Day: October 10, 2013
One-state, two-states
The Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) hosted a conference Wednesday discussing a question not usually asked in polite company: “Two States or One?” Challenging the usual presumption that a two-state solution is necessary and sufficient, Thomas Mattair, Executive Director of MEPC, described the Israel/Palestine conflict as one that has severely affected both sides, with countless lives destroyed for the sake of “a pile of rocks called the Holy Land. Call it idolatry.” The panel included four speakers, with two advocates for each solution.
Ian Lustick, professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “Two State Illusion,” believes that a two state outcome is possible but will not happen as a result of negotiations, which only perpetuate divisions that already exist. The odds are against the two-state solution because of the increasing Islamization of the region and the influence of the Israeli lobby on US foreign policy. The route to a two-state solution is not through negotiations, but through “rough politics.” History has shown that civil wars and revolutions, rather than negotiations, have led to the formation of democratic states. They also produce a result that no one would have expected. Lustick does not advocate a one-state solution but sees one already in place. There are slim prospects for a two-state solution in the absence of a huge political shift.
Also arguing for a one-state solution was Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center. He believes the negotiations have never been further from a two-state solution than they are now – it is a one-state reality. The one-state advocates are mostly concerned with ensuring the rights of Israelis and Palestinians are afforded to all equally. He sees and debunks 3 myths in the ongoing negotiation rhetoric:
- Middle East peace is a vital US security interest, or the US will be at a greater risk of attack if Israel is not protected. He explains that a vital security interest means that the US would get involved militarily, which is not necessarily the case.
- It is in Israel’s interest to end the occupation. In reality, Israel reaps many benefits from the occupation, including many resources from the West Bank.
- The status quo is unsustainable. On the contrary, Israeli occupation is sustainable and profitable. The US is supporting the status quo diplomatically and financially.
He does not see the negotiations yielding a just solution; rather, Israel will continue to impose its will as the stronger power with the backing of the US. Thus, Munayyer concludes that Israel has no reason to change this one-state reality because there is no outside pressure to do so.
On the other hand, President of J-Street Jeremy Ben-Ami argues for a two-state solution. He sees a necessity for a Jewish homeland and the justice of its existence. There will only be justice, peace and security for the Jewish people if there is justice, peace and security for the Palestinians as well. This has been a conflict between two groups who have legitimate, yet conflicting, rights to the same piece of land. The only viable option: division of the land between the two groups. The one-state “nightmare” would not give both groups equal rights. The two-state solution would allow both groups to have national self-determination, security and independence from one another. He sees real hope for the two-state solution with Secretary Kerry’s renewed energy for negotiations.
Finally, Ahmad Samih Khalidi, Senior Associate Member of St. Anthony’s College at Oxford University, sees the Palestinian conflict as the convergence of many conflicts, including ethnic tensions and national conflicts with a global resonance because of the historicity of its location as well as Israel’s international support. The two-state solution is nothing new. It was adopted by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1988 and was rejected by Israel and the US for decades after. However, now it is the only common ground among the US, PLO and Israel. There can be no other negotiated solution. However, it will be difficult to create a just and sustainable solution that factors all the issues such as the division of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Khalidi does not see a one-state or two-state dichotomy. There could eventually be a union in one-state, after the establishment of two separate states.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cross-strait optimism 2, with a twist
Jonas Brown continues his report on an all day conference last week at the Carnegie Endowment:
The third panel discussed cross-strait relations in a regional context. Yann-Huei Song, a research fellow at Academia Sinica in Taiwan, highlighted the complexity of Taiwan’s position in the region. Taipei must negotiate tense multilateral conflicts in the East and South China Seas while simultaneously maintaining a pro-U.S. orientation and developing delicate cross-strait ties with Beijing. He suggested that President Ma’s East China Sea peace initiative could be applied in the South China Sea and that Taiwan’s role in ICAO and other international organizations provide a precedent for Taipei’s participation in devising a South China Sea code of conduct.
Chyungly Lee, research fellow at the Institute of International Relations and professor at National Chengchi University in Taiwan, observed that American “rebalancing” had succeeded in strengthening regional organizations in the Asia-Pacific, leading to more action-oriented coordination between states, with a particular increase in functional security cooperation. This trend has benefitted the entire region as well as the US, suggesting that greater participation by Taiwan in regional organizations and agreements would only enhance these benefits.
Michael Auslin, director of Japan Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said that a paradigm-shift has occurred in cross-strait relations since the end of the Cold War. Cross-strait relations were initially the focus of US interests in the region and a key rationale for the “Asia pivot,” but cross-strait rapprochement has brought Taipei into the mainstream of regional politics. Ma’s approach to Beijing resembles that of other regional leaders: defusing tensions while also attempting to maintain a balance of power. Regional dynamics—not the US role—are now the central factor influencing cross-strait relations.
Renmin University professor Canrong Jin emphasized Beijing’s satisfaction and optimism regarding both cross-strait relations and China’s role in the region. With the exception of China’s dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, a sense of calm and promise pervades in Beijing, despite a widely held, anxious perception that right-wing nationalism is on the rise in Japan. Anxiety about American “rebalancing” has eased because U.S.-Russia relations and the struggling U.S. economy are both viewed as checks on American assertiveness in Asia.
Commentator Michael Swaine, senior associate at CEIP, questioned the tendency by many observers to view cross-strait relations as an indicator of Chinese and American positions on other issues. He noted in particular the—in his view—unsubstantiated talk about risk to US credibility in the region should the US shift its position on cross-strait relations or the East/South China Sea territorial disputes. This line of reasoning reminds him of Vietnam War-era domino thinking. More highly nuanced, contextualized scholarship is needed in this area, Swaine said.
The fourth panel covered “Domestic Developments in Mainland China.” Chih-Chieh Chou, a professor at National Cheng Kung University, outlined the dilemmas faced by the current government as it tries to maintain stability while enacting the political reforms necessary to transition to an innovation-based economy. Chou expressed cautious optimism about China’s macroeconomic growth and political reform. He noted areas of progress, such as the growing space for civil society activity, but also acknowledged daunting challenges, including the urban-rural gap, high income inequality, lack of government transparency, and tight government control over resources.
Chung-Min Tsai, a political science professor at National Chengchi University, said it is still too early to assess Xi’s leadership. He questioned the usefulness of Xi’s “Chinese Dream:” Will it lead to concrete, widespread improvement in quality of life, or to is it an empty government fantasy that will simply highlight the chasm between the Chinese people and their government? In an analysis of China’s political and economic trajectory much less optimistic than Chou’s, George Washington University professor David Shambaugh described a sclerotic political system, with no evidence of meaningful political reform and little sign of a successful transition toward an innovation-based economy. He agreed with Tsai that the “Chinese Dream” is an “empty vessel” but suggested that its open-endedness could be positive, allowing for a bottom-up interpretation by China’s intellectual community.
Fan Li, director of the World and China Institute in Beijing, observed steps toward economic liberalization under Xi—including the creation of the Shanghai Free-Trade Zone and greater freedom for private businesses—but contrasted this economic progress with the absence of political reform cited by Shambaugh.
Commentator Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, reemphasized the fundamental contradiction between recent attempts to both strengthen the private sector and centralize political power. Recognizing the complexity of his domestic challenges, Xi has made de-escalation of tensions with the U.S. the touchstone of his foreign policy, so that he can concentrate on consolidating his personal control and revivifying the Communist Party.
RSS - Posts
