April/May 1992, Page 33

Diplomacy

Peace Talks Apparently to Continue Despite Elections

By Eugene Bird

"Now that all sides have laid out their positions, it is time for them to engage in serious negotiations."
-Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 17, 1992

U.S. President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker 3rd seem committed to keeping face-to-face peace negotiations between Israel and the Arabs active throughout the election campaigns now underway in both Israel and the United States. After discovering that even in an election year Bush is determined to link any loan guarantees to the peace process, Israel appears unlikely to carry out its threat to delay further talks until after the election. Shamir needs the guarantees. Similarly, the Palestinians and Syrians were threatening as usual not to attend further talks, but there were clear private signals that, if pressed, they would attend a fifth round whenever it is scheduled.

Some real issues were addressed at the fourth round, ending March 4. But the basic conflict between U.N. Security Council Resolution 242's "Land for Peace" formula and Israel's insistence on "Peace for Peace" remains.

Labor: Peace Talks a "Charade"

Not only the Palestinians but Israeli Labor party leaders have described the peace talks up to this point as a "charade." As Hiam Ramon, chairman of the Labor Knesset faction, put it, "Instead of cursing each other at the United Nations, we curse in Washington." MK Ramon made clear in late March that a Labor government would do things differently. It would actually condemn any annexation of the occupied territories, and Labor favors a freeze on settlements there, he indicated.

"Likud believes that it can reach peace, have annexation and achieve the dream of greater Israel. But this deam is a nightmare to Israel," Ramon told a sympathetic audience at the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute of Near East Policy. Absorption of two million Arabs into Israel would defeat the concept of Zionism, he said.

But the Labor party hopes the peace talks will demonstrate Likud failure before the June 23 elections. Labor hopes to show that there would be little chance of a change toward land for peace in negotiations conducted by Likud or even by a Likud-Labor coalition government. However, if Labor won enough seats (45 or more) to be able to create a coalition with some of the peace parties together with Likud defectors and some Arab deputies, that would make possible a change in policy towards the West Bank and Gaza.

Late February polls for the first time showed Labor leading Likud by 36 seats to 35, with Democratic Israel at 15 seats, and the three peace parties stuck at only six seats. Likud has lost 9 seats in the polls since November 1991.

All are urging strongly that the parties stay "engaged."

But Prime Minister Shamir and his Likud head today's Israeli government that will participate in the peace talks during the election campaign. In the talks, which already have had a deep but unpredictable impact on Israeli politics, progress in Israeli negotiations with Jordan, Syria and Lebanon depends totally on progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza.

So far the Israeli offer on interim self-government for Palestinians is almost entirely technical and refers to the Palestinians as "Arab residents of the territories." In substance, aside from calling for talks in 12 technical areas, including ceding only "gradually" to the new interim authority the power to make appointments of administrative personnel, the Israeli proposal submitted at the most recent round of talks makes the following points:

• No territory is at issue and even the right to drill wells will be kept with the Israeli government.

• Israel reserves for itself the right to maintain security, although local police may be allowed.

• The Palestinians will have no authority over Israeli citizens in the West Bank, nor any rights over Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

• All current legislation will remain in force.

The head of the Palestinian delegation, Dr. Haidar Abdel Shafi, responded to this first Israeli plan with a memorandum, unpublished in the American press, which made the following points:

• The Israeli proposal is only a cover for "de facto" annexation of the territories.

• It creates "double standards and a double legal system. . . achieving nothing but apartheid."

• It violates the Camp David accords, international law and the U.N. resolutions in saying that the "arrangements will have no territorial validity" and in failing to withdraw Israeli forces and to recognize Palestinian rights, both specified in the accords.

Dr. Abdel Shafi suggested instead serious discussion on the Palestinian self-government proposal (see the March issue of the Washington Report).

Israel has provided no written reaction to the Palestinian Interim Self-Governing Authority, but Israeli delegation spokespersons rejected PISGA in total by the fourth round of the peace talks.

A Significant New Initiative

In a significant new initiative in mid-March, PLO leader Yasser Arafat discussed with King Hussein a possible confederation between the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. In fact, this proposal originated in Washington, among advisers to the Palestinian delegation during the fourth round, as a means of placing further pressure on Israel in the talks.

The combinations of proposals and technical "fixes" that might be invented at the negotiating table by the Israelis and Palestinians are so many that some valid agreements could emerge between the parties. At least that is the hope in the State Department.

The many possibilities give Secretary of State James Baker an opportunity for some real impact on the next and succeeding rounds of talks, if he chooses to use it.

The Palestinians and Syrians clearly have real doubts about the wisdom of continuing the talks during the Israeli election campaign, but there are powerful incentives.

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt on the Arab side, and the United States, Russia and the European nations all are urging strongly that the parties stay "engaged."

For George Bush, the risk of failed Middle East peace negotiations in the middle of his re-election effort so far has not dampened his deep commitment to keeping the parties at the peace table during a long, hot political summer. It is a high risk, high stakes game for both Baker and Bush, but one they apparently feel comfortable in playing.

Eugene Bird, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >