Tag: Israel/Palestine
Well managed conflicts are hard to resolve
This makes sense of course. Why bother paying the high price resolution usually entails if the cost of continuing in conflict is relatively low? We see this happening today in many places: Israel/Palestine, Macedonia/Greece, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Cyprus/Turkey. How should the international community behave in such instances?
Generally the approach has been to continue efforts at resolution, almost no matter what. Depending on how you count, the Israel/Palestine conflict is 65 years old, Macedonia’s conflict with Greece over its name has been subject to mediation for more or less 20 years, the Minsk group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has been working on Armenia and Azerbaijan’s dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh for as long, and UN peacekeepers have been in Cyprus for almost 40 years. It makes economic sense to continue because the international community efforts are relatively cheap compared to the potential consequences of ending them.
But does it make sense in terms of getting to yes? Is the international community’s willingness to continue mediation or peacekeeping efforts inhibiting a solution rather than encouraging one?
That is a difficult judgment to make, but I have my suspicions, especially in the Macedonia/Greece dispute. On the surface, it is a fairly simple one: Greece refuses to accept what it prefers to call “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (or the FYROM) by its constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia). This wouldn’t make much difference except that Greece can (and does) block the FYROM from entering NATO or getting a date to begin negotiations on EU membership, in violation of a 1995 “interim agreement.” The International Court of Justice has found Greece in violation of that agreement but it does not have the ability to enforce its decisions.
For almost 20 years, now UN envoy Matt Nimetz has tried to find a solution. Greece has appeared at times ready to accept a modifier (for example, “North Macedonia”) but wants the agreed name used in all circumstances, including every time it is mentioned in the Macedonian constitution. This isn’t very attractive to Skopje, which already enjoys a world in which everyone but Greece and international organizations call the country Macedonia. Skopje doubts that even if it accepted the Greek parliament would ratify membership in NATO, much less the EU.
This is one spat the world could do without, but nothing the committed and inventive Nimetz has done in 20 years has gotten rid of it. So the question is, should we get rid of the UN envoy, hoping that will give Athens and Skopje ample incentive to cut a deal directly with each other?
I don’t know. There is little likelihood of a solution unless they do, but that is no guarantee they would.
Macedonia’s prime minister has enjoyed a great deal of popularity as a result of his nationalist rhetoric and building program. The only people in Macedonia really unhappy with the current situation are ethnic Albanians, who regard NATO membership as the ultimate guarantee of security and would like to end a dispute that has nothing to do with their own ethnic identity. But Albanians represent close to a quarter of the population. Macedonia is a fragile state that cannot afford to alienate its largest minority.
The Greek prime minister, who was one of the originators of the dispute in the 1990s, has likewise little political incentive to settle it. While there are certainly some Greeks who would like to see the issue resolved, if only to stabilize a neighborhood in which the country has significant investments, they are relatively few. Most Greeks regard ancient Macedonia as quintessentially Greek and are unwilling to see the label hijacked by Slavs.
I don’t want to minimize the importance of this dispute to those most directly involved. Macedonians and Greeks alike regard the issue as profoundly important, as it affects their identities. But is this something the rest of the world should be investing to solve? There is not risk of armed confrontation over this issue. After 20 years, it seems to me the UN would be more than justified to pack in the effort and let the parties to the conflict try to resolve it themselves, or not.
More on other well managed conflicts in future posts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two states are the only solution
On Monday, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted the first public event of The Elders – an international NGO founded by Nelson Mandela that brings together former high-level politicians and statesmen from around the world. Together, this group travels the globe in promoting human rights and democracy. Through their combined efforts and individual networks, The Elders regularly meet with current world leaders and consult with policymakers.
Their current trip to Washington DC is geared to support ongoing efforts in favor of a diplomatic solution in Syria and US Secretary of State John Kerry’s push for resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. At Carnegie, three members of the elders, former US President Jimmy Carter, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, and former Algerian Foreign Minister and special envoy to the UN Lakhdar Brahimi spoke about their efforts and their expectations for the near and long-term future in an event titled “Can the two-state solution be saved?”.
The three former statesmen remain hopeful about both Israel/Palestine and the situation in Syria. Regarding direct negotiations, President Carter was quick to mention the internal constraints that both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas face. Each is confronted with domestic pressures not to negotiate. Netanyahu’s governing coalition includes right-of-center parties opposed to final-status agreements. Meanwhile, Abbas’ Fatah party faces pressure from Hamas, whose charter does not recognize Israel. Each side has committed to putting any final peace treaty up to a national referendum.
Brahimi spoke of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria. He noted that nearly 6,000 new refugees flee Syria each day. He is hopeful that the Geneva II conference will regain momentum and urged all parties to abstain from further violence as a duty to Syria’s people, culture, and history. Brahimi believes that the continued civil war is turning into an effort to destroy Syria’s past, present and future.
President Ahtisaari spoke of the linkages between the two conflicts and the role that the West can have vis-à-vis Iran. Ahtisaari encouraged greater cooperation between the P5 and Iran. He believes that the new Iranian government under Rouhani provides an opportunity for a restart with Iran.
The Elders are an impressive group. Their personal experiences and flexibility as independent advisors unconnected to any government provides them with unique access and insight into current global challenges. Yet, even after a Q&A session it remains unclear how the three speakers feel about the future of the two-state solution. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Washington stretched
It is difficult to see Secretary Kerry’s announcement that Israel and Palestine have agreed tentatively to meet at an unspecified date to talk about talks as worthy of the news coverage it has gotten. The headlines really signify how far the two sides have drifted apart after a three-year negotiating hiatus in their more than six decades of conflict.
Nevertheless, hiding in the New York Times account is a hint of what the deal behind the modest news may be. Kerry it says
…apparently won concessions on the new framework, which American, Israeli and Palestinian officials said would allow Washington to declare the 1967 prewar borders as the basis for the talks — along with the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state — but allow Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas to distance themselves from those terms.
This is clever, if ironic. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu last year excoriated President Obama for talking about the 1967 prewar borders. Now he is agreeing to American allegiance to that idea as the basis for the talks, along with American recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, one of his favorite hobby horses. Not a bad deal from Netanyahu’s perspective.
Not too bad from Palestinian President Abbas’ either. He wants the 1967 prewar borders to be the basis, so as to ensure that any divergence from them gives the Palestinians at least quantitatively equivalent swaps. He also gets release of some Palestinian prisoners, though it is unclear yet how many and who they will be. The hard pill for him to swallow is recognition of Israel as an explicitly Jewish state, but even that has a silver lining: Israel needs to ensure its Jewishness by enabling the creation of a Palestinian state. Otherwise the demographic expansion of Palestinians is a serious long-term threat.
There is of course still a long way to go before an overall settlement is reached: specific land swaps, Jerusalem, security, the right of return for Palestinians. But we’ll get a pretty good idea of whether this initiative is going anywhere if Israel begins to limit Jewish settlement activity. That is difficult for Netanyahu, as he has within his governing coalition people who want to retain the entire West Bank. It is also his “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (BATNA), as he can pursue it unilaterally (even if ultimately it would create an Israel that is neither Jewish nor democratic).
The Palestinian BATNA was pursuing membership in international organizations as a non-UN member state. Palestine succeeded at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), where the Americans are refusing to pay dues as a result. This may lead to suspension of US voting rights this fall, something my cultured and well-educated friends think is a really bad idea. However that works out, it appears the Palestinians have already decided to go slow in applying for other memberships, under a lot of pressure from the Americans and presumably the Europeans as well. US suspension from the World Health Organization would have many more practical and detrimental ramifications than suspension from UNESCO, which will also hamper many good programs.
More power to John Kerry if he has managed to put together a negotiation on the basis of 1967 prewar borders and Israel as a Jewish state. But even getting this far seems to have made Washington ignore what is going on in Syria and Egypt, both of which need more American care and attention. Our civilian capacities to conduct foreign policy are seriously stretched.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tabler and Lynch go ten rounds
The Obama administration’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels is controversial in Washington. While some support the decision, others consider it “probably [Obama’s] worst foreign policy decision since taking office.” Last week, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy hosted a debate on Arming the Syrian Rebels: Sliding Toward Iraq or Inching Toward Stability. Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute, argued for arming the rebels. On the other side stood Marc Lynch, associate professor at George Washington University and editor of Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel. Robert Satloff, executive director and Howard P. Berkowitz Chair in U.S. Middle East Policy at the Washington Institute, moderated the discussion. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Build, baby, build
In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict there are few issues that create more controversy than the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Many have preconceived notions about these settlements, their inhabitants, and their effect on the potential for comprehensive agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The UN condemns them as human rights violations; the US seeks to limit their expansion; and the EU uncharacteristically remains quiet.
Meanwhile, the Yesha Council, an umbrella political organization that is connected to several of Israel’s parliamentary parties continues to succeed in advancing its settlement building agenda. On Tuesday, Dani Dayan, Yesha’s chief foreign envoy spoke in Washington DC as part of a US tour to connect with American academics and government officials.
Framing his conversation in the context of the 20th anniversary of the Oslo Accords, Dayan comes off as part-historian, part-professional lobbyist, and part-PR man. Engaging a group of diverse political orientations, Mr. Dayan, a successful businessman, is an impressive speaker who understands his audiences and crafts his organization’s message effectively. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The cat is out of the bag
President Obama yesterday announced in Berlin his intention to negotiate with Moscow a reduction of up to one-third in strategic nuclear weapons and an unspecified reduction in tactical nukes deployed in Europe. This ranks as bold, and good. It will certainly be welcomed in Germany and the rest of the European Union, where nuclear weapons have never been popular. The Russians will be reluctant, as they have come to view tactical nuclear weapons as part of their defense against superior Western forces (the opposite was true during the Cold War). As my SAIS colleague Eric Edelman notes, they are also concerned about Chinese, French and British nuclear forces, which could be increased even as Washington and Moscow draw down.
There is also the question of whether we can maintain the credibility of our nuclear deterrent if we draw down to 1000 strategic nukes. My sense is that this is more than adequate for the purpose, but Eric doubts that. He worries about the credibility of our “extended” nuclear umbrella, which covers selected allies. I’d certainly be prepared to hear their complaints, if they have any. My guess is that most of our allies would like to see a further drawdown of nuclear forces.
Former Defense Secretary Bill Perry in a powerful piece about his own personal journey to advocating elimination of nuclear weapons makes a crucial point: Read more
RSS - Posts
