December 3, 2007

Annapolis: An Exercise in Diplomatic Futility

 

Israelis and Palestinians met in Annapolis for an awkward dance – with chaperones from more than 40 countries making sure that nothing happened of which they wouldn’t approve. Count me as cautiously pessimistic. There are many reasons for this view, but the most important involves the limitations of the people leading this event.

 

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in credit where it’s due. It’s great that the administration is finally focusing on this issue – so important in its own right and a lynchpin for U.S. relationships with Muslims around the world. Also, it might keep the administration’s attention from other areas of more potential harm before leaving office.

 

Condoleezza Rice in particular deserves credit. It was clearly her party – literally. The president introduced her as the hostess at the opening dinner. She has become Ms. Rational of this super-ideological group – not a Colin Powell, but perhaps more important having the president’s ear, and writing her own speeches on intelligence for international audiences.

 

Recognizing the importance of the international community, especially specific regional stakeholders, is clearly crucial to any serious attempt at lasting solutions, and out of character for this very U.S.-centric group. One of the crucial failings of President Clinton’s end-of-term mediation attempt was the lack of sufficient involvement of key regional stakeholders to create fertile ground for a range of acceptable solutions.

 

The involvement of the Syrians is a major step, again out of the administration’s character, so even more worthy of acknowledgment. Their acceptance must have taken some flexibility, like the inclusion of the Golan Heights on the agenda. Good for the Israelis also for agreeing to that.

 

I’m afraid, however, that the first class airline tickets for all those representatives, entourages, hundreds of journalists and all the hotel suites – not to mention the time and effort – is not likely to lead to much. This is one issue about which I would be very happy to be wrong. (If I am, I promise to write a column endorsing at least one Republican candidate for something next election.)

 

As widely reported, the key leaders are in extremely weak positions. None of them, including our own president, speak for a majority of their people, in a situation where any leader will need Rabin-like political and moral influence to create support for concessions necessary for anything approaching a deal. This includes the surrender of long-standing dreams for even their most peace-minded constituents.

 

The Israelis are too skeptical to accept additional security risks, with some reason. And many have not yet come to terms with surrendering settlements and territory they have come to see as their own, largely through the folly of previous governments. Some see that territory as more important than peace.

 

Palestinians are violently divided. Gandhi said, “If you think you’re a leader, look behind you.” I wonder whom Mohamed Abbas sees behind him these days, even without making concessions to an archenemy. He uses all his looking-behind-him energy to ensure that fellow Palestinians aren’t taking aim at him.

 

But the most significant reason for my pessimism is the fact that the current U.S. administration is at the helm of this process. The limits of any leaders become the limitations of anything they lead, and the fundamental orientation of these leaders is not conducive to any deal.

Their “good and evil” approach to foreign affairs creates a large blind spot, and likely failure, despite any apparent short-term success. This administration labels and marginalizes groups it doesn’t like, including some from whom it needs some cooperation. The president’s “axis of evil” speech was red meat for their base, but near poison for negotiations with Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

One doesn’t negotiate with the Devil. So once actors are so defined they are kept outside the tent, doing you-know-what. This approach might work temporarily if one has all the power, but this is hardly the case here. Some haven’t yet realized those days are over, if they ever really existed. Even Nixon went to China. Bush won’t even speak with Iran.

 

It’s hard to imagine a lasting deal without some tolerance of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Excluded second cousins are not likely to send wedding gifts, especially when the exclusion is so pointed. Without some reassuring semi-official back-channel communications indicating something for everyone in a deal, which is very unlikely here, no real deal is likely. This process, especially any apparent success, will make the marginalized groups even more desperate and confirm their notion that violence is the only way. Failure will weaken moderates in several countries – a high cost for elegant photo-ops.

 

I hope these valiant people had the time and weather for a beautiful Annapolis boat ride.