By Corinne Whitlatch
Churches for Middle East Peace
Turmoil remains the word that best characterizes the situations
in the Middle East, as well as United States’ policy toward
the region. As the new year begins —
- The U.S. continues to have trouble enlisting major international
partners in its Iraq campaign;
- Unofficial Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives are filling
the vacuum left by the fading Road Map;
- Perhaps branding Syria and Iran as “evil” will
prove to have been not such a good idea;
- The consequences of the reversal by the Bush Administration,
relative to nation-building, are as yet unknown.
Following the debacle of justifying war on Iraq (because of
the supposed threat posed by its weapons of mass destruction),
diplomatic arms control may be back in fashion. Meanwhile, the
Democratic presidential candidates are stumbling and stuttering
to distinguish themselves from the pack, while simultaneously
criticizing President Bush and supporting the troops.
Iraq Is Emerging as a Top Campaign Issue
It will be difficult for the American public to be confident
in their opinion about the war in Iraq and what is best for
the American and Iraqi people. The differences among the Democratic
candidates over who supported and who opposed the war have overtaken
serious debate about what should now be the strategy of the
U.S.
The Administration will continue to give the American public
patriotic images and positive impressions. If the transition
to Iraqi self-rule goes smoothly and there is a perception of
success, public opinion will lean toward the Commander-in-Chief.
Critics of our Iraq policy are threatened by simplistic charges
of being soft on defense and not supporting the troops. Congress
can be expected to be partisan, but each Senator and Representative
will have to dea l— regardless of the success or failure
of the operation — with the tremendous financial costs
of the Iraq war and its aftermath.
Is it the end of the road, or a new beginning? The attempt
by the Bush Administration to lay low and stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian
fray was never feasible. Obliged to Britain’s Prime Minister
Tony Blair for his support on Iraq, President Bush finally released
the Road Map and a few months later took a major and decisive
step by explicitly calling for the creation of a Palestinian
state. While there have been signs that the President’s
intention was genuine, there has been little evidence of the
political will to do what needs to be done.
The commitment of the Sharon government toward the West Bank
and Gaza settlements shows little sign of lessening, despite
entreaties from the United States and the requirements of the
Road Map. Israel’s building of the separation wall will
be a prominent issue in early 2004. Photos of the wall —
in some places a massive concrete structure 25 feet high —
are readily interpreted by both U.S. officials and ordinary
people as odious, and its snake-like line on maps as making
impossible a contiguous Palestinian state.
While the Administration may want again to place Israeli-Palestinian
dealings in the deep freeze, it may decide to revitalize the
Road Map as a counter to the Geneva Accord and Nusseibeh/Ayalon
public petition. It is expected that the issue of the Palestinian
refugees’ rights and future, an element of both peace
initiatives, will be a prominent and hot topic in the region,
the U.N. and the United States.
If the Sharon government were to fall, there would be an additional
reason for placing on hold the difficult compromises that peacemaking
could bring. Meanwhile, the desperate economic and societal
situation of the Palestinians worsens, with the fledgling Palestinian
Authority losing public confidence that the promise of the vital
democratic state can be realized.
As Congress resumes work in January, there are constructive
resolutions on the table that lend support to peacemaking (Capps/Houghton
resolution in support of Middle East Peace H.Res.479, and Feinstein/Chafee
resolution in support of Middle East Peace S.Res.279).
It is customary for presidential campaigns to bring out the
worst of political pandering, with pledges to move the U.S.
embassy to Jerusalem being a favored ploy. Despite his campaign
promise to move the embassy, President Bush has dutifully signed
a national security waiver every six months as did President
Clinton before him. Candidate Richard Gephardt has reopened
this can of worms by saying, in an interview with the New York
Jewish weekly Forward, that the embassy could be moved without
delay before any peace deal is in place.
Diplomacy May Replace Bombastic Bravado
The terrible earthquake in Iran may provide the impetus for
the United States to resume talks with Iran under U.N. auspices.
Bush cast Iran as part of the “axis of evil” in
his 2002 State of the Union address. Since then the Bush Administration
has reviewed its policy on Iran, and come to an impasse, three
times.
But things have changed. The Administration has agreed to
use diplomatic engagement with North Korea as the means to combat
its deadly weapons. Libya has agreed to surrender its weapons
of mass destruction programs. And, most significantly, Iran
has agreed to allow surprise inspections of its nuclear program.
Syria is the only country on the State Department’s
list of state sponsors of terrorism with which the United States
has diplomatic relations. Observers note that this keeps the
door open for a resumption of negotiations with Israel over
the Golan Heights and provides for those spurts of U.S.-Syrian
cooperation in terrorism matters and common interests. Nevertheless,
fears remain among some pundits that Syria is next on the U.S.
hit list, especially following Israel’s October bombing
in retaliation for a suicide attack in Haifa.
Among the issues of contention with Syria loom the pursuit
of ballistic weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Congress
passed legislation in late 2003 that requires the Administration
to impose sanctions on Syria. It is speculated that President
Bush will choose, in 2004, to exercise the national security
waiver provided in the bill so that sanctions will not be imposed.
Can a Common Security Concept Replace the Threat
of Annihilation? It has long been proposed that the
Middle East become a region free of weapons of mass destruction,
but that proposal has never been taken seriously by U.S. leaders.
The consensus from Middle East experts is that almost every
country in the region has pursued weapons of mass destruction.
According to Joseph Cirincione, who heads the nonproliferation
program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, countries
have done so primarily because of the arsenal that Israel has
built-up. He told Washington Post writer Walter Pincus in April:
“You can’t get rid of chemical or biological or
nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you also address the
elimination of Israel’s nuclear and chemical programs.”
It is clear that the many issues related to Middle East conflicts
must be dealt with concurrently through a comprehensive peace
process. Following the 1991 war with Iraq, a conference in Madrid
launched an international process that combined bilateral talks
between the warring parties and multilateral working groups
to deal with regional issues. Working groups on regional arms
control and refugees were established then but set aside when
the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo peace process began in 1993.
Looking Ahead into 2004 It is sad to
say but it is likely to be true that the less said by campaigning
candidates about the Middle East, the better. There are no glib
slogans appropriate for the complexities and sensitivities that
characterize the interrelated issues at the heart of the Israeli-Arab
conflict and the region’s nascent democratization.
Those who take up the cause of championing Middle East peace
should do so with a sense of persistent commitment and be steadfast
in our love and compassion for the Palestinians living under
occupation and as refugees, for the Israelis living in fear
and isolation, for the Muslim youth deprived of opportunity
and freedom, for those Arab leaders seeking to modernize their
nations and for all who pray that peace will prevail. |
