton"
advisedly because it was the man and not the President who achieved
the modest outcome we saw and offered the parties a lifeline back from
the brink of chaos. I have seen the action at Wye and in Sharm, and
this man is the reason we were able to defy odds and make agreements
in both places. He almost pulled it off at Camp David, as well. The
work of the Secretary of State in Paris and that of Dennis and his
team were critical in setting the stage on which the President could
act at Sharm. In particular, the Secretary was on the front line with
the Foreign Ministers in preparing the ground for the right outcome.
But without Bill Clinton, there could have been no agreement.
Second, I have never in my 33 years in the Foreign Service seen such
intensely emotional negotiations as I did at Sharm. I have seen a lot
of bluster and Sturm und Drang in negotiations before. Generally,
diplomats and thespians are birds of a feather, but the reality is
that confrontations are usually studied. In fact, when I was leading
the anti-incitement negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis,
the emotional temperature on a number of occasions went to the top.
But it didn't burst the diplomatic glass ceiling - at Sharm the
ceiling was broken. It worried me and still does. It tells you
something about the issues and the current environment and it makes it
all the more impressive that something positive came out of that
summit. It also highlights the fragility of that accomplishment.
Three things were agreed at Sharm: a possible path back to the peace
process; an opening to reach new security arrangements; and the
formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate the origins of
the violence and to suggest ways to avoid such explosions in the
future. The path back to the peace process, a potential meeting in
Washington in two weeks clearly dependent in practical terms on a
cooling of emotions and violence, was uncontroversial at Sharm.
The basic security arrangements were already formulated in Paris when
the Secretary last met with Arafat and Barak. At Sharm, some
additional measures were agreed. The negotiations were not easy, but
they were generally very professional and mainly constructive. The
problem is, of course, that the popular resentment and anger has not
been assuaged and it continues to drive mass demonstrations that lead
to confrontations and more deaths on a daily basis.
The third aspect of the Sharm communiqué concerned fact-finding
committee. This is designed to look into the crises and search for
ways to prevent future violence. It is also a way to ameliorate
grievances. We are now working with Kofi Annan and the parties to
establish a credible and objective mechanism. We are not looking for
recriminations and blame but to build bridges between the peoples.
Recently, as people have looked at the worsening situation, there has
been a lot of commentary about the "flaws" of Camp David. That was not
a conclusion that our Arab friends had drawn from the Camp David
Summit. As many of you know, after Camp David, I took a swing through
every Arab country with which we have relations. And since then, I
have had a few more conversations, in person on this latest trip, and
on the telephone.
While we were out in the region we were told that for fifty years the
Arabs believed there could never be peace with Israel. When the peace
process began, the doubters among the Arabs were legion. But as the
process continued, people's minds began to change until just recently,
as a result of Camp David, there was genuine hope for the future. Then
the current violence hit and no one knows where it will lead. In my
talks around the region there was no second-guessing, no impression
that Camp David had failed. There was only genuine respect for what
the President had done and belief that peace was closer than ever.
In fact, if there had not been a residual belief that peace was
possible, we could not have reached agreement at Sharm. It took that
kind of powerful force, the belief in peace, to overcome the
television views of the violence that occurred in the past few weeks.
The Secretary told one her interlocutors on this trip: "I sat and
watched the pictures on the television and my heart was broken, not
only because I am a mother, but because, with the President, we had
worked so hard to prevent these things from happening." She recalled
her meetings with the children of the "Seeds of Peace" where Arab and
Israeli children come together to develop understanding. She said: "I
was crushed when Asel, the young Arab-Israeli from the Seeds was
killed."
In this regard, we heard from some of the Arabs that Islam is against
hatred and killing. They said that now we see people doing things that
are forbidden by Islam. They said that these people have lost
direction and we need to discover how to wipe their brains clean of
this perversion. They suggested that the most devastating result of
the current violence was to separate the peoples, one from one
another. They felt that our objective had to be to improve the
relations between the peoples of the region. They were advocates of
people to people programs to stop the hatred between the Arab and
Jewish nations. This is the only way to peace. I do not imagine there
is one person in this room who would disagree with these sentiments.
These Arabs weren't alone in their anguish. One of the fears I have
heard over and over in recent weeks in the Arab world is the fear of
an upsurge in religious intolerance and hostility. It is no longer the
Arab-Israeli conflict - it is becoming the Jewish-Islamic conflict. If
such a transformation happens, God help us all.
No doubt that consideration of the Jerusalem issue has put a spotlight
on the religious question. And some Arab leaders as well as some of
our friends back home have questioned why we tried to deal with the
Jerusalem issue up front as we did at Camp David. The answer is, quite
simply, that we could not avoid it. So long as we could put off the
question of final status issues, Jerusalem could be deferred. But
neither side could come to grips with a package on final settlement
without some answers on Jerusalem.
What I have learned as we have dealt with this issue is the appalling
lack of knowledge we have of each other's religion, culture and
history. I have had Arab leaders ask me, "What is this 'Temple Mount'?
What is this that people were talking about?" Others ask where is
there any tangible proof that remains of a Temple lie underneath and
why can't the Jews be satisfied with the Western Wall. And I have had
Americans and Israelis ask me why the Haram es Sharif is so important
when everyone knows that the two holy mosques are in Saudi Arabia. The
ignorance of Islam in this country is appalling. The ignorance of
Judaism in the Arab world is equally incomprehensible. And I am a firm
believer that ignorance breeds fear and intolerance.
The violence we have seen on CNN reminds us of what is at stake - the
lives and futures of millions of men, women, and children. During my
career, I have had the good fortune to meet many of these people, and
to work with their leaders throughout the region. I know parents from
both sides who fear that their children may be killed in the violence.
I know young men and women, some of whom are filled with good will and
hope but most are filled with anger, mistrust, or despair. Some of
them are Palestinians. Some of them are Israeli Jews, some are Israeli
Arabs. All of them wonder why their views aren't understood, while
dismissing or disregarding the same concerns expressed by their
neighbor on the other side. They are all shocked by brutalities done
to their citizens - brutalities that also shock and dismay each and
every one of us.
Yet, in the end, they are inevitably linked by the common challenge of
their lives: How to live with each other. Neither Palestinians, nor
Israeli Jews nor Israeli Arabs, will disappear. None of these
communities will move from their homes and towns. None has the ability
to defeat or destroy the other. Peace is not a pleasant dream for
Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, or for Palestinians - it is the only
option to an endless cycle of violence, destruction, and death.
Unfortunately, I am not sure this is a lesson that is well understood
in the region. My friends in Israel tell me that the peace movement is
dead. The left has become the center, the center has become the right,
and the right has gone off the map. How depressing.
But not everybody in Israel has given up. Some, like Yitzhak
Frankenthal, who lost his son years ago to Hamas terrorism, have
continued to struggle for peace. He recently sent a letter to Dan
Sreebny in my office. I would like to ask Dan to read parts of it to
you to show you the depth of emotion that is flooding the region and
how, in some few cases, people are standing up against the tide. Dan.
(Dan Sreebny): Dear Dan.
In the last few years, Roni H. and I worked together as partners, as
friends, and as two people who complement each other. Together with
me, Roni worked day and night to advance peace between us and the
Palestinians, between the Israeli Arabs and Jews...
Three weeks ago, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year) I
called Roni in order to wish him a happy new year,m and he told me he
was in his car with his wife, Miri, and his son Elad on their way to
Mount Herzel, to bury Elad's best friend who was killed the day before
in Netzarim in the Gaza strip. It was a conversation full of crying
and hurt, that yet again we bury another child because of the Israeli
disregard to the Palestinians' hardship in the Gaza Strip...
Yesterday around 8 a.m., Roni called me with the bitter news: Elad
committed suicide and left a letter behind, saying that he could no
longer live in a country that sends children to their needless and
unwarranted deaths. He also wrote that he could not keep on living
without David. At 4 p.m. Elad was buried by David's grave...
I end this sad message to you with a lot of pain and deep conviction
that the only right way is the one we are urging and pleading the
Israeli public to take - to fight for peace. Since the day my son Arik
died, six and a half years ago, I never had such a difficult day as
yesterday.
Yours,
Yitzhak
That's where we are, but what of the future? Where does this leave us?
It leaves us with a region that is changing in ways that few if any of
us can predict. Do you know what one young Arab leader, in criticizing
the US approach to the peace process, told the Secretary: "You are
trying to download IBM software in an Apple machine." Rather
extraordinary both in terms of the conceptual approach but
particularly in the imagery used. We have to take a hard look at his
criticism and we also have to have a major rethink of the way we deal
with this new generation.
New methods of communication will inevitably change the Middle East.
Satellite television, in particular, has gone through a regional
revolution, with Arab broadcasters beginning to emulate - and even
surpass - the impact of CNN, BBC, and other foreign stations. Most of
the television in the region is still government controlled. But
satellites and individual dishes are making that control harder. There
is a danger here. Television which, for whatever reason, is dedicated
to pandering to the mass market and their prejudices will make it even
harder for people to come together and understand one another. So will
regional services provide ample opportunity for callers and
opinionated analysts to help enflame the current situation, not calm
it. Such programs widen the gap between leaders and the led. And their
populist approach tends to appeal to the average person's worst
prejudices. But the popularity of these programs force other media to
emulate their style to retain an audience. Thus, if you want to find a
source for emotional excess and intolerance, you don't have to look
too much further than the local newspaper or satellite broadcast.
The global media compound this problem. Recently, our eyes and hearts
were seared by the sight of a young Palestinian, killed by Israeli
fire while his father vainly tried to protect him from harm. A short
while later, we were again shocked by the horrible mob murder of two
Israeli soldiers in Ramallah. The transmission of such incidents
around the world results in understandable and instantaneous outrage,
which leaders and diplomats must then confront and deal with. We can
no longer dismiss the impact of public opinion in the Arab states. It
has to be a matter of deep concern for leaders in the Middle East. And
we have to learn to factor it into our own policy.
What this says for the future is very disturbing. Traditional concepts
of governing in the Middle East will be increasingly difficult to
sustain and leaders with no popular foundation will have to pander to
baser instincts of the Arab street to survive. The antidote is not
less freedom or greater control of the media, it is more freedom -
freedom to engage in and influence the political process. If we want
to prevent polarization and instability in the Middle East, we are
going to have to pay a lot more attention and resources to building
civil societies and developing democratic mechanisms.
The other major part of the Middle East communications revolution is
the spread of the Internet. While the Middle East lags behind Europe
and North America, there has been an extraordinary increase in
Internet customers in the Middle East - especially among the
"intelligentsia," the academics, the students, and leaders of
non-governmental organizations. They are turning more and more to the
Internet for information, and to develop links with counterparts in
other countries and other parts of the globe. Each of you knows during
the past ten years how the Internet has changed the way you do your
work. The same process is taking place throughout the Middle East,
despite the efforts of some governments to block it or restrict access
only to "safe" sites.
You can take a very long walk through the "virtual Middle East" on the
Internet. On one of the major search engines, I found thousands of
sites dealing with the region, including 995 sites related to Egypt,
696 for the United Arab Emirates, 603 for Iran, 306 for Saudi Arabia,
and more than 4,000 for Israel. I visited. I perused goods and
services offered by perfume showrooms in the Gulf, law firms in
Beirut, health and medical services in Tunisia, a bank in Oman, a
wealth of information on Algeria offered on djazaironline.net, and the
Libyan Iron and Steel Company. I found dozens of Arab newspapers,
magazines, and broadcasters providing immediate information on
developments in the region, and visited universities in almost every
Arab country.
Middle East governments are also using the Internet, to provide an
array of information to their citizens. Some observers criticize the
Internet as a conduit for Western-oriented, English-language
information and ideas. But I found numerous examples of Internet sites
that serve the interests and needs of Middle East citizens in Arabic,
Hebrew, Farsi, and French, as well as in English.
Unlike Arab television, the Internet is still very eclectic in its
content and could become a constructive force for the growth of the
civil society. One problem in much of the Arab world is the lack of
real penetration by PCs except at the highest levels. The risk is that
in the short term attitudes among the educated elites will
increasingly be divorced from attitudes on the street. Populism,
popular television and the popular media, with less government ability
to control the output, are pulling the street in one direction, while
the global economy and information revolution are pulling the elites
in the opposite direction. And that is a recipe for increasing
instability. In this case the antidote, I would argue, is stronger
economic development and better educational structures so that people
can engage in the worldwide information revolution together and profit
from the global economy. We need to put greater emphasis and resources
on economic reform and growth in the Arab world to complement,
stimulate and sustain the growth of the civil society and democracy.
The two have to go hand in hand.
But even if we are successful, the information revolution and the
Internet can easily fall under some of the same influences already at
work in the print and televised media. The Internet spreads both
accurate information and distortions or outright lies. It is used by
proponents of peace and by supporters of violence and continued
conflict. You can find Internet sites that promote Arab-Israeli
cooperation - or sites that advocate war. I was appalled when I
visited Tel Aviv University to learn of an Internet site in the United
States, which was a Nazi hate site against Jews. A hate site is bad
enough but this particular site was developed as a slick Internet
game, which could attract kids and hold their attention while the vile
poison it advocated could penetrate their minds.
Finally, the structural changes that are taking place due to
technology are coming to light under the influence of a new generation
of Middle East leaders. When I say "leadership," many of you will
automatically think of the major changes in national rulers in recent
years, from Morocco to the Gulf, and up to Syria. The new kings,
emirs, and presidents grew up in a different environment than did
their fathers. They bring new perspectives and ideas to their new
positions. Even with new insights, however, these leaders are severely
constrained by the political structures they have inherited and by the
new populism of the street. To a man, they will be cautious.
It would be a mistake for us to overestimate what the new generation
can do immediately. Their ideas will take time to implement and they
will need help to avoid the rending of their political and social
fabric if they are to undertake reform. Nor should we forget that
these young men are the products of their fathers and their societies.
They may be less forthcoming than we would like to think or hope.
There are some cases, I suspect, where the acorn may not fall far from
the tree.
The term "leadership," however, goes far beyond the small band of
national leaders. There is a new generation of leaders coming forward
in all walks of life - in business, education, the media, and other
fields. They know about developments in other nations, and are aware
of what's going on in other parts of the world. They show individual
initiative, without having to rely only on the official word from
government bureaucrats. Many of you here are working with these new
leaders in the Middle East, and you can appreciate their capabilities
and potential. The new generation of leadership will bring different
expectations to our dialogues, and the remaining sub-regional issues
and disagreements will color our relations with all concerned.
These trends make the Middle East a much more vital and dynamic region
with great potential for the future, potential for good and for bad -
but they also make it a more complicated place for us to work. And in
this increasingly difficult environment, our challenges are increased
by the practical limitations of foreign affairs funding. You know that
only about one percent of our annual budget goes to foreign affairs,
but many Americans imagine it to be a much higher percentage. Yet we
need increased funding to support our vital national interests, in the
Middle East and around the world.
Peace in the Middle East is in our interest, as is economic and social
reform, but the constraints of current funding levels force us to pick
and choose among our priorities. Already we face serious problems in
finding funding for essential programs, from democracy support to
economic development. We are also increasingly asking existing staff
to take on large new responsibilities of managing programs in areas
such as demining, democracy, and technical assistance to economic
reform. Our people do an outstanding job in the Middle East, but they
can't constantly be asked to "do more with less."
America's relationship with the Middle East is not simply a matter of
concern for diplomats - it is a challenge for all of us. Let me end my
remarks with a plea to each of you - and a challenge. Today, there are
still misunderstandings between the United States and nations of the
region. You can all play a very important role to lessen the chances
for misunderstanding and friction by explaining American views and
perceptions to your counterparts in the Middle East. At the same time,
you can play an equally important role by challenging distortions or
stereotypes within our country regarding the Middle East. We cannot
erase all issues of contention with countries of the Middle East, or
with any nation. Disagreements will inevitably arise, concerns will
continue to be expressed, and our national priorities will
occasionally differ. However, we can at least ensure that these
occasions are marked by an accurate understanding of each other's
needs, desires, and constraints, so we can eliminate differences
whenever possible and contain those that remain. Through this work -
the work done by the Middle East Institute, by my colleagues in the
Department of State, and by each and every one of you - we will
strengthen our nation's relationship with the Middle East in the years
to come. I look forward to working with you on this exciting and
rewarding endeavor.
Thank you very much.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
