The Annapolis Summit

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Dec,11, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
 

In the last week of November 2007 a US sponsored summit was held at Annapolis in Maryland. Not only the leaders of  Israel and Palestine participated in the summit but many other regional as well as non regional leaders attend in an attempt to find a solution to the  complex Middle East problem. The summit was held in the memorial hall of US Naval Academy in Annapolis. The representatives of 44 nations attended the summit conference though some nations only sent junior level officials. One of the positive outcomes of the summit was that almost all participants agreed to immediate resumption of long stalled peace process in order to find a deal by the end of 2008 towards the creation of an independent Palestine state. Undoubtedly it was the largest conference to resolve the Middle East crisis since the holding of Madrid conference in early 1990s. Perhaps the most attractive feature of this conference was the joint serious efforts of Arabs and Israelis to seek an end to long standing freeze in peace talks and to find an acceptable solution. 

Perhaps the most significant feature of this summit was the participation of Syria which does not recognize Israel and Saudi Arabia which for the first time agreed to sit with Israel to discuss peace. The Saudis came to the summit primarily because of the American efforts who managed to persuade the Saudis to participate in the summit. It would be safe to assume that all those countries that participated in this summit conference went to Annapolis with objective of securing some practical solution to the long standing dispute. The agreed target date coincide with the end of Bush administration which is the end of 2008. There is no doubt that the Americans worked hard towards making this summit a success but it still remains to be seen whether or not the Bush administration is able to attain its objective. 

It is not the first time that Bush has publicly endorsed two state solutions. Few years back at Aqaba President Bush, Palestinian President Abbas and the then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon openly accepted the two state solution but since then not much progress was made towards the attainment of the stated objective. Once again towards end of the last year of Bush administration, the incumbent American leaders have revived the old idea and promised to secure the two state solutions by the end of 2008. The road map given at Annapolis appears to be short as it only entails one year time span. Whether or not the Bush administration is able to attain their objective would certainly depend upon the sincerity of efforts on the part of the Americans. It is a well known fact that if there is any country that could effectively influence Israel and even cause desirable changes in their attitude, however they be distasteful, it is only United States. 

Among the complex problem which would defy resolution include the status of Jerusalem, return of the refugees, the issue of Jewish settlement, the question of apportionment of water resources, the issue of secure border and overall security of Israel etc. Each of these issues has already consumed considerable energies of all those countries that are directly and indirectly involved. Given the past history of efforts to secure an acceptable solution to Middle East’s complex problem, it would not be too far fetched to assume that even this efforts is likely to meet the same fate as the earlier attempts have unless the two countries name the US and the Israel opt for realistic approaches. Israel must realize that they cannot go on for ever in a state of conflict relationships with its Arab neighbors and US needs to make sincere and concerted efforts including maintaining continuous pressures on Israel. 

A dispassionate analysis of the Annapolis does not generate much hope and the message that is coming out points towards it failure. Expecting too much as many Americans would like to project would amount to be reflective of unrealistic attitude. The US is in the throws of presidential electioneering and no leading party would like to annoy the powerful Jewish lobby at least at the moment. If it was administrations first or even second year, then one could expect that the administration could dare to take on the Jewish lobby in US. Many reasons account for the above mentioned conclusion. To begin one must stress that much groundwork was done before convening the conference. For example a code of conduct could have been agreed upon by the major involved players like the US, Israel and the Palestinian Authority that they would refrain from undertaking provocative speeches especially those which can hurt the work of Annapolis. Soon after the conference the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert dismissed the early solution. 

‘We will make an effort to hold speedy negotiations in the hope in the hope we may conclude by the end of 2008 but certainly there is no commitment for a firm timetable  for their completion’, stressed the Israeli Prime Minister soon after the conclusion of the conference to his cabinet. He further elaborate that the most important thing in the joint statement was that any agreement that parties reach in the future would be dependent on completion of all road map commitments. This implied that Israel would not have to implement any commitment which emanates from the agreement before all the roads map commitments have been met. Admittedly such a statement is meant to pacify domestic critics but the impact of such a statement is bound to have adverse impact on the other players. Besides it is a well known fact that Israel has far adamantly refuse to give space on any of the above mention complex issues. On the contrary it is making it even harder for those who are keen to see an early advent of peace in the Middle East.

Optimists in the US believe that the participation of both Syria and Saudi Arabia was not just a good omen but it has given the requisite respectability to the American efforts. Since the Syrian representative gave a positive speech, the American optimist began to see it as a major breakthrough in American-Syrian relations. Americans are keen to see Syrian cooperation in electing a new President in Lebanon. The alternative view stresses that the sincerity and the keenness of the Arabs to solve the age old dispute have become abundantly clear whereas the attitude of Israel continue to arouse suspicions. It remains to be seen how much pressure the Americans are willing to put on the Israelis to modify their stance on issues like the Status of Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements, return of refugees, the border issues etc. So far no tangible progress on these tricky issues has been witnessed. 

All what Annapolis conference has achieved is that it was able to restart the peace process ostensibly in the Middle East but the peace still continues to be an illusive commodity. The key to securing the desired peace is with the US and the US administration must be prepared to monitor progress impartially as it only the American balanced approach that could drive the process onward.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.