Going Nuclear in the Middle East - In search of an European Middle East Policy
Javier SOLANA, Former High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union - Thank you very much. Thank you President of the French Senate, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces Committee and President of the Schuman Foundation and all of you who have organized this fascinating symposium on a vital issue, vital for Europe, but above all vital for the Middle East and for the people who live there, so close to us in heart and in flesh.
Let me briefly say something about European developments. There has been talk about Europe's role, about Europe's recent history. After the Rome Treaty, there were probably three phases in Europe's development, just to keep things simple. The first was reconciliation due to political will. This was a phase that managed to create a single market. Then there was the stage of continental stabilization, that can be called the enlargement, although some might disagree but it is however the phase of stabilization of the continent. We stabilised the continent by opening up to countries like Poland. That was a phase of determined political action. Today, I would say we are at the outset of the third phase which is that of Europe as a necessity. We cannot live and act in a world where power will change hands in the way it has been to date. Changes in our part of the world, emerging economies around the world, G20, all these things are going to completely change the world. Europe, out of necessity, has to act as such. I have just read the UK report on that. It says it is a fantasy to imagine that any European country can act alone in today's world. I totally agree with that. Now we are faced with the necessity of acting together and leveraging the Lisbon Treaty so as to make all the necessary efficient and swift efforts for implementation in spirit and letter. I say `spirit' because that is as important as the letter.
I feel free today. I am representing Europe. I am a citizen who loves Europe, coming from a country that has suffered much, that always loved to be part of Europe. I am from a family in Salvador de Madariaga that for generations acted as responsible Europeans. And I want to say clearly to all of you from Europe, or from other parts of the world because I know you are here in this room, that we here in Europe are willing to give that necessary push towards building Europe, not just in economic but also in political terms.
I want to briefly say a couple of things about the various issues you have been discussing. There is this excellent report which has been published. I was lucky enough to meet the President of the Committee for Middle East Affairs on a number of occasions and I know the excellent work that has been done. I would revert to what was said at the end of this afternoon's presentations about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I had been a member of the Spanish government when I attended the Madrid conference so I was already very much involved in this process. That was the first step I think that opened the door to the Oslo conference. Since then we have travelled a long road. I am aware of the Palestinian and Israeli frustrations; everyone in this region is suffering from the absence of a final solution to the peace process. I would say that 2009 was a year of great frustration for me because it started with the hope that the situation around the world, especially the relationship between Europe and the United States, would be able to set in motion a process that would lead to peace and that failed. Now we are all frustrated to see that the efforts made by the President, and by Senator Mitchell who is a good friend of mine and with whom I had worked with before going back to the second Intifada, lack a peaceful resolution. It has been very frustrating that we have not been able to turn things around during the first half of last year. Remember the three questions that were on the table a year ago? Firstly, negotiation across the board, including all factors - that meant the borders and everything. There were two demands: that the Israelis freeze the settlements - that was our demand supported by the Palestinians or the Arab world, and that was not only endorsed but also pushed by the United States to start with; and a demand on the Arab states to launch the Arab peace initiative. That's binary, if I can put it that way, peace for recognition, recognition for peace. We sought ways of bringing in some flexibility ensuring that a step taken on one side would be met by an equivalent step on the other side, so it was not about waiting to reach the final peace and recognition before moving. The idea therefore was step-by-step progress on both sides. However, that failed. The settlement freeze was a failure and probably consequently the response on the Arab side was also a failure.
The conclusion we reached was that, as we went through all the American administrations, the acceptance of the Israeli position was the final US position. The US President said «we would not accept the continuation of settlements». Secretary Clinton said «we would not accept it» and in the end she did «we accept the continuation of settlements». There was a lack of political courage to say no and to stick to that line. I think this is going to be a vital key to success. As soon as it is done the better it will be for Israelis, for Palestinians and for peace.
Senator Mitchell has put forward a number of initiatives aimed at re-establishing bilateral contact between Israelis and the Palestinians. For now the Israelis are as ready to involve themselves as the Palestinians. But Palestinians think it is hard to accept meeting the Israelis as they continue to settle. The Goldstone Report is something which we have not mentioned and it is very important because the Palestinians found that they were virtually isolated vis-à-vis the Arab countries and us to a certain extent. President Abbas is really very pessimistic. To get things going again is going to be very difficult but maybe the idea of the solution would be to start contacts at a lower technical level, to start having meetings between the two sides with the backing of the quartet. Basically in the quartet what counts is the US and us .We have people on the ground, which is not the case with the Americans. There is not a single American in the field on the ground apart from the embassy. We, apart from our embassies, have people on the ground in Raffa, in the West Bank, with the police force. I think we need to monitor very closely these developments on the ground. I would like to speak optimistically and say that I do not think that it is impossible.
I think that if we do not discuss the matter of borders we will not get anywhere. That has to be the first item on the agenda, even if the Palestinians do not have all of the territory a day after the definition. Frontiers is where it all starts and that goes back to 1967. What we are talking about is changes of 2.5% or 6%. It should be possible to reach and if we can settle that then we will settle the problem of the settlements because they will be on one side of the line or the other. And therefore there will not be any settlements. That should be the first objective and that is where the first efforts should lie. It is not out of reach, we just need the political will. The Europeans have to agree on that and I think that is the case and they have to stick to that position throughout negotiations without any backtracking. If we can achieve that we can perhaps make the progress we should have made in 2009.
However, that will be difficult because after what was said on Wednesday, in the State of the Union speech, we heard that most efforts will not go into American foreign policy but into the economy. Nonetheless, I think there is a way forward. What I want us all to do, what I call upon politicians, European civil society and others is to mobilise our efforts and political will in that direction, that is to look at the final definition of frontiers. At the end of the peace period between Israel and Egypt, the real issue was Sinai. That issue was settled on a step-by-step basis. Obviously it was different because there you are talking about two States and with Palestine you are not talking about a State. I think that if we can seriously address the question of borders, it will be a step in the right direction and it will establish the necessary credibility for the Palestinians and the Arab world.
I will come back to some others issues addressed. Throughout 2009 there were three things that were important. Firstly, Gaza. No solution has been found there. I remember the first 2009 Sharm el-Sheikh international conference on Gaza. Secretary of State Clinton was there. President Sarkozy presided over the conference and made an important statement in that meeting. It was said «We will try again but if peace is not reached by the two parties then the international community will have to find a way of imposing it». This was the first time anything similar was said in public and this should not be overlooked because we will probably have to express it again. After the Sharm el-Sheikh conference, and with all the money that was pledged, nothing happened. Gaza continued as before which is tragic. At the same time it is interesting to think there are no more rockets. Since the beginning of 2009 there has been no violence in Gaza. It is interesting because we do not know how long this is going to last so we should take advantage of it. It is important to maintain this situation of non-violence on the ground. The third important thing to speak about is the Fayyad Plan. It is true that it does not solve all the issues but it is the first meaningful step towards institution building by the Palestinians themselves, by a group of Palestinians who, with our help and the help of other countries and non-EU members, will seek to achieve its aims. I am a good friend of Salam Fayyad. I think he is an amazing person who has done, and will continue to do, amazing things. However, at the same time Egypt, and General Souleiman, was delegated by the international community, including the Arab countries, to the role of negotiating intra-Palestinian agreements. Objectively speaking, this was a positive situation but unfortunately it did not manage to produce a solution. Hamas is obviously a very important issue. There can not be peace if there is no settlement of the Hamas issue. It is not a question of `if,' though, it is a question of `how and when'. I do not think there will be any meaningful peace negotiations with Hamas as it is today. Israel would never agree. We will have to negotiate with today's Palestinian Authority, try to settle peace and save time and then settle the internal Palestinian problem. I do not think you can do it the other way around. Israel and Hamas do not want to and they do not want a final agreement. They want an open and not final agreement. They would prefer to postpone negotiations and agreement and it is important to bear this in mind. You can talk with Hamas but recognition of Hamas would be a very dear price to pay and I do not think that is going to happen now. It is a very important issue and it is perhaps something that needs to be done at the right time.
Moving on to Iran. You know that I was head of negotiations, not just for Europe, but I represented US, China and Russia in these negotiations also, which was amazing. If you had said that a European could speak for all the Security Council permanent members plus the EU, it would have seemed extraordinary. Unfortunately no progress was achieved firstly because the Americans were never included. They only attended the last meeting in Geneva in 2009 where we looked at the nuclear programme with «Freeze for Freeze» (freeze sanctions and freeze the number of centrifuges). Secondly, the presence on the ground of Mohamed ElBaradei to inspect the facilities discovered in September and thirdly, and very importantly, the existence of a small Tehran reactor. These were extremely important factors which stunted any progress. You know how important this small reactor is because France has been very much involved. We had these three points in the meeting in Geneva. Then there was the referendum in Tehran, resulting in its refusal. The agreement reached has been destructed for internal domestic reasons.
All of this means that decision-making processes in Tehran are more complicated than before so we have to give serious thought to what is going to happen in 2010. I do not think we can sit back and carry on doing nothing with Tehran. It will be very difficult, but I think we have to say to do something and to opt for a double way of action if there are no negotiations. New York is still the place where we have to work on this issue. What about China and Russia? It is not going to be easy but all efforts to keep them on board must be made. We, in Europe, must do everything we can to reach a European common position. The question of which types of sanctions is also very tricky. There are countries who say sanctions on trade or exports is stupid because then the Chinese will come in and take your place and Tehran will continue to have the means of boosting its economy. We need a serious discussion and I think 2010, over the next few months, will be the right time to do that.
There are many things I could say about Turkey, Syria, negotiations between Israel and Syria and Turkey's role. I think that in this respect some progress is being made: situation in Lebanon, the Lebanon government, etc. I think the fundamental issue is the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the only way of making progress is making it clear to everybody that the international community is going to make every effort possible to define the borders of a Palestinian state. Then we will have to negotiate how the Palestinian government will take responsibility for its territory, having a perfectly clear idea of what the borders of the state are. Without a clear definition of the borders it would be very difficult to reach an agreement that would be supported by the Arab world.
Dear friends, thank you very much for your attention. I am perhaps frustrated but, like many of you doubtless, optimistic about the future of Europe. As I said at the outset, it is not just about sentimentality now, it is necessity. European leaders now have a clear idea of where we need to go. I think the President answered a question just now about this. In international meetings, when we have 8 or 10 Europeans speaking side-by-side it is either cacophony or repetition. If it is repetition then you would say `why say the same thing,' and if it is cacophony nobody knows what is being said. What we need is a single voice; no cacophony and no repetition. If we want to repeat anything, it should be repeating our policy every day and not changing it. Thank you.
Jean FRANÇOIS-PONCET, French Senator, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Co-author of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces Committee's report on the situation in the Middle East - Mr Solana's presentation is the culmination of our symposium here. Let me thank him once again for being here. There will be no questions, I am sorry. I see people would like to but Mr Solana has made an ex cathedra presentation so there can be no questions and no-one would dare answer for him. That is the end of our symposium. Questions will have to remain at the back of your mind for our next symposium. I wish you all a pleasant evening and fruitful meditation on everything that has been said here. I am absolutely convinced you will find all sorts of intellectual nourishment in that. Thank you so much.