COMMISSIONER CHRIS PATTEN: MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT PLENARY SESSION
I do not wish or intend to repeat what the Presidency has
said about recent discussions of the Middle East by the
Council or how it has reacted to the statement made by
President Bush in Washington last week after his meeting
with Prime Minister Sharon. The statement of course
surprised many people, whether understandably or not, and
one cannot disguise the fact that it seems to have caused
great concern in the Arab world. Some have subsequently
argued that it should not have done so. They have said that
it offers us a way into the implementation of the road map
rather than a tearing up of the road map. They have argued
that we should seek out the positive - like the promised and
welcome Israeli withdrawal from Gaza - rather than focus on
the negative. Well, so be it. I do not seek to second guess
the doubtless well intentioned interpretations of others or
to undermine efforts to make the most out of the present
exceptionally difficult situation. Some of course always see
a glass as half full when others believe it is half empty.
Others find it rather challenging to believe that a glass is
half full when they can't see very much liquid in the glass
at all. I guess that like beauty, truth is in the eye of the
beholder.
But I do not wish to dwell on those matters. I will just
make five points which we must address if we are to get
anything positive from the present situation.
First, as the GAERC and the European Council have said again
and again a final settlement can only be achieved as a
result of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians
resulting in two viable sovereign and independent states
based on the borders of 1967 (perhaps amended by agreement),
living side by side in peace and security as laid out in the
road map This has been the main thread of European thinking
from Venice in 1980 to Berlin in 1999 to Seville in 2002,
right up to the latest European Council conclusions of last
month. It is not surprising that we have agreed with what
has been for 37 years the consistent American position that
settlements beyond the 67 line are illegal and represent
'obstacles to peace'. We all know what will be the
ingredients for a final settlement. They are there in the
Mitchell Report and subsequent documents including the Arab
League Peace Initiative of 2002. They are there in the road
map which has been endorsed by the international community.
A settlement does not await some heavenly insight. What it
does await is the exercise of political will by both sides,
Israeli and Palestinian. It is a tragedy that the courageous
proposals of the representatives of civil society who
negotiated the Geneva Initiative do not seem to be shared by
the political leadership in their communities.
Second, we deplore the violence which postpones
reconciliation and any chance of peace. We have always
deplored without reservation, deplored and condemned with
all our strength, the suicide bombings which take innocent
lives and the dark propaganda that clouds the minds of so
many. We are also profoundly critical of heavy handed
military retaliation which destroys lives, homes, and
livelihoods the sort of retaliation which increases
extremism and does not increase security. We believe that
targeted assassinations are wrong, illegal and
counterproductive. One of the Palestinian politicians whom I
most admire, a voice of sanity and reason, referred recently
to the deafening sound of war drums on both sides and to the
bitter fact that both communities seem to be locked in an
embrace in which all that seems to matter is causing pain to
the other side. There is plenty of pain on offer but not
much promise of peace.
Thirdly, whatever the criticisms of the European approach to
the dispute, one thing we can say is that we have sustained
throughout the weeks, months and years of bloodshed and
hopelessness, institutions which can one day form the basis
for a reformed Palestinian government. That has been the
policy of the European Council endorsed by this Parliament.
We have been congratulated for what we have done by among
others the World Bank. Only recently I received a letter
from the Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad which
noted that with the help of the European Union the PA has
now delivered on all of the reform commitments it had made
to the Palestinian Legislative Council a year and a half
ago. There is now a high degree of accountability with
transparent budget procedures. There are no more cash
payments to Palestinian security personnel; their salaries
are now transferred through bank accounts.
We have been encouraged in private to do more, to give more
help. We have been criticised in public for doing anything
at all. Some have argued - could there be a more serious
accusation? - that the attempt to promote reform and to
sustain some sort of life in Palestine has bankrolled
terrorism. Parliament has had its own enquiry into these
matters. OLAF has investigated these allegations. I have no
more to say on the subject save to pay tribute to my
officials who have tried to implement an important but
difficult policy honestly, transparently and with integrity.
I have to say that when I look at what has happened in the
last few years, I can see all too little that has achieved
as much as they have.
Fourthly, let me turn to the future. It is said, by some,
perhaps a trifle glibly, that after the promised withdrawal
we will rebuild Gaza and try to create the foundations for a
new Palestine. What they presumably have in mind is a
Palestine which is genuinely viable, not a collection of
isolated 'bantustans' divided by tanks and settlements and
walls. We are certainly prepared to continue our
humanitarian assistance and to support the rebuilding of the
infrastructure of those areas from which the Israel defence
forces withdraw. But I have to say that this time I think we
should seek certain guarantees from the Israeli defence
forces that they will not destroy again what we build. And
they should pay regard to the five points made by the
European Council on 25-26 March, notably the anchoring of
the withdrawal within the Road Map, and the facilitation of
economic life in the territory that the IDF leave. It was
the World Bank which noted that the biggest obstacle to
economic revival is lack of access and the lack of
sufficient freedom of movement of persons and goods. Access
to the outside world is essential for reviving the
Palestinian economy. We should also seek to ensure that
humanitarian assistance can be provided as it would be
elsewhere; at present it costs more to provide the
assistance than in most other places because of the
behaviour and activities of the security forces.
If we are to find a way back into the implementation of the
road map then we need to discuss very carefully with the
Israeli government the terms of withdrawal and see how we
can associate the management of the withdrawal with the
objectives of the road map. Our aim must be that Israelis
recognise again the Palestinian Authority as their partner
in the peace process. The objective should be to hand-over
Gaza and parts of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority
not to Hamas, and to ensure that the hand-over takes place
in an orderly fashion not in a way that leads to more chaos
and violence.
Finally, there are still, thank Heavens, moderates in
Palestine, Israel and the Arab world. I ask this question as
quietly and diplomatically as I can. How much support are we
giving those moderates today? If we are not prepared to be
courageous for moderation how can we expect them to be? It
is not hyperbolic to say that the outlook today in the
region is more worrying that it has been for some time. It
certainly seems to me a good deal more disturbing than it
looked for example at the beginning of last year when we
were being told that the road to peace in the Middle East
lay through the military liberation of Baghdad and the
installation of democracy in Iraq.
Maybe one day Iraq will be stable and democratic and maybe
it will be a beacon for other countries in the region. How
could one hope for anything else? Whatever one's views about
the past, what else is there to work for? But if we are to
have any chance of accomplishing that outcome, and of
encouraging modernisation and democracy in the whole region
then we have to avoid words and policies which alienate
large parts of the Islamic world and threaten the very clash
of civilisations which all sane men and women should want to
avoid at all costs. It has been a deeply depressing feature
of my five years as a Commissioner that the world I look out
on today seems to me far more dangerous than it was in 1999.
We must always try to work for a better world, and not throw
in our hand in introverted despair. So today, among other
things, we have to see what we can rescue from what is left
of the Middle East Peace Process. It is not a very
encouraging prospect. What alternative is there?
