What Hope for Middle East Peace?

Address by Minister Ronnie Kasrils, MP

Goedgedacht Forum, Western Cape, 6 April 2005

Distinguished guests and friends,

Thank you for the invitation to address you this evening on the important and topical subject of developments in the Middle East, and the prospects for resolving conflict and systemic problems in the region.

I would like to begin by stating that this is a decisive year for the region and for world peace in a complex situation fraught with threats and opportunities. The situation could go either way and will certainly affect the hopes and aspirations of millions of people across the Middle East who deserve a better life. 

There has been much talk recently about a ‘spring of freedom’ dawning in the Middle East, and a trend toward democratic revolutions. When commentators refer to a spring of freedom, they talk about democracy breaking out in Iraq and Palestine given the recent elections, a democratic movement flexing its muscles in Lebanon, multi-candidate national elections scheduled in Egypt, and local elections held in Saudi Arabia. On the surface this seems to be the onset of a new era of political freedom in the Arab world, but whether recent events can be characterized as such, and what has been the catalyst for change, is worth examining.

The elections in Iraq and Palestine were conducted under abnormal conditions to say the least, freedom of movement under military occupation and the ability to campaign in both contexts was severely encumbered. In Iraq, 14 million people were eligible to vote, 8 million registered to vote, but only 5 million Iraqis actually cast their votes. Clearly there was violent intimidation from the armed insurgency and use in Iraq of sheer terrorism. There was limited participation in the Sunni triangle. Most of the voters did not know the names of the candidates or their policies before voting. The media coverage of the elections was severely limited, with the major TV networks being given a list of five polling stations where they were allowed to film. Four of the five stations were in Shiite areas.

While elections in Palestine were deemed to be free and fair, they were held under difficult circumstances. Freedom of movement was severely limited, making it difficult to campaign. Palestinians had wanted elections to take place for some time - it was not that they were suddenly inspired by a wave of democratic change as some have suggested. But elections that would have legitimized Yasir Arafat’ s rule were not permitted. With Arafat’s passing, it was considered the opportune moment for elections to be held.

In a recent speech in Brussels, President Bush linked Iraq’s recent vote with Czechoslovakia’s ‘ velvet revolution’ in 1989, Georgia’s ‘rose revolution’ in 2003, and Ukraine’s ‘orange revolution’ in 2004. He will add to the list Lebanon’s ‘cedar revolution’ of 2005 and Tajikistan’s recent ‘tulip’ revolution. Iraq’s elections, however, bear little resemblance to the other political contexts. Lebanon’s Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, has credited President Bush for the chain of events in his country, saying “this process of change has started because of the US invasion of Iraq.”

Lebanon was a unique case in which the assassination of Rafik Hariri united multiple factions in the country to press for the withdrawal of Syrian forces. At the core of the anti-Syrian demonstrations were supporters of Christian politicians, and some Sunni politicians. The opposition demonstrations were dwarfed by the demonstrations organized by Hezbollah, which has developed into a powerful resistance movement and political party. The fact that Syria has withdrawn its forces does not mean that developments in Iraq have inspired reform elsewhere, but it does potentially mean that a reform movement was already in the ascendancy in the region itself.

We should turn our attention to what has been the catalyst of recent changes in the Middle East. What we do know is that Europe and the US have agreed on democracy promotion in the Middle East, as embodied in three trans-Atlantic summits in 2004. It has generally been acknowledged that continued political stagnation in the Middle East threatens peace and stability in the region, and the security of Western states. There has been a growing recognition of the futility of promoting economic liberalization as a precursor to expanded political freedom. Without political reform it will be difficult to undertake the necessary structural reforms of Arab economies.

It has been argued by some commentators that the changes in the Middle East are the result of American and European policy, and some have gone so far as to suggest that democracy promotion has been a cover for a strategy to dominate the region. The rationale put forward for the desire to dominate the region has been the vital interest on the part of Western governments to ensure the free flow of oil at reasonable prices in order to fuel their economies. The Middle East produces 25% of the world’s oil, and has two thirds of the world’s oil reserves. Any interruption of oil flow through war, instability, or government production will cause oil prices to skyrocket, with serious implications for Western economies. The US has bases and access rights in Iraq and most of the Gulf Cooperation Council states, and having eliminated the Iraqi army and replaced it with US forces, the US is now arguably the dominant power in the region. Incidentally it is clear that after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a major error was the complete disbandment of his security forces instead of their selective integration into a new force.

The strategy to ‘democratize’ the Middle East in order to enhance stability in an area of vital interest may produce results that are not necessarily reflective of Western interests. This is the gamble in the ‘Great Democratization Exercise.’ As one analyst recently stated, “The US has the power to reshuffle the deck in the Middle East, but not the power to guarantee where the cards will fall.” So-called Islamist movements enjoy significant support in parts of the Arab world, and they occupy an important political space. The result of democracy may just be the empowerment of the Islamists. The hand of the Islamists has been strengthened across the region by the perception that the Middle East is less democratic after the Iraq war, and that Iraq is worse off than it was before. There is also the widely held belief that American policy is not motivated by the spread of democracy in the region, according to the findings of a poll by Zogby International in six Arab countries.

It is of course a political risk for the US to promote ideas that may undermine loyal allies in the region. Change in many of these countries could be a slippery slope to disaster.

President Mubarak has announced he will allow candidates from the opposition to run against him in elections this year. But can the West risk losing an ally who has recognized Israel and as recently as December 2004 signed an agreement with Israel to create ‘joint qualified industrial zones’ which will have free trade terms with the US?

In Saudi Arabia there is perhaps even more at stake. Western dependence on Saudi oil makes it difficult to exert significant pressure for democratic reform on the regime while the West depends on it to stabilize oil prices. With the increasing popularity of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and extremists in Saudi Arabia, promising better opportunities for the country’s largely unemployed youth, it could be that such forces gain a majority of votes in an election.

In Lebanon, the political power of Hezbollah which is the largest party in parliament cannot be denied. Hezbollah has its roots in the poor Shiite population, and operates a vast network of social service agencies, as well as TV and radio stations. A truly free and fair election in Lebanon could see the rise of Hezbollah to power as opposed to a pro-West party dominated by a minority that would be insulated from the appeal of Arab nationalism. While Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine may have less political influence in their own context, they cannot be ignored as a significant political force in a newly elected legislature. In the first two rounds of municipal elections, Hamas had a strong showing, taking control of 7 out of 10 municipal councils in Gaza.

The move to democratize the Middle East will need to be a carefully c ontrolled affair if governments that would accommodate Israel, and help to project Western influence are to be safeguarded. While we can be hopeful on the one hand that the idea of democratization has grown in Arab countries, the possibility of its actual implementation is less certain.

To really focus on restoring hope in the Middle East, the international community will have to resolve the issue of Palestine and a two state solution. There can be no peace and stability in the region without a resolution of this issue, as it continues to feed the collective outrage of the Arab public, and is a vehicle for extremism rather than democracy. The suffering of the Palestinians is more likely to generate international terrorism than any other single factor. The Arab perception is largely that Western countries (especially the US) blindly support Israel and are indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians.

According to some analysts, the Bush administration had adopted the approach that before there can be an Israeli-Palestinian peace there needs to be democracy in the Arab world. But with the passage of time the prospects for such a peace gradually decline as a result of settlement building and the completion of the separation wall. Between the summer of 2004 and early 2005, major settlement construction took place in the large colonies of Ma’ale Adumin in East Jerusalem, Gush Etzion in South Jerusalem, and Ariel in the Northern West Bank. Sharon has stated that he intends to annex these settlements to Israel in any final agreement. The 3,500 homes that are to be added to Ma’ale Adumin will be surrounded by the wall, and Adumin will serve as a barrier between the Northern and Southern parts of the West Bank. The Israeli Government claims the construction plans were approved by the Israeli cabinet in 1999.

In response, Saeb Erekat, the Chief Palestinian Negotiator, has written to 96 Heads of State urging them to prevent the settlement construction saying, “if the additional homes are built, it will close the door to peace.” It is Erekat’s contention that the Israeli Government wants to determine Jerusalem’s fate by presenting the settlements and the wall as a fait accompli. The wall officially bites into 7% of the West Bank, separating Palestinians from their farmland, cutting deep into the West Bank around the main Israeli settlements – in effect joining them to Israel proper.

As Erekat has said, the solution is to go to final status talks immediately. Further delay will mean that there is not enough land in the hands of the Palestinians to negotiate a viable state. While President Bush has said that, “a state on scattered territories will not work,” and that a Palestinian state must be truly viable, with contiguous territory on the West Bank.  He has also given Sharon a letter of assurances which guarantees that in any final agreement the major Israeli settlements on the West Bank will not be touched. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has echoed this position and said that the realities on the ground must be accepted. This sounds rather like Sharon’s long expressed exhortations to his followers that new settlements create “facts on the ground”.  The ever shrinking offer to the Palestinians looks like pockets of land based on 40 – 50% of the West Bank. This would be a mere 10% of biblical Palestine and not the 22% contained within the 1967 borders!  Anything short of a contiguous Palestine state, based on that 22% of land, with the issue of Jerusalem and the rights of the refugees addressed, simply wont fly and the resultant fall-out will engulf the entire region, one way or the other. The fate of the regional “democratisation process” or Western hopes of a preferred outcome would certainly be derailed.

In our own experience, the parties in South Africa took the tough decision to go straight to final status talks. Through the Spier Process of dialogue with Israelis and Palestinians, we have shared with them how we managed to resolve the issues that divided us, and came to a workable compromise. We have related to them the importance of entering into negotiations without preconditions, and refusing to let violence derail the process. While we were sitting in the negotiations violence was reaching its peak in certain areas, but we would have never succeeded in reaching a settlement if there had to be complete peace for negotiations to continue. We had to ensure a level playing field, and ensure all sides were brought into the process.

Of great concern in the Israeli-Palestinian context is that despite the passage of UN resolutions 242 and 338 calling on Israeli to withdraw to the 1967 borders, and the broad consensus on the ‘Roadmap,’ which calls for a halt to settlement activity, the wall continues to be built, and the settlement construction is escalating. Attempts to grab land in such a manner are not conducive to a peaceful resolution of the conflict –  they only strengthen the hands of the extremists. The reality on the ground leaves little reason for optimism, but this is a conference on ‘restoring hope,’ and one would like to point to light at the end of the tunnel.  A just solution is possible as Saeb Erekat recently pointed out, “within weeks”, if Israel moved to accept the two-state solution.  And this would be in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians – Christians, Jews and Muslims – and endorsed by virtually every Arab Government in the region.

Without tangible pressure on the Israeli state by its Western backers, however, it is hard to see how the realities on the ground can be reversed. We can be cautiously optimistic that Israeli settlers and soldiers will soon have vacated Gaza, but there is the valid concern that once Israel has relieved itself of that burden, it will consolidate its hold on East Jerusalem and the West Bank. A sceptic would surely be excused for saying Mr. Sharon is dispensing with what he considers dispensable.

Whilst the lack of progress on the Palestinian issue stands as the major impediment towards peace and stability in the region, the other major challenges are the nuclear issue in Iran, and the potential for further instability in Iraq. If hope is to be restored in the Middle East, both issues will have to be addressed effectively.

The quality of life for Iraqis is not improving, and the need for basic services such as access to electricity, clean water and sanitation is as urgent as an end to the bloodshed.

The military strategy has been to throw occupation forces at the insurgency by mounting raids and trying to flatten cities with large insurgent presences. Such attacks have served to anger the population, particularly the devastating attacks on cities like Fallujah where 2,000 pound bombs were dropped, sometimes on civilian homes. With some reports estimating 100,000 Iraqi civilians  are dead, there is little evidence of winning the hearts and minds of the populace.

To restore hope, the international community will have to become more actively involved in reconstruction efforts, and ensure the withdrawal of occupation forces. The writing of the Iraqi constitution will be an important process in the coming months. It will need to ensure the equal distribution of power, and represent the diverse character of the population. Certainly the fact that a Kurdish leader has been elected President of Iraq could never have been contemplated before.

In Iran, the standoff between Iran and the West over nuclear activity looks set to continue for the foreseeable future. The Iranian Government continues to insist that it is only temporarily suspending its uranium enrichment programs,  while Europe and America would like to see a complete cessation of nuclear activities. Incentives offered to Iran relating to nuclear fuel guarantees, preferential trade status with the EU, and accession to the WTO, fail to address the issues driving Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is not lost on the Iranian Government that Iraq was invaded as a country that was not yet nuclearised, while the US avoided using force against North Korea – a country that already has nuclear weapons. It is no surprise that Iran would see nuclear weapons as a deterrent to US military action. There is also the glaring double standard where Pakistan has nuclear weapons, as does Israel, whereas it is seen as unacceptable in their case. Iran, however, insists that it has no nuclear ambitions, and that its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful purposes.

A military invasion of Iran is an unlikely option given the ongoing reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current overstretch of US military forces. Any such action would cause a serious retaliation on the part of Iran, which would be likely to wage a clandestine war on US forces in Iraq. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities , as Israel did with the Iraqi reactor in 1981, will be harder given that Iran’s operations are better protected and well dispersed. An Israeli pre-emptive strike cannot be ruled out if Iran is found to be producing nuclear fuel independently. Clearly if Iran were to produce the “bomb” the regional balance of forces would be dramatically altered.

The factor which introduces an element of hope into the situation is the economic dimension, which is pushing the pragmatists in Iran towards restraint. Iran’s economy cannot afford multilateral sanctions, given the double digit inflation and current rates of unemployment. Iran will need US$20 billion of investment annually for the next five years in order to provide the necessary jobs. US$70 billion will also be needed over the next 10 years to modernize Iran’s oil infrastructure. Iran hopes that foreign companies will provide three quarters of the necessary investment. The balancing act between maintaining a healthy economy and the pursuit of nuclear activities will likely bring a measure of pragmatism to the table and offset a serious confrontation with the West. Restraint on all sides is needed  – including on the part of the hawks who would like to enact regime change in Iran at all costs.

In conclusion, there are some hopeful signs emerging in the Middle East, such as the trend towards greater democratic rights and freedoms. What will determine the future of the region though is whether there will be a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the satisfaction of both sides, and a true democracy in Iraq with an end to foreign military occupation. It is only when the people of the Middle East can take control of their own political destiny and resources without foreign interference will there be lasting peace with justice in the region.