The Future of U.S. Involvement in the Middle East by Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III
Dear Colleague,
Enclosed please find a copy of the annual Sadat Lecture for Peace
delivered by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III at the
University of Maryland on April 14, 2005. The lecture addressed "The
Future of U.S. Involvement in the Middle East," and particularly the
role of the U.S. in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You can
view the lecture at the following link
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/sadat/BakerSpeech.htm or read the copy pasted
below.
Sincerely,
Shibley Telhami
Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park, and non-resident Senior Fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution
The Future of U.S. Involvement in the Middle East
Remarks by James A. Baker, III
at the University of Maryland Anwar Sadat Lecture for Peace
Thursday, April 14, 2005
College Park, Maryland
Anwar Sadat was a courageous visionary who contributed greatly to
Egypt, the Middle East and the world in the name of peace. The Camp
David Accords he did so much to bring about remain a model for
successful Arab-Israeli negotiations. Twenty-six years later, they stand
as living evidence that peace is possible.
Anwar Sadat also was very wise to marry a woman with the intelligence
and eloquence of Dr. Sadat. She is a freedom-fighter whose contributions
to equality continue to be as thought-provoking as they are admirable.
I am also very proud to receive an honorary doctorate from such a
distinguished institution as the University of Maryland. For that, I
thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot but believe that if President Sadat were
with us today, he would be amazed by the recent changes in the Middle
East. This is a time of great opportunity for resolving issues that have
festered for decades. In early January, President Bush said, "I believe
democracy can take hold in parts of the world that have been condemned
to tyranny. And I believe when democracies take hold, it leads to
peace."
The President's assertion was met with skepticism by some and with
downright mockery by others. Now, however, in April, a wind of change is
blowing in the Middle East. Among Arab reformers, there is a belief that
this wind has blown down a metaphorical Berlin Wall in the Middle East.
Criticism of the President has ebbed and skeptics are now asking
themselves a simple question, "Could Bush be right?" Is freedom, as
President Bush announced last month, "on the march" in the Middle East?
Only time will tell if there will be a flowering of democracy along the
banks of the Nile and the Euphrates. There are many hurdles yet to
overcome in a region that has been prone to heartbreaks and setbacks.
However, it is clear that something dramatic has happened in the Middle
East since the invasion of Iraq. Citizens are taking up the gritty
responsibility of self-determination. Listen how U.S. Army Lt. Col. Mark
Martins describes the effects of the successful Iraqi election.
"Democracy," Martins said, "is not a luxury car. It is an all-terrain
vehicle and good for fighting insurgency." He is right. What is
happening isn't always pretty, but it's sometimes very effective.
Perhaps nothing better represents what has happened in the Middle East
than the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. "People power" is changing things
in Lebanon, much as it did in Ukraine months ago during the Orange
Revolution. As a result of the pressure, Syrian leaders have promised to
pull out all of their military and intelligence forces from Lebanon by
the end of the month, before the nationwide elections scheduled for late
May.
And, the development in Lebanon is only one part of a shaking-up of the
chess board in that region of the world. Just consider what else has
happened during the past two years in the Muslim World:
- Libya has given up its WMD program.
- Afghanistan, freed from the Taliban, has conducted a successful
election.
- Iraq experienced a 60 percent voter turnout for their election in
January. (While the jury is still out on the future of that country, the
election was a clear and compelling example of the exercise of
democracy.)
- Palestinians conducted a free and fair election in January when they
chose Abu Mazen to replace Yasir Arafat, a revolutionary who never
successfully made the transition to being a popular leader.
- Egypt said it will now hold multi-candidate elections for
president-not just one candidate.
While many factors undoubtedly contribute to these transformations, I
am biased enough to believe that American leadership heads the list,
starting with our involvement first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. It
is becoming increasingly evident that toppling the regime of Saddam
Hussein has contributed to a growing impulse in other countries toward
reform.
Last month, King Abdullah of Jordan recognized this evolution that is
occurring. At first, he said, Arab countries feared that reform "was
going to be imposed from the outside." But now, he said, reform is no
longer taboo. It is being "openly debated" in the Arab world. Partly at
least, as a result of U.S. engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressure
for reform is bubbling up from the grassroots in other countries.
Assisting this grassroots effort is the proliferation of satellite
television and of the internet, which are effectively spreading
information and ideas.
Increasingly, it is difficult for governments to control the news that
their people receive. As Nadim Shehadi of the Center for Lebanese
Studies at Oxford University recently said, "The regimes that are built
on the principle of controlling information-(like the old Eastern
Europe-style of controlling information and controlling thought, if you
like)-are not sustainable anymore. They are in a time warp."
The new technologies appear to be having the same effect on Middle
Easterners as televised news had on Americans during the Vietnam War.
Satellite television and the internet very well could be the voice of
democracy for the Middle East.
Of course, despite the encouraging trends, many problems remain that
will require leadership, attention, and involvement.
Among them is the need to use public diplomacy in the Muslim world to
better explain U.S. policies. Because a decades-long battle for the
hearts and minds of the Islamic world has just started. It is critical
that the Muslim world understand that we have no problems with Muslims
in general-only with extremists who advocate, promote, and execute
violence.
In the broader Middle East, there are three specific challenges facing
American policymakers:
The first challenge is fostering the emergency of a stable,
representative Iraq at peace with its neighbors. Whatever your views of
the wisdom of the war were originally, a hasty U.S. departure at this
point would diminish our credibility around the world and embolden
insurgents.
Furthermore, there are grounds for guarded optimism. Reconstruction is
going forward. Political parties are organizing. Iraqi security forces
are being trained. Progress may be slower than many had hoped, but it is
occurring.
Most importantly, Iraqis disproved critics who didn't believe the
country could successfully conduct the election for a 275-seat general
assembly on January 30. Iraq experienced a 60 percent turnout among
voters who risked their lives to go to the polls. Since then, General
John P. Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, has recently said that he
believes we have "gone from a primarily military environment to a
primarily political one."
So the purple finger may yet replace the car bomb as the most effective
agent of change in Iraq!
Still, we cannot and should not underestimate the difficulties ahead as
Iraq prepares for a December target date of establishing a working
constitution and a permanent government. An important hurdle was cleared
last Wednesday when the general assembly broke a 10-week political
deadlock to appoint a president and two vice presidents. And a day
later, Ibrahim Jaafari, a physician and longtime leader of one of
Iraq's major Shiite religious parties, was selected to serve as
prime minister.
But, until a permanent government is finally in place-(and possibly
longer)-we can fully expect attacks on Iraq and coalition forces to
continue, especially in Sunni areas. Civil war remains a possibility,
remote I think, but a possibility. And, neighboring countries could
meddle in Iraqi affairs, feeding ethnic and religious strife.
Given these realities, a protracted U.S. military presence appears
unavoidable. But it was encouraging to see U.S. military leaders say
that the training of Iraqi forces is going well enough to consider major
reductions in U.S. forces by this time next year.
Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the second specific
challenge confronting the United States in this region. It will also
create immense pressure on other countries-(Saudi Arabia chief among
them)-to do likewise, setting off destabilizing regional arms races. Not
least, a nuclear Iran will raise the risk that deadly technology or
materials might find their way into the hands of terrorists bent on
using them against the United States.
The United States, and the international community, must insist on
absolute adherence to all commitments regarding nuclear weapons. Iran
has been a flagrant offender in this regard.
President Bush is right to embrace a multi-lateral effort to try to
halt progress by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. And he is right to use
a mix of carrots and sticks in our approach to this challenge.
The European Union is currently taking the lead in negotiations with
Tehran aimed at extending Iran's temporary halt to its nuclear
enrichment program into a permanent, verifiable freeze. We are now
working with them thereby making possible the carrot of potential
accession to the World Trade Organization.
But we must also be prepared to use sticks. And there are, of course,
sticks that fall short of full-fledged military action, like political
and economics sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. Iran,
like North Korea, has a track-record of playing cat-and-mouse when it
comes to its nuclear programs. To be blunt, simple declarations of
intent are worthless.
And so, any agreements that are concluded must include provisions for
international inspections-any time and any place.
Third, and finally, but most importantly, the United States must work
to promote Arab-Israeli peace.
Two events-(the re-election of President Bush and the emergence of a
new Palestinian leadership in the wake of Arafat's death)-have created
a unique opportunity for negotiating peace between Arabs and Israelis.
I believe that this current window of opportunity is similar to the one
that existed in 1991. Then, Washington seized the moment to convent the
Madrid Peace Conference, the first-ever face-to-face meeting of Israel
and all of its Arab neighbors.
Today, the President should, of course, continue with his goal of
spreading democracy in the Middle East. And the January election in Iraq
was a critical step in the right direction. But it is imperative that
the President also actively promote peace between Israelis and
Arabs-something which I know he wants to do.
Stability in Iraq and peace between Palestinians and Israelis can be
pursued at the same time. In fact, addressing the latter improves the
changes of attaining the former. The road to peace doesn't run through
just Jerusalem or Baghdad. That is a false choice. Today it arguably
runs through both.
So the real question is how to take advantage of this window of
opportunity to achieve that peace. Specifically, what steps should be
taken? Who needs to do what?
An important first step has already occurred-Israel now has a
negotiating partner on the Palestinian side. That partner emerged
January 9th when Abu Mazen was elected as the Palestinian president. He
has displayed a commitment to end the violence and resume negotiations
with Israelis. He has cracked down on extremists and used very
conciliatory language towards Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has responded in kind, releasing
Palestinian prisoners and reducing the area of West Bank territory
falling within Israel's new security barrier. When Sharon and Mazen
have met, they seem to understand one another.
Now, Palestinian officials must continue to clearly and unequivocally
renounce "terror" as a means of achieving a political result-and call
upon their supporters to do likewise. And those Palestinians should
commit themselves to an unequivocal, good-faith effort to crack down on
terrorist groups targeting Israel.
In exchange, Israel should resume substantive negotiations for peace
without requiring that all terrorist activities cease in advance. To
require the absence of any terrorist act in advance simply empowers the
terrorists themselves to prevent the resumption of peace negotiations.
The United States should itself clearly embrace and articulate the
unequivocal, good-faith standard for the resumption of dialogue. The
United States should further prevail upon Israel to freeze settlement
activity in the occupied territories during the resumption of peace
negotiations, as called for by the "Road Map." Washington should do
everything that it can to encourage both sides to resume substantive
negotiations. And it should serve, where necessary, as a direct
participant in the talks, offering suggestions, brokering compromises
and extending assurances.
Finally, the Administration must make it unambiguously clear to Israel
that while Prime Minister Sharon's planned withdrawal from Gaza is a
positive initiative, it cannot be simply the first step in a unilateral
process leading to the creation of Palestinian "Bantustans" in the West
Bank.
I believe that the President made this point when he met Monday with
Sharon in Crawford, Texas. He also publicly criticized Israel's plans
for new housing units that would establish an unbroken presence from
Jerusalem to the settlement of Maale Adumim as being in contravention of
Israel's obligations under the Roadmap.
In February, the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice
University released a guide for the successful implementation of Israeli
and Palestinian commitments and a return to the Roadmap. We called the
policy paper the "Street Map to the Roadmap," and it recommends that the
Bush Administration assist the parties in turning unilateral action into
a comprehensive multilateral action program that leads to the renewal of
bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
The street map says that the task of American leadership should be to:
- Define the strategic direction of the Roadmap Implementation Process
by encouraging both sides to reach a cessation of violence as the
necessary framework for security action, encouraging the Palestinian
Authority to consolidate security reform and encouraging Israel to
implement the understandings reached regarding unilateral disengagement.
- Assist in capacity building supporting Palestinian governmental and
security reform, and Israeli disengagement. This will create a
sustainable security system respected by the population.
- Lead an internal effort supporting Palestinian economic
rehabilitation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to accompany Israeli
disengagement. This could include expert and financial support for the
creation of a formal Israeli-Palestinian border regime to operate along
the 1967 border.
- Provide "safety nets" for crisis situations. These can include
creating and maintaining a crisis management mechanism to keep the focus
of the parties on the peace process in spite of actions by spoiler
elements. The same verification mechanism that is employed to monitor
compliance with agreements by the parties should be used to verify that
the actions of spoiler elements are being addressed by the parties.
- Use the unique capital of US leadership to ensure an adequate
response to compliance and non-compliance by the parties.
Fostering the Arab-Israeli peace process will, of course, continue to
test American resolve, patience and leadership. But, in the end, the
United States cannot "create peace" in the Middle East. Only Arabs and
Israelis can do that. Washington's role is to help them. As the United
States continues with that role, above all else, we need to remember
five historical truisms about this dispute.
First, there is a Catch-22 regarding the issue and that is this: Israel
will never enjoy security as long as she occupies the Territories and
the Palestinians will never achieve their dream of living in peace in
their own state alongside as long as Israel lacks security. It is a
tragic version of the old chicken or egg question.
Second, there is no military solution because neither side will "win"
the conflict by dominating the other.
Third, a political process and dialogue are essential in the
Arab-Israeli dispute. Whenever the political process breaks down, there
will be violence on the ground.
- Fourth, hardliners on both sides have been the biggest impediment to
a solution, including Arabs who won't accept Israel's right to exist
and Israelis who want to keep the land.
- And fifth, only the United States can serve as an effective mediator
because of the country's special relationship with Israel.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the United States
must and will continue to play a key role in the Middle East, and we
have a variety of tools to address the challenges presented there.
There will be times when we must go it alone. We should not forget that
the surest and best test of a great power is its ability to act
unilaterally to protect its vital interests-when that is required. In
dealing with shadowy, stateless groups like Al Qaeda, we face a
radically different adversary. Preemptive military action against
terrorist groups and states that harbor them is not merely justifiable.
Sometimes, it is imperative.
However, if indeed we live in a "unipolar world," it is important that
America not be viewed as an empire. It is not, and does not intend to
be.
Indeed, our track-record-from rebuilding Western Europe and East Asia
after World War II to peacefully concluding the Cold War-proves that we
have a history of exercising our power in ways that advance the human
condition.
I would submit to you that the United States rightly views itself as
the final guarantor of international security, the chief engine of
economic growth, and the historic champion of democratic values around
the world. But it wants and need the cooperation of an international
community that cherishes freedom and free markets.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am optimistic that a better world is possible
for our children and grandchildren, and for those in the Middle East.
But a brighter future will require leadership. And I don't just mean
American leadership. I mean leadership by all those of good will-Arab
and Israeli alike-who would rather look forward with hope than back with
bitterness.
Anwar Sadat was such a leader-a man of vision, courage, and deep love
for his country.
The Middle East will need more like him in the challenging months and
years ahead.
