HRH Inaugurates the "Electronic Network For Arab-West Understanding"

Prince Hassan: We are in danger of losing the heritage of our shared faith

 

HRH Prince Hassan Bin Talal said we are today in danger of losing our most precious heritage: the heritage of a shared faith with all its glorious spiritual, intellectual, and cultural manifestations throughout more than 2,000 years. "I believe in moving from a culture of existing and surviving to a culture of participating, if we have any hope of arriving at a culture of peace."

 

Prince Hassan inaugurated (on Thursday, June 05, 2008) the "Electronic Network for Arab-West Understanding" (ENAWU) at the Royal Scientific Society. He stressed the fact that information and communication technologies are the effective tools of transition in education, social inclusion and use of resources. They are a "tool for development", not a "reward for development".  They have the potential to empower billions of people; to enable sustainable development and enhance human dignity. They can offer new access to education, bring improved health care, and help eradicate poverty.

 

HRH congratulated the Center for Intercultural Dialogue and Translations on their initial collection of 20,000 articles in the Arab-West Report, and the inspiration from that to build this project. "I am pleased that this project is Arab-West rather than Islam and the West – please let us not stereotype", he said.

 

He pointed out that "in a globalized world, more and more people grow up in a culture of shared histories, more and more people have multiple identities, multiple loyalties, multiple and often clashing value systems".

 

HRH said that the challenge of informed humanity is to make certain that information technology is safeguarded as a weapon of mass instruction, education and reconstruction; stating that the international "politique" of the revolution in information technology can be classified under four categories: Participation, which means that new platforms have emerged enabling diverse and previously powerless actors to short-circuit existing channels and exert influence; Legitimacy, which is the effect on democratic accountability and identity; Security, manifested in new definitions of state interests and power bases; and Governance, manifested in centralized state control of dissemination of information.

 

Reaching positive and active governance must focus on the "Global Commons," regionally and internationally. These Global Commons are a Third Sector, neither public nor private, yet underlying both, HRH said. They exist at the intersection of society and nature; are grounded in our cooperation and will to survive; transcend political boundaries, yet strengthen the duty of the nation-state to protect its citizens; reflect the interdependence of all issues and all groups; belong to no one, and thus to everyone; are intergenerational (from our ancestors to us, to our children and future generations); are rooted in human and cultural potentials; express diversity, hope and trust; invite participation and dialogue; redefine the balance between freedom and responsibility; and reflect shared ownership, management, and distribution of resources.

 

The Prince also emphasized the role of "collective intelligence"; saying that "individual intelligence" is no longer sufficient in economy, politics and sciences. There is a strong need to focus on "collective intelligence", which requires the shift from the "intelligent individual" to the "intelligent many" – a shift necessitated by global transition from the natural structure of human beings to an acquired cultural structure. He stressed the necessity of developing a "collective intelligence" center that would lead to "collective wisdom".

 

HRH said that we need, along with the other types of dialogue, a dialogue between Arabs and Muslims themselves in order to reach a stable platform for communication and interaction in the modern age; pointing out that the basic objective of all these dialogues must be directed toward enhancing human dignity and helping the poor and hungry in the world. This cannot be done without a comprehensive database of knowledge.

 

Prince Hassan also stressed the need for cooperation and partnership between the media and academia in core issues that affect the lives of all people. This would help create sustainable mechanisms that serve the public interest, establish non-biased and non-denominational media, and celebrate civil liberties and sacred human life. He pointed out that if we want to make a tangible difference through the use of electronic networks, we must think of ways to avoid crises, focus on common values, standards and traditions, and give a greater role to citizens in dialogue to include various spectrums of society.

 

HRH also stressed that cultural security, a critical but often forgotten multiplier of human security, sets the stage through which all other forms of security ought to be defined and understood. One cannot feel secure without mutual understanding and cultural integrity, a reality which has become increasingly apparent among both the developing and developed worlds; adding that lasting security for the individual and the nation necessitates a practical approach which understands culture as a pivotal component of human experience and political dialogue.

---

Europe's World INTERNATIONAL

How Europe could be a force for good in the Middle East

"Payers not players" said Israel's Ariel Sharon of the EU, and Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan agrees that Europe's aid and investment spending is not what will bring peace to the region. He proposes an EU-backed Stability Charter that would give Europe a new and positive Middle East role

The forging of the "new order" since the closing post-Soviet decade of the 20th century has left many nations questioning their own roles in the inexorable process of political and economic globalisation, and perhaps Europe, with its long history of political and cultural dominance, is the most at sea in all this realpolitik. Yet surely the continent that forged so many ties, both productive and painful, with the Middle East has a vital role as the facilitator of dialogue and development? Chris Patten, the EU's former external affairs commissioner has pointed out how, just as the "reconciliation of France and Germany was the necessary and admirable European accomplishment of the 20th century, …(so)… reconciling the West and the Islamic world, with Europe acting as a hinge between the two, is a major task for the 21st".

European policy in the Middle East became the litmus test of a new common foreign and security policy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now, almost 30 years after the groundbreaking 1980 Venice Declaration in which the EU's then nine member states expressed their support for Palestinian self-determination, surely the time has come to take stock of Europe's involvement in the region, and to ask how Europeans can help to move it forward to peace and prosperity.

Many Europeans seem to share this belief, but as Brussels considers yet again how to enter the fray of talks it must respond to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's scornful comment that in the region "you are payers, not players". Some parties in Europe may have aligned themselves too closely with the United States to command general respect, but the contribution that might still be made by a united European voice should not be underestimated. Similarly, the need for this voice to express a vision that crosses the boundaries of race and politics cannot be overstated.

Europe's financial contribution to the Middle East has, of course, been consistent and impressive. Between 1995 and 1999, some €3.435bn was spent by it in the region, to which the European Investment Bank added a further €4.8bn in loans. From 2000-2006, Europe spent €5.35bn and the EIB approved €6.4bn in loans. This year, the European Commission has since January already committed €320m in Palestine alone.

But has Europe's financial aid brought peace any closer? The Palestinian Authority has received more per capita aid than did post-war Europe under the Marshall Plan, but the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have scuppered any hopes of a broader regional Euro-Mediterranean framework offering a policy of dialogue and investment capable of making a real impact on the lives of millions. Project-based investment has had little effect on the peace process. From the Barcelona process, the Five Plus Five Dialogue, the European Neighbourhood Policy, to the Mediterranean focus of the OSCE, Europe's well-meaning participation in peace and prosperity-building in the Middle East has lacked durability and vision.

It has become starkly obvious, therefore, that peace in the Middle East will not be born out of projects. Rather, it will emerge from a concept that respects identity and addresses existential needs. A stability charter to address the concerns of people in terms of land ownership, economy, demography and supra-national cooperation must form the core of future dialogue and investment. For peace to take root, long-term regional interests must overcome national agendas. It is this vital multilateral ethos that Europe must champion, so that division and disillusionment can be consigned to the history books just as they were in Europe after World War II.

It should in any case seem strange to us that the Middle East lacks a regional declaration of principles focused on human stability. Politics, economics and security dominate discussions, while culture, human dignity and human solidarity get scant attention. The Regional Economic Development Working Group (REDWG) of the Middle East Peace Process which emerged from the 1991 Madrid Summit and, which was shepherded by the European Union, is a prime example of a hopeful initiative that failed because it was not rooted in a vision of the future. Among its main activities were the Copenhagen ‘shopping list' of projects and the MENA Economic Summits. The entire multilateral process, including REDWG, foundered in the quagmire of the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off after the election of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Government in 1996. Surely Europeans, above all, should appreciate that to weather political and economic storms, any attempt to build regional common policies must be based on more than investment opportunities.

A decade ago, the Jordanian government proposed to the American co-sponsors of the Multilateral Process two additional working groups. The five areas which they had defined – Refugees, Environment, Water, Regional Economic Development and Arms Control and Regional Security – seemed inadequate as an agenda for regional cohesion. The Jordanian government believed that Human Rights and Energy could not be ignored if true and lasting peace was to be achieved. Their response was that these were very sensitive issues, yet in the wake of 9/11 democratisation and human rights became priorities for a very different agenda.

As the Middle East lurches from crisis to crisis, it has become ever clearer that we need nothing less than a new regional order in which human security is underpinned by hard security mechanisms. This is the vision that will facilitate peace for future generations. The recent Arab League Peace Initiative marks an important step forward in regional thinking, but as Tony Blair has said, "principles without power is futile". I believe a stability pact for the region could help to match what was achieved a decade ago in the Balkans. An enforced template of international law is essential, and it must be one with which all state and non-state actors have to comply. Violators of international law must be made aware that the Middle East is subject to the same norms as other regions, and that the principles of democracy belong as much to her people as to those of more politically developed nations.

Time is running out for the Middle East as the fault-lines deepen and grow. Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor more apparent, while divisions between and within states seem to increase by the week. Meanwhile, civil society struggles to find a role in community and state decision-making. Regrettably, EU policy towards West Asia North Africa (WANA) often reinforces these divides by applying very different terms of reference to the haves and have-nots – European Neighbourhood Policy for the poor contrasts with the EU's Gulf Cooperation Council dialogue for the rich.

The Middle East urgently needs support in creating a regional stability charter to encompass codes of conduct, goals for regional cooperation and the mechanisms of a regional cohesion fund to tackle under-development and fund the building of infrastructure. This international commitment to stability will require some brave steps from regional and non-regional players. The complementarities between countries rich in human resources and oil-producing states should be harnessed, while energy-derived investment must be diverted from the old markets of the West to the Gulf's troubled hinterland. The ultimate result would be an intra-independent Middle East that fosters stability and nurtures growth.

The crisis-ridden Middle East region needs more than troops to end friction and suffering, and Europeans might well look close to home to find the sort of model we need. The Helsinki Process which emerged from the tensions of the cold war addressed basic security, economic and social concerns. Admirably, Helsinki held that a human dignity divide between Europe's peoples could not be allowed to endure. Recognition of cultural rights and humanitarian norms underpinned the activities of those brave and creative individuals who knew that a better future was not only possible but also essential. In all conflicts, human rights are among the first casualties, and in the Middle East the degradation of human dignity has now undone the conventions on civilians' rights agreed over several generations. So we should look to the Helsinki Process to show us how to retrieve what has been lost.

A Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME) was called for in the Peace Treaty between Jordan and Israel, yet now over a decade later that idea has disappeared from the agendas of governments both in the Middle East and Europe. The establishment of a CSCME based on the experience Europe accumulated and which led to the creation of the OSCE now needs the backing of powerful and committed allies.

With today's emphasis on military action in the so-called war on terror, the need for a CSCME combined with a stability charter has become more urgent than ever. The CSCME must articulate mechanisms for enforcing regional peace. A regional matrix can be drawn up to help identify priorities through a three-pronged strategy based on energy and water policy, arms control and debt reduction. This process must inevitably involve us in the interlinked issues of our age, including the strategic dimensions of energy and global resource allocation.

In its 2003 European Security Strategy, the EU stated that "effective multilateralism" must form the core of Europe's foreign relation's mindset. Javier Solana added at the United Nations Security Council in September 2004 that without the framework provided by the UN, "international relations would amount to nothing more than destructive competition".

The continuing crisis in the Middle East offers Europe an opportunity to act on these past declarations. Portugal's EU presidency aims to renew EU foreign policy in the Mediterranean and Africa following the eastward focus of the German presidency. In the words of the Portuguese: "We seek to develop a fresh approach towards the entire Mediterranean region. Its strategic relevance to the EU is clear. The instruments already at our disposal need to be properly applied, but there is a need to think beyond them" (emphasis in the original text). Foreign Minister Luis Amado has stressed the need for Europe to build closer ties with Arab nations and the wider Muslim world so as "to avoid an escalation of mistrust and resentment".

Current EU initiatives at home as well as abroad will probably culminate during France's presidency in the later half of next year. President Nicolas Sarkozy has already spoken of a "Mediterranean Union" modelled on Europe's post-World War II peace and integration project, and although much clarification is needed of this Euro-Med "Union" and how it might fit with the Barcelona Process and the European Neighbourhood Policy, it looks the sort of initiative that could breathe new life and high politics into a now ineffective Barcelona Process.

Tony Blair's new role as Special Envoy of the Quartet creates another "new" European protagonist on the Middle Eastern stage. His task is, to say the least, daunting and his mandate has yet to be defined. The end of mission report of the former UN Envoy, Alvaro de Soto on the intricacies of Quartet proceedings shows how difficult the peace process has become, and it seems obvious that Blair will have to include Hamas and Syria in any new discussion as a "West Bank First" policy is surely destined to the same fate as former peace plans.

Europe's contributions to our region have been great. Funding from Brussels and from member states has helped to alleviate the suffering of many people while compassionate community-building efforts by European individuals and organisations have emphasised the true closeness of those who share a common Mediterranean history. It is vital that experience and commitment be framed in a vision for our region and that Europe's heritage of hope becomes a model for the peoples of the Middle East.

 

---

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Palestinians need charity – but they deserve justice and change

A kind of destructive ambiguity has marred efforts towards peace since long before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Points of negotiation have been defined and refined so many times that talks-about-talks hog the headlines that rightly belong to a neglected people.

Generations of Palestinian refugees have suffered the consequences of a weak international community and an Arab world that has neither the unity of purpose nor the juridical credibility to deal with their plight in unbiased terms. The failure to implement international law in Palestine has destroyed social harmony and deprived Gazans of their dignity. The international community has chosen to accommodate decayed morality rather than enforce the universal precepts that were devised to ensure equality and justice.

Once again, as lights dim and fragile hope fades in Gaza’s caged and overcrowded communities, the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has come to the fore. This “temporary” body, established in 1949 by the UN General Assembly to care for Palestinian refugees, has fed, housed and clothed tens of thousands of fleeing refugees and subsequently educated and given health care to generations of people without state or protection. In the absence of a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, the General Assembly has repeatedly renewed UNRWA’s mandate, most recently until June 30, 2011.

UNRWA’s work is essential and inspiring. Its fund-raising efforts among governments and NGOs provide crucial support to often-desperate refugees in Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. But we must not forget this great organisation’s status as temporary and irregular. Palestinian refugees deserve justice not charity. A real and lasting change in their situation will not be brought about by the consistent financial generosity of the Europeans or the inconsistent largesse of the Arabs. The Palestinian question is not a financial one.

All parties to this conflict have taken advantage of the ambiguous nature of Resolution 242 — passed after the Six-Day war of 1967 calling for “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” — to stall true dialogue on the status of these forgotten people.

Since the early days of Gunnar Jarring’s 1967 mission to set the stage for peace talks, squabbling over the Resolution’s real meaning has deflected attention from the essential and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. These rights are not the gift of other nations nor of a hamstrung Security Council.

Like the Israelis, we Arabs have done much damage to the cause by overlooking fundamental rights and bickering over dogma and detail. We have cried out for universal agreement that Palestine has been, on many occasions, a humanitarian disaster zone. We have deflected attention from the standards of international law that have been consistently neglected and affronted in the conflict.

Of course, our authoritarian regimes are reluctant to highlight the absence of standards elsewhere when they are so often absent for their own constituencies. Our attempts to maintain a defective status quo have given the enemies of justice sufficient rope to gag an eloquent and reasoned call for the recognition of fundamental rights in Palestine.

And so the illegal colonisation of Palestinian land continues. Israel’s refusal to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and its blockading and pummelling of Gaza have made life a living hell for a new generation of Palestinians. The acquisition of territory by force and the brutal and disproportionate collective punishment of a civilian population are acts of infamy that have eroded international law and made a mockery of international standards that have evolved through centuries of painful conflict. The refusal of the international community to face up to this reality and the failure of Arab states to push home this basic truth have severely damaged the credibility of human equality.

Enhancing the illegalities of four decades has created its own culture of conflict and reprisal. More than 50 per cent of all terrorism in the West Bank is directed against the settler presence beyond the security barrier, while protecting settler commuter traffic provides the biggest challenge to the Israeli Defence Forces. During the first three months of 2008, at the height of the Annapolis process, 101 illegal Jewish settlements were constructed or expanded in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Plans have been approved to build a new neighbourhood at Agan Haayalot, north of Jerusalem, while tenders were released for the construction of 750 units in East Jerusalem. The regional planning commission has approved 3,600 additional units in East Jerusalem. As we monitor the entrenchment of a 40-year-old occupation, it becomes ever more apparent that gestures made at a slanted negotiating table mean even less in the face of this ongoing offence to international law.

Attempts at conflict resolution based on might and conquest will never endure. Stability and durability can only come from a respect for and acquiescence to moral norms and international law. The recent Turkish-Syrian dialogue gives us hope that regional governments will yet eschew emotion and challenge the wider international community in the appropriate judicial and political forums. The continued supremacy of brute force, in the entire West Asian region, must not be allowed to undermine our world. The struggle is one in which we all have an interest: our common and inalienable rights under international law.

---

A Tool Not a Compromise

February 6, 2008 2:30 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/el_hassan_bin_talal/2008/02/a_tool_not_a_compromise.html

The political powerplay in our world barely reflects the existential needs and realities of people on the edge of an abyss. The historic societies of what used to be known as "Mesopotamia", today's Iraq and Iran; and "the Levant" - Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel, are currently ignored or misrepresented in piecemeal policies and short-term engagement. The needs of our communities are not necessarily related to the outcome of the US elections, to the future of Nato, or to the contentious eastward expansion of the European project. Nor does the alphabet soup of acronyms that passes for today's engagement with issues spell an end to human suffering: partnership for peace (PfP); Euro-Mediterranean partnership (Euro-Med); organisation for security and cooperation (OSCE) - each new assortment of signatories and priorities seeks to align governments with the concerns of a myopic global security agenda. But shading states on a blind map means little to the region's masses.

The primary concern for governments and the international community must be the restoration of human dignity in our societies. This can only be done by applying just law and by stifling voracious interest groups on all sides. Interference and intimidation for political, ideological and financial gain has all but destroyed the fabric of communal harmony that has existed in our region for centuries. The hatred industry has prospered in recent years, fuelled by religious fanaticism, while the grizzly collateral for engagement with the voiceless poor is the lives of suicidal nihilists.

And still, the corrosion of structure and sanity continues. In Iraq, successive wars have left 3 million widows and 2 million orphans to transmit the trauma and bitterness of loss and suffering to future generations. More than 60% of the population are women, while over 4 million Iraqis are internally displaced persons, refugees in their own country.

Our governments and yours refuse to grant our people the rights and recognition of citizenship. Corruption, cronyism and greed define processes at all levels. The recent introduction of opium culture into Iraq is but the latest example of a corrupt response to self-serving overtures - cheap, imported crops from the food bowls of the west have all but put Iraq's farmers out of business.

To use the classical vernacular from which western democracy claims descent, the Homeric definition of the objectives of communal life seems just as appropriate today: "justice, freedom and luxury." His words are a useful shorthand for the quality of life that we all seek. In the context of the Middle East, these goals imply a recognition of the historic self-reliance of the peoples of this region. Self-reliance and self-determination are terms that prevailed in the 1920s, post-Versailles era, when the imposed covenants establishing the nations of the Levant and Mesopotamia attempted to re-establish a status quo. How easy it is to forget that at this time the peoples of all three monotheistic faiths lived together in interwoven communities. The politicisation and degradation of our religious hierarchies and our holy cities has created a vacuum for those who prosper on bigotry and intolerance. Today, altruism and charity have disappeared from public policy. The principle of Zakat, one of the five pillars of Islam, which obliges Muslims to invest a portion of their wealth in building a future for the poor, has been toppled by the modern nation state and no replacement institutions have been erected.

The fact remains that in our Middle Eastern context, the religious sphere must complement the societal one. Unless this dangerous imbalance is recognised and addressed in appropriate terms, the pulpit bashers and self-canonisers who capture the attention of desperate and lost souls will continue to misrepresent our history, our faiths and our needs. We are all complicit in empowering the haters as long as we acquiesce to the cry that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Our people and our societies are more complex than two-dimensional representations of allies of "the west" and friends of the "axis of evil".

To promote true societal self-reliance we must move beyond mere religious platitudes and speak of rebuilding effective religious institutions. At six successive meetings of Iraqi religious leaders, convened by the World Conference of Religions for Peace, we sat with Sunni, Shia and Christian religious leaders who agreed with our call. No one seems to be responsible for the assets of the Iraqi people, funds which have not been deployed to rebuild hospitals, schools and homes, much less Muslim places of worship, both Sunni and Shia, and Christian churches.

Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, once called for a Middle East development bank to empower the poor through infrastructure development and policy change. Perhaps we should go further still and develop a non-denominational peace corps of architects, engineers and builders to help reconstruct the ravaged nations of our region.

Security framework agreements cannot provide an answer to our problems. Our region is not a military conundrum - it is a dying set of organic and co-dependent communities that have thrived through most of the last three millennia. At this critical juncture in our history, I implore those who endlessly discuss the state of the world to voice "truths" based on empirical fact and sound analysis. The only honourable way to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to insist that our cradle of civilisation should impose and be subjected to the highest standards in order to revive and empower a system of values and beliefs that transcend pernicious parochial constructs.

"If the universe is non-ethical by our present standards, we must reconsider those standards and reconstruct our ethics."

 

---

 

A View from Amman  

IN TRANSIT:  HOW PEACE BEGINS

November 2007

 

Peace and reconciliation

Peace is not reconciliation…   What is needed between Israelis and Palestinians is genuine reconciliation with an acknowledgement of Palestinian claims and the acceptance of responsibility for their fate.   Reconciliation mechanisms would include truth commissions and victim compensation. Addressing claims as to the wrongs they have suffered in order to avoid the festering of wrongs is urged, towards reconciliation as well as the reduction of prejudice and hatred. The time has come to shed prejudice and build positive intra-societal dynamics and respect for the other irrespective of national origin, religion, and creed.

 

Without reconciliation there can be no lasting peace. Peace treaties are instruments through which we can set the framework to arrive at a 'warm peace' between adversaries.  The two peace treaties that did not succeed in achieving warm peace were signed between Israel and Egypt and Jordan respectively. There was a failure to normalise inter-state peace among the people and to deepen official state-to-state accords into human ties across borders. That can only be achieved if human justice is assured. A fear of people-to-people peace must be overcome through more faithful application of the agreed terms on the ground.   Beyond bilateral peace making, regional cooperation could craft a new partnership in the region, replacing rejection and hatred with visible mutual respect and acceptance through humanitarian standards of interaction.

 

Confidence building is essential 

 

Prior to the commencement of negotiations, such measures as the bilateral release of detained people, the removal of checkpoints or Mahsums, free access to places of worship in Jerusalem and restraint from violence on both sides, are examples of confidence-building measures.. Some should apply immediately and others throughout the course of negotiations. Respect for human life and dignity is essential, as is the primacy of rule of law and stability. There is a need for international support to establish a legal system and the rule of law in Palestine to insure its future stability, paving the way to democracy, encouraging foreign investments and economic development and guaranteeing the existence of a peaceful, secular and democratic state.

 

Final and Permanent Status Issues

 

The dynamics between final status and permanent status provide the missing link to lasting peace.   The question is how to bridge that gap?  Final status is bilateral.  Permanent status starts with confidence-building measures and ends with fundamental and comprehensive, not selective, guarantees of a regional order.

 

Final status is reached at the conclusion of negotiations between adversaries – Palestinians and Israelis in our case.   A more important goal is a permanent status solution in which cooperation becomes the order of the day. 

 

Statehood

 

There is broad consensus that will be a Palestinian state. This implies that its nationals will enjoy citizenship rights. within a sovereign   state: encompassing communications with other states, freedom of egress and ingress, administration of airport and port facilities, customs, police and security issues, whether it will have a sovereign army or be demilitarized, the extent of any limitations on its right to make independent treaties, etc.

 

The majority of people in the world enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship as a fundamental right; the Palestinians should not be an exception if peace is to endure.

 

The two-state solution could undoubtedly be a wise one. It would be wiser yet to honour UN resolutions that address the issue of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.   Acquisition of any territory by force should not be condoned or rewarded.  The continued acquisition of territory endangers the feasibility of any viable Palestinian state. The retention of any Palestinian territories by Israel should only be accepted by mutual consent based on minor adjustments of the June 4, 1967 lines and on the basis of non-discriminatory reciprocity concerning areas exchanged and their respective potential and market value. Issues of a trans-boundary nature should be addressed and resolved, including, but not limited to water resources, transportation, electrical transmission, labour rights, drug trafficking and other criminal issues.   The issue of citizenship of the two states should be agreed upon and reciprocity guaranteed.

 

The portent of Palestinian statehood and all the complexities of the trans-boundary issues involved are not limited to Palestinians because the diameter of conflict goes beyond the parameter to all the brand names. A regional carrying capacity or aménagement de territoire would introduce a socio-economic planning parameter for all the riparians of the Rift Valley within a Water and Energy community for the environment, following the model of the coal and steel community seminal to the creation of the European Union. Such models can also be applied to the other vital aspects as previously touched upon such as boundary crossings; air and maritime navigation; army and police.

 

Security

 

Security for both Israel and the Palestinian State is not solely a bilateral concern.  Except for specifically bilateral issues, the security of Israel and the Palestinians should be the shared responsibility of the outer-perimeter countries.   Any threat to their security coming from the east would threaten Jordan as well; dangers looming from the north or south would also threaten the respective perimeter countries.   A meaningful security arrangement should be supported by a regional order, including a pact for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and other forms of arms control, rather than mere unilateral deterrent instruments.  

 

Achieving full inclusiveness requires a regional code of conduct for a process of human security and cooperation which would include a regional community for natural resources and a regional social charter.   These instruments should constitute the building blocks for a regional security package consolidated by the establishment of a Conference on Security and Cooperation for the Middle East.   Again, I emphasize that Europe provides an ideal model for such a structure.  A conflict prevention capability must form an integral part of such a process.

 

This would help steer the region away from unilateral partisan prejudice to a regional commons approach of intra-independence,     initiating a new collective dynamic where morality and good socio-economic governance leading to greater inclusion of citizens in the determination of their welfare and destiny. Track I and track II negotiations between Jordan and Israel, Egypt and Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, over the past 10 years demonstrated that such steps can produce practical results.

 

Attitudes Toward Extremists & the other

The Western attitude to HAMAS and its translation into action by Western governments has not been even-handed.   There are groups like HAMAS in Israel, among Western Jews and also among Christians and for that matter among many religious denominations and political persuasions. That does not mean that all of the members of such a group are extremists nor does it mean that some of their extreme views cannot be negotiated.   Yet, while HAMAS is condemned and boycotted by all, similar groups as mentioned above are supported in the West, both by the private and public sectors.

 

Legitimizing everything that is done on one side and demonizing everything that is done by the other side is a historically failed recipe for peace. Even-handedness is a much-needed prescription to address the complexity of conflict.

 

ECONOMIC RESOURCES, DEVELOPMENT AND VIABILITY

 

The new state of Palestine must have the capacity to sustain itself and to develop.   Without economic viability and the prospects of economic growth, it will de facto turn into a Bantustan for Israel, offering cheap labour and only reaping a great deal of intensifying alienation and suffering.  An economically emergent Palestine, beginning with economic and human guarantees for the Palestinians themselves, is the key to stability and peace.   It is indispensable to have a ready economic development plan so that any aspect that would need the mutual cooperation of the two states is taken into account within the proposed peace agreement.   This includes such matters as currency convertibility, freedom of movement of goods, access to ports and airports, reduction of restrictions on freedom of movement of people and secure investment opportunities.   In addition joint economic growth projects must be considered in depth including Jordan in such comprehensive and far-reaching issues as: sharing of water resources, various water and irrigation projects, a joint transportation system (roads, buses and trains) that potentially connect the three states and enhance their respective economies, joint or shared utilities and other similar sub-regional infrastructure projects (some of which in the Gaza area may also involve Egypt).   In short, economic interrelationships and mutual economic interests not only make for a healthy neighbourhood but also consolidate peace through real economic terms, translating into real human welfare.

 

The Population-Resources Equation:

Human and Natural Resources

 

We must ensure equity in resource allocation.  The production of the historic Jaffa oranges, grown with water drawn from the coastal aquifer and the Jordan River, now results in Palestinians being denied access to their water resources.   Examples such as this highlight the need to address resource allocation in an all-inclusive manner - the territories of historic Palestine are water and energy poor;  There are unproven reserves of natural gas in the territorial waters which may be extractable in the future. Resource allocation will remain a vital issue, not only in the lands of historic Palestine but also in the outer-perimeter countries due to the pressures of demographic shifts within the region and from outside.  The long-standing animosity accompanying this protracted conflict has not only barred cooperation between the outer-perimeter countries and Israel on the protection of natural resources, but has adversely impacted these shared resources, such as in the unilateral actions undertaken by Israel and by Jordan and, separately, by Syria that have adversely impacted the Dead Sea basin including the Jordan River system and the Dead Sea itself.

 

The population to natural resources equation largely determines the carrying capacity of physical land space.   Admittedly, there have been distortions in this equation. The crucial issue of carrying capacity could only be applied in the event of a supra-national authority, because only a supra-national authority could be expected to be non-partisan in terms of human, economic and natural resources. Such an authority should in no way proscribe the attainment of Final Status. Carrying capacity and recovery capacity for that matter are a medium to long-term policy vision of intra-state and intra-communal relations through a rational utilization of competing resources. A supra-national vision would promote equity where now there is asymmetry, and sharing where now there is dominance by one side over another.

 

After almost a century of enmity and confrontation, the time has come for a meaningful recovery from human suffering on all sides and for environmental recovery of natural resources. People's recovery includes their empowerment to fight want, enjoy human rights and exercise democracy; to reap the benefits of societal innovation during the transitional stages; to normalcy of relations between nationalities and between peoples and their systems of government underlined by aiding the human capacity to recover the traumatic effects of protracted conflict to avoid the unremitting impact of trauma into the future . Recovery of natural resources would be possible through regional cooperation in mechanisms such as the proposed community of water and energy and other roads to promoting supra-national innovation and interdependence.

 

Any approach toward socio-economic development as well as peace must be founded on a humanistic basis, revering human life and dignity, not only in display but also to be discerned among the respective communities.   Israel has for all too long used might as right towards the Palestinians, looking at Arabs in general and Muslims as the enemy.  This must change just as much as Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must learn how to look at Israelis and Jews in a positive manner.   We must revive the spirit of beliefs that existed at the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths, beginning with reclaiming the dignity of the human being.   Without that there can be no peace, no reconciliation and no future for this region or beyond.

 

Jerusalem

The overwhelming historic and spiritual importance of Jerusalem to all Abrahamic faiths and thus to all believers in the world as well as others for whom Jerusalem and its sites (holy and archaeological) are part of the world's cultural heritage makes this among the most sensitive issues of human controversy. This is a city with a unique status in the consciousness of the great monotheistic faiths.

 

Therefore we must confront the crucial substance of preserving the municipal administration of the city as an integral whole with rigid observance of equal treatment to all religious denominations and the participation of representatives of all faith communities. This may require the establishment of some special status legislation for Jerusalem within the context of a municipal administration with independent moral authority above all others in order to guarantee non-discrimination.

 

Jurisdiction over the walled City of Jerusalem is of vital importance.   This issue encompasses the preservation of moral authority for the city in terms of ecumenical communication among the three monotheistic faiths above the possible limitations of any one partisan view.   Moreover, the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty gives Jordan a specific role in the management of the holy sites, both Muslim and Christian.  This recognizes the rights of all Arabs, Muslims and Christians, in the administration of their holy space.  

 

Viewing the City, old and new, merely within the limited and short sighted parameters of a territorial and political bargaining chip ignores this major moral responsibility.   The City of Jerusalem, within its spiritual and emotional context, can contribute greatly to recovery, cooperation and the sustainability of peace. 

 

Territories surrounding walled Jerusalem are subject to the provisions governing the fate of the occupied territories.   Distrust should be allayed through reconciliatory acts on the ground.  The issue of faith communities' right of return to Jerusalem, which also applies to internally displaced persons, is essential within this context. For example, we could ask what message is sent to the Palestinians of Shu'fat when it is proposed that the town be dislocated from the Greater Jerusalem area in return for its refugees relinquishing their Right of Return.

 

Jerusalem and other holy sites have a special significance to the followers of the three Abrahamic faiths as reflected in the faith-based communities historically present in their environs... It is crucial to be perceptive of the maintenance of these communities as historically, culturally and spiritually irreplaceable - and therefore free of de-population policies.

 

On the issue of refugees : Right of Return

The right to leave and return to one's own state is guaranteed in the international covenant on civil and political rights without discrimination. The covenant contains a specific provision against discrimination and no discrimination should be used against the Palestinians seeking to come home. This is a binding legal obligation and not merely a principle of justice and equality. The Palestinians' right of return has to be in the successor state, namely Israel. That principle has to be recognized even though for a variety of reasons there can be pre-conditions on the exercise of such a right, such as family reunification et al. For those denied such a right of return, the principle of compensation should be proffered and the peace treaty should contain a mechanism for such compensation. Those who could not exercise their right of return in the successor state (of their state of origin) and who have been given compensation in lieu should be allowed the right to return into the new state of Palestine.

 

The Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in accordance with the principles of justice and equality is a primary issue.   If the Right of Return is to be denied to Palestinian refugees and those living in the Diaspora, it should equally be denied to non-Israeli Jews living in the Diaspora .

 

There is also the imperative issue of the legal characterization of the new state of Palestine. It could be considered as a successor state of the original state of Palestine in reliance upon the 1947 Partition Plan of the General Assembly, with respect to the territories occupied by Israel, post 1967, which had been administered respectively by Jordan and by Egypt as de facto trustees of these territories.

 

Palestinian refugees, displaced and stateless families, scattered in several countries in the world and particularly in the neighbouring countries around the West Bank are a conditional key factor in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.   The denial of their existence, plight, misery, humanitarian aspirations, dignity and right to lead a normal peaceful life in a country of their own, i.e. Palestine or of their free choice, would simply complicate the conflict and drive the younger generation of refugees, and others, into more spiralling despair, frustration and extremism. The ultimate goal of having a durable peace, a stable region and normal and popular acceptance of Israel cannot be achieved through denial of the refugee issue.

 

On the other hand, the claim that responding to the Palestinian refugees' aspirations would erase the Jewishness of the State of Israel is simply distorted. Israel itself has stretched the definition of 'Jewishness' by practically 'importing' people from Sudan to Russia, Ethiopia to South America…not all with a claim to a pure Jewish bloodline, but certainly with the purpose of changing the facts on the ground by creating force of numbers on the Israeli side to overwhelm Palestinian numbers. The latest studies offer triumphant figures of greater Israeli population growth than Palestinian.  Recognising the rights of the refugees, as displaced and stateless persons, is a matter of human, moral and legal nature.   While the implementation of such rights is a matter that involves difficult decisions for a new life, new citizenship, the expenses of starting over, time-span etc, the assumption that time will make the refugees forget their rights and that new generations will be less insistent is only an illusion.  

 

Foremost among the rights of refugees is the right to compensation: for those who had to leave as well as those who were expelled over the years or prevented from returning.

 

conclusion 

This is a conflict which should have more than run its course. It has paradoxically come to a full circle after over 60 years of conflict involving 5 international wars and a harsh period of occupation for a large segment of the Palestinian population from 1967 to date (if not to consider displacement from 1948 to date).

 

In 1947 a partition plan was proposed which was rejected by the Arab states followed by the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. After the first war between the newly-founded state of Israel and the Palestinians and supporting Arab states, armistice agreements were established in 1949, leaving Israel with 23% more of the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Since then the Palestinians and Arab states at first rejected the acceptance of the state of Israel and peaceful co-existence with it, followed by acceptance and eventually two major peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Hopefully, a similar peace treaty will follow with Syria and Lebanon. This will complete the circle of peace between these contiguous states.

 

To the Palestinians as well as Arab states supporting them, the acceptance of a two-state solution is a return to the partition plan, which had earlier been rejected. It is one of the tragedies of humanity that political settlements sometimes have to go through years of hardship and pain before achieving their ends, but now that we have reached this point, it is indispensable to make sure that the two-state solution works. That is why, in addition to peace, we need mechanisms of reconciliation, economic development plans, sharing of resources, joint enterprises and mechanisms and structures for effective cooperation between the two states.

 

The future state of Palestine will depend very much on the degree of cooperation and support it will get from the state of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Laying down the foundations for this sub-regional cooperation is crucial for the economic viability of Palestine, and for the sub-regions' peaceful co-existence, prosperity and security. Just as Palestine needs Israel for its economic development, Israel needs Palestine for its security, and all the four states mentioned above need each other for their future.

 

A peace agreement cannot be viewed as a stand-alone instrument in the achievement of its goals. It must be surrounded by a number of other agreements and plans which implement the stated goals and purposes. Without such a complement of additional implementing agreements dealing with the topics and issues mentioned above, and surely many more, a peace agreement will only raise expectations without establishing the foundation for their fulfilment. This has been an all too cruel element of the past for which both sides have paid heavily.  Follow-up mechanisms and transitional measures towards peace are essential so that there are no gaps in time and in implementation between the beginning of negotiations for a final settlement and its actual implementation. These would also serve as confidence-building measures and help avoid future problems by addressing interim measures and transitional issues as they arise.

 

Without the multitude of steps toward peace, it is unlikely to materialize out of thin air.

---

September 19, 2007

Conversations: Jordan's Prince El Hassan Warns Against "Taking Another Go at Iran."

I shared a lemonade in Cairo last week, on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, with Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan. He’s one the Middle East’s wise men: a deep thinker, prolific author and speaker, and former crown prince under his late brother King Hussein. Still just 60, he’s also that rarity in the Arab world, a top leader who exited office before dying or being overthrown in a coup or a war. Even though he is known for his frank talk, I was taken aback by the depth of his frustration with the “black hole”—his term for the Middle East. He lashed out—at extremists of all faiths, at human rights abusers, at foreign powers who see the region as “a barrel of oil and a gun.”

El Hassan seemed most pre-occupied with the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran, which he raised repeatedly in the one-hour talk. He warned that such an action would have dangerous consequences: “The whole Iraq situation is going to be thrown out of kilter again, because the Iranians are not going to sit by and watch it all happen,” he said, adding that Arab leaders will be “hard-pressed to face the Islamist militant rise of influence on the street.” “Taking another go at Iran," he said, "may bring about change, but who guarantees it’s the kind of change that we want for stability in the region?”

His solution: A project like the Marshall Plan or a Dayton Agreement, in which the international community, leveraging the U.S.-led military presence in Iraq as well as the area’s oil wealth, acts as a catalyst for developing regional cooperation and stability.

What’s the essence of the problem in the Middle East?

In 1988, we launched a call for a new humanitarian order. We’ve had the knock on effect in the call for the fundamental rights of humanity and of human security. I worked with the concept of developing a racial equality index. Etc. Etc. But this is leading nowhere in this black hole which we call the Middle East. Simply because what’s wrong is that everything is unilateral.

Why a “black hole”?

It has no institutional structure. It has no systemic representation. Anywhere you go in this part of the world, corruption is the first thing that comes to peoples’ minds. What I see is that there was a time when public opinion mattered in this part of the world. Remember, What does the street think? They were hungry, they were deprived, they were marginalized. But they would demonstrate and express their views. Now, public opinion since the Global War on Terrorism, has been contained by the polarity of the confrontation between the state security services and the militants. There have been endless books about this. One of the most interesting is Baroness Kennedy’s Just Law, where she and many others believe there has been a travesty of abuse of human rights by those states that have taken into their mandate in maintaining stability to close down anything and anyone they feel is rocking the boat. This region needs a legal empowerment of the poor, it needs a legal helpline. One assumes the masses are citizens in any civil society. Here the masses aren’t even digits. There is no national information system which includes human economic and resource-based knowledge.

Why can’t we have a supra-national body, supra-national commissions, with international guarantees, no sticky fingers, no ideologues saying “God promised me this, and international legality promised me that”? Remove the brand names, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egyptian, Jordanian, Turk and say, What is the carrying capacity?

Is the Middle East’s problem too much religion?

Separation of church and state is crucial, if you put it in the right terminology. In this region, you need to elevate a moral authority of Jews, Christians and Muslims above politics. In the context of the management of holy space in Jerusalem, for example. What cuts across that is that there has not been a political or legal solution to the problem. But the longer you spend without a political solution, the more you are hot-housing the extremists who we all claim to fear. They are presenting their own home-grown solutions. The Christian Zionists who believe in Armageddon in our time. Islamists who believe that if things get worse, particularly if there is a strike against Iran, they will take over power.

There are other vested interests. Weapons. Look at the trillions of dollars spent on weapons. If I say that the cost of the Gulf War quoting American figures and accountability reports is $8 billion a month, that’s immediately interpreted as criticism of American policy. All I’m saying is why are a few hundred million not being invested in a Cohesion Fund that improves the quality of life and human dignity? Why do we have hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who can’t afford medicine?

Who’s to blame?

You can put a lot of blame on old colonialism and new colonialism. But it is a failure of leaders, governments and people in this region to recognize the importance of developing a regional approach and fighting for it. In this region, what matters at the end of the day is oil and weapons. Look at what the World Bank is saying: 100 million job opportunities need to be created by the year 2015. Is there any program that will give us the hope of getting anywhere near that objective? You come to the conclusion that constructive chaos, I think that’s the term, is almost programmed, for lack of an alternative. Nineteen-ninety-one to 2001 was 10 years. A Marshall Plan could have been conceived in those 10 years to win the peace. But here we are still talking about winning the war. The sadness is you almost come away with the impression that what is important is the oil pipelines. The international world looks at this region as a barrel of oil and a gun.

How can the Middle East break out of the cycle?

By leveraging, with the use of the international force community, a series of agreements along the lines of Dayton, where everybody comes to the table and respects a template of “do’s and “don’t’s.” Which means inclusion, which at the moment seems far-fetched because you have the “moderate” countries and the “pariah” countries. But they existed in the Balkans.

Today you have more firepower than you had in the Balkans, and I don’t see any diplomatic leveraging of the regional solution. People don’t want to move from unilateral to regional. It’s still “General Petraeus, and what about the gradual redeployment of forces?” My question in parallel with that is, What about calling upon the peoples of the region to fulfill their dreams? In recognizing what citizenship means, for example. What about a citizens charter that includes a clear call for a Cohesion Fund. If you look at the figures, they are really quite alarming. The Muslim Middle East share of world trade dropped some 75% in the two decades leading up to 9/11, and this is a period when the region’s population almost doubled. We didn’t keep that in mind. At the end of 2006, U.S. spending on Iraq reached $318.5 billion. Recent figures from U.N. indicate that $318 billion would have been enough to pay for the cost of 400 million people keeping from hunger for 13 years.

I’m not talking about escaping into the future. I’m talking about thinking about the future. One of the reasons for the black hole is the inability to think. The mind has atrophied.

How do you shake things into positive effective action?

Rand wrote a paper with a plan called the Marshall Plan in 1941 and the allied powers took it seriously and started implementing it. That’s an example of how ideas are put into practice.

How do you jump start change, by imposing it from the outside?

It is not a question of imposing from abroad or talking of a “new Middle East.” But it’s a question of bringing together a concept group, which I would welcome being international, which says the future of regional stability can be achieved along the following lines.

How do you shake up the leadership of the region?

The leadership of the region, if it actually comes to a strike against Iran, is going to be hard-pressed to face the Islamist militant rise of influence on the street. I think you are going to find a move away from focusing on regional solutions and pacification plans and economic regional plans rather than towards it. At this moment, we are at a crossroads. Either we move forward toward a regional impulse, security and cooperation, citizens charter, social charter, Cohesion Fund, while addressing the hot spots through a resumption of negotiation, which seems unlikely but surely is the civilized light at the end of the tunnel. Or we move towards further confrontation.

Does it require pressure on regimes to liberalize, to allow more participation?

Yes. I think it is not a question of unilateral pressure. It is a question of speaking to them collectively and saying you represent the region collectively, we believe this region is important. There is no concept of a stitch in time. The stitch in time here is to say, before the next upheaval in the region, this is the time to be reflecting on how to develop a regional approach. I want you people to come to a regional conference on the future of the regional. And within the same priorities that worked evidently in the Balkans, and South East Asia. South East Asia witnessed the Vietnam War. Vietnam is now one of the new success stories economically and socially.

How do you measure Bush’s impact on the region?

The blow of 9/11 was enormously destabilizing for the world and Jeffersonian principles. It developed an understandable will to protect American citizens, protect the American way of life, to protect American interests. But the term “you are either with us or against us,” I’ve always asked, About what? I understand, “in the war on terror.” You know my country has been a firm supporter of the United States in the war on terror. At the same time, are there not other issues that need to be discussed? And while we are working against terror, should we not be working for not only our own happiness in our particular oasis, but in redefining regional commons and global commons? Effectively engaging on the region level has not emerged as a major priority.

What should be done in Iraq?

What should be done is to avoid the talk, if it's serious, about what can be done about a new strike into Iran. Because if that is going to happen, the whole Iraq situation is going to be thrown out of kilter again, because the Iranians are not going to sit by and watch it all happen. You and I have both lived in a region where you can within a few days or a few months expect a new war. And this is not the way to live. How many wars? The ‘67 war, the ‘73 war, every decade we have to have a major upheaval.

You brought up a possible strike on Iran several times. Why do you take it seriously?

I think it’s being spoken of in great detail. Everybody including the president himself has said he has given his military commanders instructions to prepare for the worst. That isn’t a mild statement. It is a very clear statement.

What is your concern?

I’ve always believed in not only winning the war but winning the peace. I have no doubt that American military might is capable of defeating any military response on earth. But on the other hand, I don’t really see that this is necessarily...I am living in the region. I am living in the middle of the conflict zone. Anything that lands on Israel destroys my people. I’m not talking about an academic exercise. Compounding the loss of life that has taken place in successive Iraq wars with its neighbors, taking another go at Iran, may bring about change, but who guarantees it’s the kind of change that we want for stability in the region?

What do you have in mind?

The destabilizing of existing of regimes. A rise in a visceral anti-Western feeling in terms of an Islamist movement confronting the so-called moderate regimes, and saying to them, what has your friendship with the West brought you? Other than further suffering? And against the background of the shortcoming of real life expectations of people. In the West Bank, 50-60% of people are below the poverty line, two dollars a day. As much as 80% in Gaza. Seventy-five percent of Iraqi women are illiterate. Some 6.5 million Iraqis are dependent on rations to meet their nutritional needs. Ten million land minds and explosive remnants of war in northern Iraq will take up to 15 years to clear. This continuing destruction, or MAD—mutually assured destruction--whether through convention means or terrorist action, is a scenario that unfolds where the Middle East may indeed become a black hole. You see the dismembering of the whole region into fragmentation, into disparate and desperate groups.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

---

Le Figaro, 3 septembre 2007

Si nous ne faisons rien, le Darfour sera le modèle des tragédies de demain

 

Par SAR le prince Hassan Bin Talal, André Glucksmann, Vartan Gregorian, Václav Havel, Mike Moore, Michael Novak, Mary Robinson, Yohei Sasakawa, Karel Schwarzenberg, George Soros, Desmond Tutu, Richard von Weizsäcker, Grigory Yavlinsky*

 Les conditions critiques qui continuent de sévir au Darfour causent à ses habitants des souffrances immenses. Les deux bords du conflit - le gouvernement soudanais et ses alliés armés, de même que les grou