Can Obama bring peace to the Middle East?
Or to put it another way: can anyone bring peace to the Middle East?
Plenty of people have tried - and failed. So, with a new President about to move into the White House, I reckon it won't be long until someone tries again.
But what's the best way to go about it? In a fascinating piece in the Financial Times, divides would-be peacemakers into "lumpers" and "splitters" - those who favour trying to sort out all the problems of the region in one big lump, and those who prefer to split them off into individual problems and deal with them one by one.
Rachman says that while "lumping" works as an argument, he fears that it would fail as a policy. So he wants Obama to be a "splitter".
But maybe the "lumping" approach might be made to work, even as a policy. Here's how:
1. Obama sends out invitations to a grand Middle East peace conference. On the invitation list: Israel, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Hizbollah, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. (One pre-condition: no participant may engage in a hostile act against another while the talks process is under way.)
2. Hold the conference at Camp David. President Obama chairs the opening session. Each delegation sets out its position: a maximum of five demands per delegation.
3. Divide into working groups of officials and technical experts: each delegation can choose which ones it wants to be represented in, but it might go something like this ... Israel with Fatah and Hamas; Syria with Israel and Lebanon; Iran with Israel and Iraq; Saudi Arabia with Jordan, Syria, Iran and Iraq. They remain closeted at Camp David.
4. The US, the UN, the EU and Russia (the "Quartet") have observers/facilitators in each working group. Once a week they convene to compare notes and report back. For example: if Iran thinks there may be a way of doing a deal with Israel on nuclear weapons, word may reach Hamas and Hizbollah that they should start being more flexible in their talks with Israel. Or if Syria sees the prospect of a deal on the return of the Golan Heights, it might pass word to Hamas that Damascus's support should no longer be assumed. Or if Israel sees the possibility of an agreement with both Iran and Syria, it may be prepared to concede more to the Palestinians on territorial borders and the right of return for refugees.
5. After six months, heads of state and government reconvene at Camp David, President Obama presiding. If they've made progress, he encourages them to make more. If they haven't, he reads them the riot act. (Remember, three key players - Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - are hugely dependent on US aid and trade; and Fatah would disappear without constant injections of cash to the Palestinian Authority from the EU.)
6. And so it goes on, for as long as it takes. The point of the exercise is to maximise the numbers of cards in play. Yes, it makes it much more complicated, but it also makes the winning hand much more tempting. Each delegation has the prospect of getting some of what it wants, and the opportunity to put pressure on proxies and/or allies to facilitate a deal.
It would need maximum commitment from all parties. It might fail. But I reckon it could be worth a try. What do you think?
Comments