 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 April 2000 Issue No. 478 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 April 2000 Issue No. 478
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Heritage Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Reaching a state of peace
By Amr Moussa
Two decades ago, Egypt tabled a bold vision of peace for the Middle East. Since that time, with the help of our friends, we have signed, led, negotiated, facilitated, brokered, corrected and supported many agreements to realise this vision. Today, we have no illusion about the difficulties that still lie ahead or about the indispensable requisites for a just and comprehensive peace.
The time has come for a new vision for the Middle East. It is always difficult to predict the future, for it often surprises us. Still, opportunities to rethink, reshape, and even recreate the Middle East from many perspectives demand our attention. A large opening for creative action is appearing before us -- an opening that necessarily requires bold leadership. Today, there are more questions than answers, but it is in asking these questions that we can prepare the ground for this new vision.
We cannot address this vision fruitfully, however, without looking at the current prospects of the peace process. A just and comprehensive resolution to the 50-year-long Arab-Israeli conflict could usher in a new era of interaction in the Middle East.
As I look at the prospects for the peace process at this stage, I see two elements that are distinct yet interrelated: "peace", and the "process of peace". Peace is a state of being; the process is a mechanism by which the region can reach this state.
As we approach what we hope will be the final chapter of the Arab-Israeli conflict, we must ask ourselves some obvious questions. How can we ensure that the "process" will truly lead to the state of "peace" in the Middle East? Will a successful conclusion to the "process" be our last hope -- significant as it may be -- or will it be a step that needs to be followed by others on the road to higher levels of "regional normalcy"? Moreover, is the "process" the only avenue to "peace and stability" in the Middle East as a whole, or are there other avenues that need to be explored?
We need to look into the future and ask ourselves: What next? What are the requirements for "peace" through and beyond the "process"?
The "process" -- the mechanism -- has been in place since the Madrid peace conference of 1991. Its terms of reference are clear: Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338; the principle of land for peace; addressing the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people; and the right of all the Middle East states, Israel included, to live within secure and recognised boarders.
The "process" has also a code of conduct for its parties to abide by. This code has been elaborated on the basis of the fact that Arabs and Israelis live together in one region, and that their security can be ensured only through just and fair agreements. Therefore, the parties to this "process" must act in a spirit of partnership and confidence. They need to show mutual respect and recognise their common interests. The parties should not think of their "process" as a zero-sum game.
Since Madrid, the process has had its ups and downs. A careful examination of its history so far is bound to demonstrate a simple fact: progress was only made when the terms of reference were respected and the code of conduct upheld.
Meanwhile, unfortunate failures resulted from short-sighted political aims. Failure in the "process" was the outcome of procrastination in implementation and the subsequent breakdown of confidence. Ignoring the principle of land for peace and engaging in aggressive settlement activities also led to serious failures. Frustration is running high among the people of the region. There is a sense of disappointment due to constant delays in implementation. This should not be underestimated.
Faith in the credibility of the "process" has been seriously undermined, particularly after the recent Israeli bombing of Lebanon. We must work hard to remedy this situation. Hope must be restored.
The logic and rationale of the "process" as designed in Madrid are sound. If adhered to in good faith, it can lead the region to just and lasting peace agreements that will close the file of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Moreover, "peace" in its comprehensive sense as a regional state of being is a broad concept. Therefore, a successful conclusion of the "process" should not be the end of the road, but rather a solid foundation for a future of stability and prosperity for the Middle East.
This endeavour entails diverse undertakings: among other things, regional security, economic interaction and positive collective integration in the new "global market."
In this respect, it is crucial to resolve the arms situation in the Middle East. Peace, security and stability cannot endure in the absence of a solution to the current qualitative and quantitative levels of armament, and the severe imbalance between Israel and its neighbours.
This imbalance, particularly in the area of nuclear-related legal obligations and commitments is simply unsustainable. We cannot proceed with a situation where all the states in the region but one are committed indefinitely to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is the only country that continues to refuse inspectors access to its facilities.
This situation permeates the Middle East with a sense of strategic insecurity. It threatens to set in motion a spiralling arms race. This seriously conflicts with our efforts to reduce tension and increase stability.
We must strive to create a regional system that ensures regional security for all at the lowest level of armament. This includes the establishment of arms control and reduction schemes. It also includes the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, a network of confidence-building measures is necessary.
A working group on arms control and regional security was established to serve this purpose. A multilateral track meeting in Moscow last February emphasised the need to draw up a comprehensive agenda in this respect.
For this purpose, it called for dialogue among the parties with the help of the co-sponsors. We are ready to engage in such a dialogue, and hope that Israel will respond in kind. In this regard, it is important to emphasise that Egypt addresses this question in the framework of regional security, not in that of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Meanwhile, regional cooperation in economic, commercial and environmental fields is another "peace" endeavour to be addressed. Interaction among the peoples of the Middle East must cement the agreement we hope to conclude. We must work to reach a stage where our borders will be open for the free movement of peoples, trade, capital and investment. This would secure regional stability for all parties. It would also facilitate the integration of the Middle East economy into the new "global economy."
The successful conclusion of the peace process will create a new atmosphere in the Middle East. This may require new regional arrangements, structures and fora. It must be clear, however, that such new structures must not aim to replace existing ones; the Arab League, in particular, has been and will always remain the manifestation of an existing and enduring Arab identity.
It must also be clear that no new arrangements can be made until the armament situation is addressed effectively. Regional arrangements must be built on equality and balance. The Arab-Israeli conflict must not be transformed into a dispute over regional hegemony or domination.
Meanwhile, the current Arab-Israeli negotiations should be re-energised. For this to happen, we need to move beyond the promise-making stage to the phase of concluding just and comprehensive settlements.
We believe this goal can only be attained through the adherence of all parties to the land for peace principle. This means the right of the Palestinian people to establish their own viable state, and an Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon and the Golan Heights.
We hope to make real progress on all the tracks of the peace process. This will reinforce acceptance of Israel. In this respect, the role of the United States is pivotal. The US commands the confidence of all parties. The Egyptian-Israeli experience is a very significant example. The United States must remain fully engaged in the process during these critical months.
There is no doubt that the successes Egypt and the US have achieved together in the peace process are the crown jewels of Egyptian-American cooperation. It is also clear that Egyptian and US diplomats have dedicated themselves fully to achieving peace in the Middle East -- and it has been worth every minute.
When addressing the vital relations between Egypt and the US, I find it necessary to clarify a few points that are often confused. First, it is a mistake to confine the Egypt-US partnership to the scope of the peace process. Egyptian-American relations go far beyond this front to encompass historical, political, military, economic and environmental dimensions. One example is the joint work on operations in Somalia and Bosnia.
Another misconception is that the peace process gave Egypt its position of regional leadership. On the contrary, it was Egypt's leadership, along with that of the US, which helped give this process some of the successes it has witnessed to date. This is due to Egypt's demographic, geopolitical, cultural and intellectual influence, of course, but also to two fundamental facts: the vision Egypt holds for a better future for the region, and its resolute belief in the importance of taking a stand guided by clear vision in times of crisis.
A third misconception worth clarifying is that Egypt-US relations are a one-sided operation. The fact of the matter is that this partnership is vital for the US in the Middle East, now and in the future. For the past two decades, this relationship has been the driving force behind regional peace, stability and prosperity. Egypt's historical and cultural legacy has given it a special role from the African shores of the Atlantic to the Gulf and to the heart of Africa -- an area of great strategic interest to the US.
Egypt appreciates American assistance, which has benefited Egyptian economic reform programme and helped give birth to a vigorous private sector. It has also encouraged the development of a vast network of economic interests. But it should also be stated that for every dollar of US assistance, Egypt imports around $4 worth of US products. Again, the Egyptian-American relationship has served both countries well.
On military cooperation, officers on both sides affirm that Egyptian and US establishments work together in a way that reflects increasing understanding and appreciation of joint priorities. Operation Bright Star is one of the largest military exercises the US has embarked upon with any of its foreign partners.
It should also be made clear that the road between Washington and Cairo is a straight one. Egyptian-US strategic ties are crucial in their own right and should not be held hostage to any other relationship, for this will not only undermine mutual interests, but even jeopardise regional stability as a whole.
The sphere of agreement and understanding between Egypt and the United States far exceeds any areas of difference. The argument that Egypt and the US need to agree on all issues so as not to weaken their ties is wrong, however. Differences between Cairo and Washington on certain issues are to be expected. After all, the US is a global power with international interests. Egypt, meanwhile, is a regional power whose interests are closely linked to the Arab and Muslim worlds, the African continent and the Mediterranean. It has a bedrock of experience in the Middle East. Egypt's assessment of regional events helps the cause of stability and prosperity -- a cause both the US and Egypt hold dear. This said, Egypt appreciates the US's vision and recognises its global leadership. Together, Egypt, the US and other concerned parties can help to bring stability to the Middle East. In fact comprehensive peace and stability are integral components of a new vision for this region.
