MIDEAST: Annapolis Could Fail Before it Begins

By Adam Morrow Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

CAIRO, Nov 14 2007 (IPS) - In the run-up to the upcoming U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace conference, Cairo has continued to express guarded optimism that talks will achieve their stated aim of restarting final status negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Independent observers, however, expect the event to yield little by way of concrete results, especially when it comes to establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

“Like all previous international peace talks, the event will only result in Israeli gains and the maintenance of Zionist supremacy in the region,” Gamal Zahran, political science professor at Suez Canal University and independent member of parliament, told IPS.

The conference was initially proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush in July with the ostensible aim of restarting “serious negotiations towards the creation of a Palestinian state.” Scheduled to convene later this year in the U.S. coastal city of Annapolis in Maryland, the event is expected to include participants from Israel, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Mahmoud Abbas, and a number of other Arab states.

Representatives of Palestinian resistance faction Hamas, which wrested control of the Gaza Strip in mid-June, have not been invited to attend.

From the outset, however, precise details about what issues would top the conference’s agenda have remained vague.

Palestinian negotiators hope the talks will tackle longstanding Palestinian demands, including an Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in 1967, a “just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, has reassured more extreme members of his government coalition that the Annapolis talks would not address any “final status” issues.

Cairo, while supporting the summit in theory, has expressed reservations about the obvious lack of agreement vis-à-vis the event’s agenda. On Aug. 25, President Hosni Mubarak stressed “the need for consensus on all outstanding issues…before the meeting is held.”

Mohamed Basyouni, former Egyptian ambassador to Israel and head of the Shura Council’s committee for Arab affairs, echoed the President’s concerns.

“The summit needs serious preparation to succeed,” Basyouni told IPS at the time. “A specific agenda must be set, we must know exactly who will attend, and a general consensus on the shape of the proposed Palestinian state must be reached.”

In an effort to drum up support for the conference, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has paid several recent visits to Washington’s Arab allies in the region. At an Oct. 16 press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit, Rice insisted that Israeli-Palestinian efforts to forge a common framework for negotiations had achieved a “certain momentum” despite several outstanding differences.

Aboul-Gheit, for his part, expressed guarded optimism, saying that the conference might achieve a breakthrough given “enough determination on the part of the U.S. administration.”

Independent local observers, however, see little reason to be sanguine.

“Until now, talk about the conference has remained shrouded in confusion,” Magdi Hussein, political analyst and secretary-general of the Socialist Labour Party, officially frozen since 2000, told IPS. “There does not appear to be any clear idea on how to make progress, nor does there appear to be any real desire for a breakthrough on the part of Israel.”

Hussein went on to predict that the upcoming conference would amount to little other than “political theatre” by which Israel – with the support of its U.S. patron – stood to leverage diplomatic gains from the Arab world.

“By participating in this conference, Israel is hoping to achieve a degree of diplomatic normalisation with the Arab states without offering any concessions in return,” said Hussein.

Arab capitals have historically used the lure of Arab recognition of Israel as a means of leveraging gains for the Palestinians. Along with Egypt, Jordan and Qatar currently represent the only members of the 22-nation Arab League to officially acknowledge the Jewish state.

Critics of the planned conference also point to the fact that, until now, even the guest list remains open to question. This is particularly the case with Syria, whose participation in the event remains uncertain.

While some Israeli leaders have called for Syrian representation at Annapolis, a number of Israeli parliamentarians continue to adamantly reject the notion. Damascus, for its part, has registered its refusal to take part unless the issue of the Golan Heights – occupied by Israel since 1967 – is on the agenda.

“How can the conference resolve anything when a major Arab party to the conflict like Syria, much of whose territory remains occupied by Israel, is excluded?” asked Zahran.

So far, even the precise date of the event remains undetermined. But as the talks draw closer, many Arab capitals – even those close to Washington – continue to warn of the potentially dire consequences of failure.

On Oct. 22, Mubarak cautioned that failure at Annapolis “would have serious repercussions for the Middle East and further afield.” Quoted in Austrian daily Der Standard, Mubarak added that the region “can’t bear another disappointment” on the Israeli-Palestinian peace track.

Amman, too, has expressed concern over the conference’s shaky prospects. On Nov. 4, Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Ilah Khatib was quoted as saying that a breakdown at Annapolis could lead to the spread of “anarchy and extremism” in the region.

According to Zahran, continued deadlock at the conference would represent a “catastrophe” – not least for Palestinian Authority President Abbas, “who desperately needs something positive” to justify his longstanding policy of accommodation with Israel. “If Annapolis turns into a mere photo opportunity for Rice, Bush and Olmert, Abbas’ political fate will be sealed,” said Zahran.

By the same token, Hussein believes that a failure at Annapolis would also translate into gains for Hamas, the isolation of which remains a primary policy goal for both Washington and Tel Aviv.

“Failure to achieve a breakthrough at the summit would represent a victory for Hamas,” said Hussein. “Because that failure would vindicate the group’s conviction that armed resistance, not negotiations, represents the only way to deal with Israel.”