A New Middle East Peace Initiative

By Mikhail Gorbachev

Published: SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2000

MOSCOW: It is almost a decade since former President George Bush and I co-sponsored the first Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid in 1991. We were filled with hope then. For the first time the two sides explicitly recognized the rights of the other to exist and vowed to work together towards peace. Now it seems that both sides have forgotten this promise.

In my experience, when you take a step forward, your opponent is forced to do the same. Rather than continue with the impossible task of resolving all the issues in advance, it would be more fruitful, especially given the current situation, for the Israeli leadership to make a firm statement that they accept the right of Palestine to become a viable independent state and then to support the long-awaited declaration of this state.

The two nations of Israel and Palestine could then proceed to discuss the details of borders, and even the question of Jerusalem, on the basis of inter-state negotiations, with the help of international mediators as necessary. It should not be forgotten that once a people have their own state, violence becomes a threat to security rather than a tool.

Nothing less than the creation of their own state will satisfy the people of Palestine enough to put their trust back in the diplomatic process. It will then be time for the international community to seriously reassess its role in the peace process. There is currently a strong opposition on the part of Israel and the United States to what is being called Yasser Arafat's desire to "internationalize the conflict" by demanding an international investigation into the violence, and a UN protection force to shield the Palestinians. I would rather call for the internationalization of the peace process.

In the 1980s the United States attempted to solve the Middle Eastern problem unilaterally. When these attempts proved futile, George Shultz visited me in Moscow to suggest that we work together. This opened the way to the Madrid conference. Should we not draw some lessons out of these decade-old mistakes?

The discussions in Camp David in July should have been welcomed as the first real talks on Jerusalem. Instead, the diplomatic breakdown, ensuing violence and the U.S. elections, have highlighted the fact that the three-party process is intensely vulnerable to both the pressures of domestic politics and accusations of partiality.

We need to involve more players, and adopt a transparent approach less likely to fall hostage to domestic politics. The recent return to arms has also made it painfully clear that peace based only on diplomatic efforts can never last long. There must also be a safety net of economic, infrastructure and other interdependencies to serve as a backbone for peace.

We need a "Marshall Plan" for the Middle East to develop the region, reduce the inequalities that are a source of so much frustration, and act as a catalyst for cooperation. This should in no way be seen as an exercise in charity, as any success in resolving the conflict in this strategically and economically vital part of the world, and building long-term international cooperation and stability, will not only remove the enormous cost of the conflict but be a wise investment in the future.

In this regard, I strongly believe that water could be a natural vehicle for peace in the Middle East. Therefore, rather than deter us, this tragic deterioration of the political process has given new resolve to the work of Green Cross International, the environmental organization of which I am president. Whatever the political climate, the people of this region need to drink water and to grow their crops.

I was greatly heartened by meetings which I had with Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Mr. Arafat and King Abdullah II of Jordan earlier this year, in which all three leaders agreed that solutions to the region-wide water scarcity cannot be arrived at unilaterally. The Middle East's shared water sources could provide an avenue for mutually-beneficial cooperation in order to meet the essential water and food needs of the people. It also eliminates, or at least alleviates, one of the major security concerns in the region. And it could lead to an innovative and united international initiative to build a lasting peace in the region.

The writer, the last president of the former Soviet Union, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

[Not to be reproduced without the permission of the author.]

Home > Opinion