Djerejian: Land for Peace Approach is the Only Sustainable Formula
Dar Al Hayat
Thursday, 18 June 2009
By Joyce Karam
Washington – As the Obama administration enters the final round of its
consultations on the Peace Process and sets the pace for resuming
negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, U.S. career
diplomat Edward Djerejian who served in eight administrations, weighs
in on Washington’s efforts especially those related to Syria in
achieving peace. Djerejian, the author of `Danger and Opportunity’,
stresses in an interview with Al-Hayat that the Palestinian track
should remain the focal target of the Peace Process, and cautions
against substituting the land for peace approach with other
`unsustainable’ formulas.
– Envoy George Mitchell made a recent visit to Syria, how important is
this visit?
Envoy’s Mitchell visit to Syria demonstrates that President Barack
Obama is intent in pursuing a comprehensive peace settlement not only
on the Israeli-Palestinian front, but also on the Israeli- Syrian, and
Israel-Lebanese fronts. This is a very important aspect of his ability
to succeed by recognizing the interconnectivity between all these
tracks. Nevertheless, the Israeli Palestinian track should be the
focal target of these efforts, because of the centrality of that
issue. But at the same time engaging Syria in a dialogue on may issues
not only the Peace Process but also on its serious regional influence
especially vis a vis groups such as Hizballah and also on its relation
with Iran.
– What incentives can the US offer to Syria to change its behavior. We
have seen engagement in the past, even during the Bush administration
that did not produce results. What is different this time?
I think what the Syrians are really interested in is to test President
Obama’s proposition that he is prepared to enter into a strategic
dialogue with adversarial regimes. The Syrian government is interested
in a dialogue that is not exclusively focused on one issue but
incorporates a wh
he Israeli Syrian prospect for peace, cooperation on combating
terrorism, exchanging perspectives on Lebanon and securing the border
with Iraq. Such dialogue will help in determining the nature of the
bilateral relations between the two countries.
– Do you think the Syrian government is interested in achieving peace
or they’re more inclined to be part of a process?
In my experience with the Syrian government starting with former
President Hafez Assad and in my meetings with current President Bashar
Assad, Damascus has continued to adopt a policy line choosing Peace as
a `strategic option’. What that means is that Syria is prepared to
engage in the peace talks. This was most recently demonstrated in the
indirect Israeli-Syrian talks mediated by Turkey. There is no question
in my mind that Syria wants to engage with Israel on Peace talks. The
Syrians have also indicated on a level as high as President Assad that
when those talks get serious they want the U.S. to participate in
these talks.
– How important is the U.S. participation?
I was present at the Madrid peace conference (1991) and helped in
developing the peace framework it generated. I’ve also dealt with the
subject matter directly as: ambassador to Syria (1989-1991), Assistant
Secretary for Near East Affairs (1991-1993), and as ambassador to
Israel (1993-1994). It was clear at that point that the Madrid
framework was comprehensive involving all the parties, and since then
the Israeli-Syrian talks have undergone many periods of engagement
-some direct some indirect- under many administrations in Washington
and many governments in Israel. There is a legacy of negotiations on
which many of key issues of land, peace and access of water have been
dealt with and in detail. It is not an exaggeration when some say that
eighty percent of the issues have been dealt with. What is needed now
is to reengage, and to have the political will of the Israeli and the
Syrian and the U.S. governments to conclude these talks.
– With eighty percent of the p
tion?
Well, I wouldn’t advocate a Syria first option. All tracks should go
at the same pace, and I am against the `either-or’ option. The
Palestinian issue remains the core political problem and if it is
ignored it would be difficult for any Arab state to conclude a peace
agreement without some way forward on Palestinian track.
– Would you advise President Obama to put together a plan, an American
plan to break the stalemate, or maybe call for a regional conference
for peace?
The way that the Obama administration is moving on process is
smart. In having Senator George Mitchell as an emissary, they have a
superb negotiator who is doing very hard work to bring the Israeli and
Palestinian issues into focus. In determining exactly how to proceed
on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, it is smart to analyze the
situation before you start acting and that is exactly what the
administration is doing. I think they are in a period of gestation,
where they are developing what would become their negotiating
strategy. The strategy I think will be focused on the Palestinian
track but will also accommodate whatever movement can be made on the
Israeli-Syrian track. There is some speculation that Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, given his narrow political coalition and
difficulties he has politically on the issue of Settlements in West
Bank and Jerusalem that he might choose to move on Syrian track. That
is an argument that has
been often made. But whatever he decides to do, it cannot be at the
expense of Palestinian negotiations.
– On Iran, could the Syrian-Iranian alliance stand in the way of
brokering a peace agreement? Or on the flip side, could brokering
peace with Syria peel it away from Iran?
I think that the Syrians and the Iranians have an understanding that
Syria will pursue its national interests in the Arab Israeli conflict
which is to regain the Golan Heights. For example the Iranians did not
make any noise over the talks mediated by Turkey, and I think this
what will happen if talks become more direct or with the U.S. That
does not mean that the relationship will break or collapse, there will
still be a relationship.
– What about the strategic shift for peace that the Israelis are
asking Syrian government to make, not on the land for peace approach,
but a strategic shift so Syria stops supporting Hizballah and Hamas?
Any `peace for peace’ approach is doomed to failure. Arab-Israeli
negotiations have to be conducted on the basis of `land for peace’ and
based on two UNSCR 242 and 338. That is the framework for Madrid and
that remains the only valid framework for making peace. Nevertheless,
the results of moving forward on land for peace negotiations will have
to accommodate the issues of Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, and a whole range of issues but the focal point for any formula
is land for peace, any other approach is simply not sustainable
clendah/29013