Sham summit

Published : Jan 04, 2008 00:00 IST

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, at the opening session of the Annapolis Conference on November 27. - GERALD HERBERT/AP

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, at the opening session of the Annapolis Conference on November 27. - GERALD HERBERT/AP

The Annapolis Conference on West Asia proves to be nothing more than a cosmetic exercise initiated by a lame-duck presidency.

In the last week of November, President George W. Bush hosted a West Asia peace summit at the United States naval facility of Annapolis in Maryland. But the Bush administrations eleventh hour efforts to resurrect the West Asia peace talks have attracted more ridicule than praise worldwide. Observers note that Bush thought about reviving the peace process only when his administration was reduced to lame-duck status. He has only one more year as President and his own Republican Party is trying to distance itself from his legacy.

During his seven years in office, Bush was preoccupied with invading Iraq and Afghanistan rather than finding a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is the most avowed pro-Israeli President the U.S. has ever seen. Bowing to the wishes of the Israeli establishment, Bush had put a freeze on the peace talks. Arabs have not forgotten that it was the Bush administration that gave the green signal to Israel to invade Lebanon in 2006 and destroy the infrastructure of the country. Now Bush is trying to cast himself in the role of an honest broker who will help expedite a two-state solution to end the Israel-Arab conflict. Even before the summit started, a West Asia expert, David Markosky of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, was quoted as saying that expectations from the Annapolis summit are lower than the Dead Sea.

Although sceptical about the motives of the Americans, the Arab states accepted the invitation to attend the one-day summit. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to travel many times to Arab capitals to convince the leaders of the key Arab states to attend the summit. Saudi Arabia initially voiced reservations about its participation but later relented. Syria, which threatened to boycott the summit, finally sent a Deputy Foreign Minister after the Bush administration agreed to put the Golan issue on the agenda, as it had demanded. Interestingly, both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had predicted that the summit was doomed to failure.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The Syria-Israel peace talks broke down in 2000 after Israel insisted on keeping most of the Syrian territory it had annexed. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad said in Annapolis that Syria continued to be in favour of the Saudi Arabian peace initiative, which offered Arab recognition of Israel provided the Jewish state withdrew from the occupied territories.

The Hamas leadership, too, has emphasised on several occasions that it is willing to coexist with Israel provided it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders. But the Bush administration continues to turn a blind eye as Israel keeps on building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Uri Avnery, the perceptive Israeli writer and peace activist, recently wrote that in the U.S. the Jewish and evangelical lobbies, together with the neo-cons, will not allow one critical word about Israel to go unpunished.

Although more than 40 nations, including India and Pakistan, participated in the summit, Iran did not find a place at the table. India, which was quick to accept the last-minute invitation, was represented by Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal. Many experts said that the timing of the conference was dictated more by the Bush administrations concerns about Iran than to find a solution to the crisis in West Asia.

Many leading Arab states are wary of Irans growing influence in the region. Saudi officials are of the view that the unresolved issue of Palestine is further bolstering Irans image in the region. Iran is a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause. Iran and Syria are among the strongest supporters of Hizbollah, which inflicted an improbable military defeat on the Israeli military in 2006. Both the countries are also supporters of Hamas, which controls Gaza and is the democratically elected voice of the Palestinian people. Hamas was not invited for the talks. The International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank, said that one of the main purposes of the Annapolis summit was isolating Hamas. The game plan of the U.S., Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) President Mahmoud Abbas did not find favour with many of the key participants. Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal said that Hamas should have been invited. Peace cannot be made by one man or half a people, he said. Israel has placed an economic blockade on Gaza, which is under total Hamas control. The Hamas spokesman said that Abbas had no right to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. Many in Abbass Fatah Party, which is in control of the West Bank, voiced similar opinions. There were demonstrations against the Annapolis summit in both Gaza and the West Bank. The majority of Palestinians believe that the Palestinian delegation led by Abbas had no right to negotiate with Israel as he was not backed by a national consensus. Israel has stated that under no circumstances will it countenance the right of return for the millions of Palestinians. Israel has been engaged in ethnic cleansing on a large scale since 1948.

A joint statement, which pledged that Israel and the P.A. led by Abbas would restart talks, was issued at the end of the talks. Read out by Bush, flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas, it expressed the hope of resolving the 59-year-old dispute before the end of Bushs term. We agree to immediately launch good faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements, it said.

Though December 12 was set as the date for the talks to begin, no deadline for a final agreement was set. The joint statement talks of both sides making every effort to reach a peace deal by the end of 2008, but the declaration is short on specifics. There is no talk of the shape of the Palestinian state that would emerge and it is silent on contentious issues such as borders, refugees, Israeli settlements and the status of Jerusalem.

What the statement emphasises is that the implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States. This in effect means that the U.S. will be the sole judge on whether the Palestinians are sticking to the road map. The role of the Quartet, in which the United Nations, the U.S., Russia and the European Union are equal partners, will be diminished further, leaving the Palestinians at the mercy of Israel and its chief patron the U.S.

In his opening remarks, Bush lectured the Palestinians on the need to convince the world that a Palestinian state will accept its responsibility, and have the capability to be a source of stability and peace for its own citizens, for the people of Israel. Bushs only request to the Israeli side was to remove unauthorised outposts, end settlement expansion and find other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its authority without compromising Israels security. The Washington Post quoted senior White House staffers as saying that the President had no intention of pressuring Israel into making concessions.

The U.S. officials said that they remained sceptical of the ability of the Palestinians to make meaningful concessions for achieving peace. The Israelis trust Bush if they are going to take any chances, theyd rather do it with him rather than his successor, the officials were quoted as saying.

The Israeli trust in Bush was not misplaced. In a statement at the summit, he described Israel as the national homeland of the Jews. This will give Israel the justification to expel the remaining Palestinians on its territory. In his speech, Bush did not bother to refer to the Arab peace initiative of 2002, thus snubbing the Arab Foreign Ministers present in Annapolis.

To add insult to injury, he said that his letter to the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was an important step in the peace process. In that letter, Bush agreed with the Israeli position on refusing Palestinians the right of return and supported Israels annexation of Palestinian land.

Prior to the Annapolis summit, the Israeli Knesset had approved a Bill barring any agreement to divide Jerusalem. Israel has been insisting that its obligations under the U.S.-sponsored road map will only be implemented after the P.A. suppresses all anti-Israeli violence, including fighting terrorism and dismantling terrorist networks. On top of the Israeli demands is the suppression of the democratically elected Hamas which the Israelis and the U.S. have labelled as terrorists.

The other important demand, which the Israeli government has been making, is that the P.A. recognise Israel as a Jewish state. Olmert wanted this recognition to be effected before the Annapolis summit. He initially threatened not to show up in Annapolis if this recognition was not granted. So far, the P.A. has refused to budge on this issue, despite pressure from the White House, as reflected by Bushs statement in Annapolis. Recognising Israel as a Jewish state means that Palestinians would have to give up the right of return.

The Israeli side has reasons to be happy with the outcome. Olmert and other senior Israeli officials have already started suggesting that the deadline of 2008 for a peace deal is unrealistic. An Egyptian analyst, Gamel Abdel Gawad of Al Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, said that the Arabs paid the price of the conference in advance by going there. What they got out of the conference were promises and I dont think that they are credible enough, he told The Los Angeles Times. A columnist for a pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat, was even more forthright. He wrote that Arab leaders had taken part in the worlds biggest deception process whereby the fundamental issues are put on hold for the sake of a conference to show off and take pictures.

Meanwhile, the Zionist dream of establishing a greater Israel is being steadily implemented. The apartheid wall being constructed by the Israeli government is expanding at a fast rate, gobbling up more Palestinian territory and dividing communities into small enclaves. Today, Palestinians control only 54 per cent of the West Bank. The Annapolis Conference could end up legitimising Israeli occupation.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment