A New Kind of Peace Process

A consensus seems to be emerging on a new kind of peace process. Many of the most prominent meetings and summits meant to bring about peace have failed, even when at first both parties were optimistic--for example, the 1993 Oslo Accords or South Korea's Sunshine Policy. The reason these talks failed was due to internal strife within the separate entities, usually due to radical groups unwilling to compromise. This is underscored by the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin by a radical Israeli group after signing the Oslo Accords, and the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat after the Camp David Accords. This trend is also clearly evident in the recent 2007 Annapolis Conference, when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas agreed on a two-state solution and outlined a way to settle the conflict over the next coming years. However, after the 2009 Israeli elections, the Annapolis Agreement holds little importance. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not committed to a two-state solution. In fact, within 8 hours of taking office as Foreign Minister, ultra-conservative Avigdor Lieberman reversed 2-years of progress by stating the Annapolis Conference held "no validity."

But the ineffectiveness of peace agreements is nothing new. What is new is diplomats attempting a fundamentally different peace process that is less of a process and more of an event.

North Korea

This new kind of peace agreement is most evident in Bill Clinton's recent "surprise trip" to North Korea. Though overtly a non-political rescue mission for captured journalists, the Obama administration was heavily involved. Korean media reported Clinton delivered a message from Obama to Kim Jong-Il. The last time an ex-President made a surprise visit to North Korea, former President Jimmy Carter returned with a nuclear deal called the "Agreed Framework" which de-escalated tensions between the two countries. The Agreed Framework eventually failed for the same reasons the Oslo and Camp David Accords failed, though North Korea benefited from US concessions in the meantime.

Many speculate Clinton proposed to Kim Jong-Il (with whom he had dinner) Obama's "comprehensive package" deal. The comprehensive package is a new kind of peace agreement because it is all-or-nothing--the West would recognize N. Korea and in return N. Korea would cease its nuclear efforts. Past agreements such as the Agreed Framework or Annapolis Conference were based on an action-for-action format, allowing entities to back out of the agreements. The action-for-action format leaves peace agreements susceptible to domestic political opinions that often derail these processes. The all-or-nothing format is designed to eliminate these risks, though we will not know for some time what actually occured in Pyongyang.

Israel-Palestine

The Arab-Israeli negotiations are also increasingly taking the all-or-nothing format. The driving force behind this is the Arab states, which have been badly burned by step-by-step negotiations in the past (which I discuss here).

Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia said July 31st after a meeting with the US Secretary of State, "Temporary security, confidence-building measures will... not bring peace. What is required is a comprehensive approach that defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues." The next peace agreement to come out of the Middle East is likely to come unexpectantly, propelled forward by domestic Israeli sentiment (since they are currently the bottleneck regarding settlements and there is already some evidence of Israel moving away from its position on this issue, see here), and brokered by US envoy George Mitchell. The next question is whether there will be anyway to ensure an all-or-nothing deal is not broken by radical domestic pressures the same way the action-by-action agreements were derailed.

The Israeli-Arab Stalemate

It seems anti-American sentiment in the Middle East has been gradually diminishing since Barack Obama was inaugurated. Syria has taken steps to weaken its ties with Iran in favor of more cooperation with Saudi Arabia and the US. Hezbollah suffered a surprising defeat in the recent Lebanese elections. Even Iran has exposed its less radical side. Consider the following data from a Gallup poll:

In face of these developments, it seems strange that Israel would move in the opposite direction, antagonizing its Arab neighbors by authorizing a further expansion of settlements. The settlement issue is of crucial importance to Arab leaders because it represents the Arab's greatest concern regarding Israel. Perhaps the greatest spark for Israeli-Palestine tension is Israeli demographic trends. Arabs generally don't have a problem with Jews in the Levant. They have a problem with a rapidly increasing Jewish population. In fact, great demographic expansion correlate to more violence between Jews and Arabs. Saudi Arabia, the most important Arab voice on this issue, has stated if there is a settlement freeze, "we will be ready to talk to the Americans about taking this forward."

Obama finds himself in a difficult position. The US has stated Israel must halt expansion of settlements, yet expansions continue. At the same time, Arabs will not negotiate until these expansions halt. This stalemate is likely to continue until an external shock changes the geopolitical balance between these nations. A change in the position of the US is unlikely, as that is completely unacceptable to Arab states and because US public opinion is not as pro-Israel as it used to be.

The stalemate is likely to continue for the following reasons. Israel cannot discontinue settlements for domestic political reasons. Israel has a strong conservative movement that will not allow compromise, unless they get something substantial in return, such as state recognition or a peace plan. On the other hand, the Arabs will not compromise until they get a significant concession first. The Arabs were badly burned during the last peace process, and are more skeptical this time around, the reason why they are insisting on a freeze to settlements before negotiating. As the FT points out here, Israel reaped a large peace dividend during the last major peace process without actually concluding a peace. During this time, from 1992 to 1996, diplomatic recognition of Israel went from 85 countries to 161 and the number of settlers increased by 50%. Also during this time, almost a million Jews from the former Soviet Union emigrated to Israel. Saudi Arabia was also burned in 2002, when it painstakingly had its Arab-Israeli peace plan endorsed by the Arab League (which cost Saudi Arabia a lot of soft power on the Arab street), only to have Israel reject it.

In conclusion, while Obama's soft power efforts in the Middle East have made a difference, there is little chance any progress will be made towards Arab-Israeli peace. The stalemate between Israel and Saudi Arabia will most likely be broken by an exogenous shock. One possibility is another attack from Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been steadily increasing its military position along the Lebanon-Israeli border. Israel could opt to attack Hezbollah to get to Iran, Hezbollah's backer, as Israel's options to stop an Iranian bomb are diminishing.