Annapolis Process Might Go On
Any competent propagandist, depending on the task set to him, will easily prove that the conference in Annapolis ended either in brilliant success or in a complete failure. An ‘optimist’ will point out overcoming the Road Map stalemate, the conference’s stately character, the political will displayed by the leaders of Israel and Palestine. A ‘pessimist’ will note a purely declarative character of their joint statement, and will add that it is impossible to solve the key settlement issues in one year.
Actually, well-informed people did not expect anything else from Annapolis. The Middle East crisis has long been in stagnation, or even in a permanently aggravating state: the Second Intifada, the Road Map stalemate, the war in Lebanon, the war between Fatah and Hamas. Moreover, compromises are easier for strong leaders, while we have a low rating of trust to Olmert’s government in Israel and Abbas’s loss of control over Gaza. On this background, the absence of evident failure already means success for Annapolis.
For George Bush, the conference is the success for the sake of which all that was initiated. One year before the elections, with the failure in Iraq and an extremely difficult situation in Afghanistan, he needed to demonstrate achievements at least somewhere in the Middle East. Bush decided to look for success in the region’s most problematic zone. At least, he found allies, and not in Israel only. In fact, the failure of the U.S. policy in the Middle East is very inconvenient for moderate Arab leaders. It might lead to the strengthening of radicals in their own countries. Russia is among the allies as well. Moscow was instrumental in bringing Syria to join the ‘Annapolis process’. By the way, Syria has also become an ally, and acquired hope to get out of the American ‘axis of evil’ and out of international isolation. Moreover, Syria might make a large step towards returning the Golan Heights under its control. Certainly, Mahmoud Abbas became an ally as well. Owing to Annapolis, he acquired legitimacy both in the Arab world and among the superpowers.
However, the Annapolis conference will cause quite many difficulties for the leaders of Israel and Palestine. Both are opposed by strong groups of those who are against any compromises. To Olmert, they threaten to evict him out of his post by means of early election. To Abbas, they menace with an armed broil not only in Gaza, but on the West Bank as well.
Yet, the Arab states and Europe will do everything not to let the new settlement attempt die. Russia will participate actively, especially if the ‘Annapolis process’ is carried on in Moscow. Mainly, Washington will press on, because it needs Annapolis for the sake of autumn 2008. That is when Bush will need to present the proofs of his success to Americans.
Which of the pressures will be stronger? A pessimist will find a bunch of arguments to prove why these efforts will not end in success. An optimist will point out that Annapolis might lead to a turning point in the conflicting parties’ thinking, if not in diplomacy. For the parties did not hope for success in recent years, and consequently handled their opponents without gloves.
Boris Makarenko, first deputy director general of the Political Technologies Center
All the Article in Russian as of Nov. 29, 2007
|
