Fruits from the Annapolis summit must be harvested carefully
(From The Japan Times Dec. 1 issue)

中東和平会議の意義

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the Middle East conference hosted by the United States in Annapolis, Maryland, on Nov. 27 — not least of which is the seven years of utter disinterest shown by the Bush administration. Without active U.S. involvement, the problems that fester in the troubled region have only intensified. But tempting as it is to dismiss the meeting out of hand, it could prove to be more than a mere photo op: An unprecedented number of players attended, and a concerted effort by them could provide a foundation for a peace deal.

Since taking office, U.S. President George W. Bush has been less than engaged in the Israel-Palestine conflict. His distance was the product of thinking that his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, had squandered U.S. power, prestige and influence by becoming deeply involved in peace talks without making any progress. Mr. Bush did not trust former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and was very sympathetic to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, before he was incapacitated by a stroke. Mr. Bush believed that the invasion of Iraq would so shift the regional balance of power that holdouts would be forced to make peace with Israel and intransigent states like Iran would be marginalized and isolated.

Those calculations were wrong. The United States got bogged down in Iraq, and failure to engage the Israel-Palestine situation confirmed to many Middle Easterners that Washington is not interested in their concerns and seeks not justice but a fait accompli for Israel. The U.S. democracy agenda has empowered radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and undermined moderate forces backed by the Bush administration. Iran appears determined to pursue its uranium enrichment programs, in defiance of the international community.

It is now clear that genuine peace between Israelis and Palestinians is a precondition to peace throughout the region and the realization of U.S. objectives in the Middle East. That provided the rationale and impetus for the Nov. 27 conference, which appeared to restore some life to the peace process. Mr. Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, and Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, agreed to launch immediate "good faith bilateral negotiations" that would yield a permanent peace agreement by the end of 2008 and lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. The "road map" agreed four years ago would provide the framework for the deal. Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas established steering committees that will begin meeting Dec. 12; the two leaders will meet every two weeks to maintain the negotiating momentum.

Mr. Olmert called the meeting "the beginning of historic reconciliation" between Israelis, and their Palestinian and Arab neighbors. Noting the presence of 44 states, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, Mr. Abbas agreed that it was a historic moment.

But it will take considerable work and patience to ensure that the promise is realized and that the week is not another dead end in a long series of failures. The signs are not promising.

First, all three key leaders — Mr. Olmert, Mr. Abbas and Mr. Bush — are weak. Each faces powerful domestic opposition to any deal — some from within each's own party — and is in little position to ignore it.

Second, while Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas are committed to a deal, the meeting pointedly ignored three key issues that are the pillars of any agreement: the Palestinian "right of return," the status of Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Third, Mr. Bush remains distant from the peace process, insisting that the real work has to be done by the principals.

The United States must demand that both sides stick to the agreements that they have made. Israel must be prepared to cede territory to Palestine, to give up some settlements, and to give land to compensate for the settlements it keeps; it must also free Palestinian political prisoners. Palestinians must police their territory and ensure that it is not used to launch attacks against Israel. The United States has appointed a retired U.S. general to oversee security, a sign that Washington intends to stay engaged.

Active involvement from higher levels of the U.S. government is required to push this process forward. Mr. Bush should be heartened by the presence of so many nations at his meeting, despite doubts about its value. Those governments appreciate the stakes. If the United States truly wants peace, then it will seize on the momentum and that sentiment. It's a long shot, but it's the only hope for enduring peace.

11月27日に、米メリーランド州アナポリスで中東和平会議が開催された。7年間ブッシュ政権が積極的に問題に関与しなかったことで、会議の成否について疑問を持たざるを得ない。しかし、会議にはこれまで最多の参加国があった。全参加国が協力すれば、和平への基礎ができる可能性がある。

ブッシュ大統領は、前任者クリントン大統領が中東和平会談に深入りしすぎて、米国の権力や影響力を乱用したとして、問題に距離を置いてきた。

中東和平会議では、オルメルト・イスラエル首相とアッバス・パレスチナ自治政府議長が08年末までの恒久和平合意と、その後のパレスチナ国家の樹立を可能にするための協議を直ちに始めることで合意した。

イスラエル・パレスチナ当局は運営委員会を設立し、12日に交渉を始めることになった。オルメルト、アッバス両氏は和平問題について2週間に1度会談する。

今回の会議は44ヶ国が参加し、歴史的会議となったが、合意を実行するのは容易ではない。

まず、オルメルト氏、アッバス氏、ブッシュ氏は、ぞれぞれの国内で和平合意に反対する、無視できない勢力を抱えている。次に、会議は三つの重要問題、すなわちパレスチナ人の「帰還権」、エルサレムの地位、ヨルダン川西岸のイスラエル人入植地の問題を取り上げなかった。最後に、ブッシュ大統領は、和平プロセスの実際の交渉は当事者が進めるべきとして、積極的に関与していない。

和平プロセスを前進させるためには、米政権の積極的関与が必要になる。米国は、多くの参加国があったことで、勇気づけられることだろう。米政権は真に和平を確立するため、この機会を逃すべきでない。