The Arab Spring is one of the most pertinent reasons why Europe should shoulder a more engaging strategy with regards to the Peace Process. From Tunis to Manama, no part of the Arab world will remain unchanged in the coming years. Thus, it is naïve to think that the Palestinian people will idly sit back and continue to accept poor living conditions and harassment in their daily lives while in neighboring countries populations begin to seek a better quality of life and a freer political system. Furthermore, the Israeli people, who have already staged significant protests, may grow weary of a Peace Process that has yet to deliver a lasting peace. In this light, change can and should be expected.
The EU would be wise to capitalize on the regional political situation and publicly begin an engagement campaign with the goal of finally brokering a peace agreement. So far, European leaders, with some notable exceptions, have been intelligent in their strategies regarding the Arab Spring. France and the UK have emerged as vanguards of freedom and democracy in an effort to promote their interests in the region, Spain has welcomed political reform in Morocco, and Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has made a plethora of statements praising the reform minded protest movements taking place throughout the region. The same strategy should be utilized in the Israel and Palestine issue. Too many years of depressing economic conditions for the Palestinians and insecurity for the Israelis have gone by. It is time for the EU to step up its efforts and publicly advocate for a resumption of serious negotiations. This would signal a fresh start for the thus-far failed Peace Process.
The EU and the Quartet have attempted to breathe new life into the Peace Process by giving the two parties deadlines for negotiations. Yet, the most significant contribution to peace that the EU could make is issuing a unanimous and united resolution that lays out key principles that all twenty-seven EU member states agree upon. This resolution should support Palestine as non-member observer state at the United Nations (UN), which would solidify the 1967 borders. French President Nicolas Sarkozy already suggested such a course of action at the UN in September. Moreover, it would finally provide a united and authoritative recognition of the borders of Israel and Palestine. If such an action were taken it would take great strides to compromise with the Palestinians regarding their statehood bid.
The Israeli settlements and the barrier in the West Bank should once again be condemned for their illegality under international law. The International Court of Justice, most UN member states, and even the U.S. have condemned these activities.
The resolution should also reaffirm that violent extremism is not to be tolerated, and that Israel’s security is an absolute priority. The EU already considers Hamas a terrorist organization. Thus, such strong language would only serve to further delegitimize violent strategies, and reward pacific and political solutions.
If these core statements were agreed upon, the EU would send a strong message to both sides. It would be a show of strength, unity, and pragmatism. More importantly, it could potentially jump-start the Peace Process.
Why is such a bold and engaging strategy necessary for the EU? Unfortunately, U.S. power in the Middle East is diminishing, and trust in U.S. foreign policy is basically non-existent. Its eight-year war in Iraq, its support of Arab dictators, and its staunch and unyielding support of Israel are some of the main reasons for its steep decline in Arab opinion.
A recent opinion poll by the Arab American Institute Foundation confirmed the notion that attitudes towards the U.S. are extremely unfavorable. In countries such as Egypt and Jordan (seen as necessary allies in the Peace Process), only 5 percent and 10 percent, respectively, have favorable views towards the US. Throughout Arab countries, an average of only 12 percent believe that the US contributes to peace and stability in the Middle East. In all countries polled, most see U.S. interference in the Arab World and the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands as the main obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East. Furthermore, over 50 percent of the population in each country polled believes that the Obama Administration has in fact worsened the prospect for peace between Israel and Palestine. Many of these figures are lower now than they were by the end of the Bush Administration. These figures point to an obvious loss of legitimacy by the U.S. in the Arab World.
Additionally, the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN last September put on full display a diplomatic standoff in which the U.S. clearly stated that it will veto any attempt by the Palestinians to become a state. This has indeed created a rift between the Palestinian leadership and the Obama Administration. A change in administration would likely not change this policy, as Republican candidates for U.S. President have stated in numerous debates their firm and inflexible commitment to stand by Israel in any situation as well.
The EU, on the other hand, does not have the tainted legacy that the U.S. has in the region. Although European countries (in particular France and the UK) were colonial powers in the Middle East in the 19th and 20th centuries, most have positive images in terms of their foreign policy decisions and humanitarian aid.
The support of many European leaders for the masses during the Arab Spring has indeed resounded well with Arab populations. In post-Qaddafi Libya, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and English Prime Minister David Cameron were the first Western leaders to visit the nation. Moreover, many European states have been lobbying for action in Syria. France, for example has a 54 percent approval rating from the Arab countries polled. The same poll also states that Sarkozy has a 53 percent approval rating (over 40 percent higher than Obama).
In terms of aid, the EU is the biggest aid donor to the Occupied Palestinian Territory with an annual sum of €295 million, and €4.26 billion since 1994. This aid has directly supported development programs, humanitarian relief, refugee assistance, and financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
With regards to the Middle East Peace Process, the EU has not lost its legitimacy as a peace broker, whether it is through statements of Catherine Ashton or the Quartet. The image of the EU is in direct contrast with that of the U.S., and thus can be seen as a legitimate, unbiased and untainted power broker.
The EU is therefore better positioned and better equipped to engage more extensively and assertively in this conflict. US presence in the Peace Process will, of course, not disappear. However, its significance and legitimacy are diminishing, as other actors such as Turkey, the Gulf States, and the EU become increasingly important in regional affairs. Nevertheless, Europe, in particular, has a unique opportunity to engage in the greatest struggle in the Middle East and revitalize the Peace Process. Europe has a lot to gain if it does so, yet bold and pragmatic action must be taken.
Miguel de Corral is an independent policy analyst with a focus on the Middle East. He studies International Affairs at Northeastern University.
a global affairs media network
A New Start: The Case for EU Leadership in the Peace Process
February 13, 2012
The Arab Spring is one of the most pertinent reasons why Europe should shoulder a more engaging strategy with regards to the Peace Process. From Tunis to Manama, no part of the Arab world will remain unchanged in the coming years. Thus, it is naïve to think that the Palestinian people will idly sit back and continue to accept poor living conditions and harassment in their daily lives while in neighboring countries populations begin to seek a better quality of life and a freer political system. Furthermore, the Israeli people, who have already staged significant protests, may grow weary of a Peace Process that has yet to deliver a lasting peace. In this light, change can and should be expected.
The EU would be wise to capitalize on the regional political situation and publicly begin an engagement campaign with the goal of finally brokering a peace agreement. So far, European leaders, with some notable exceptions, have been intelligent in their strategies regarding the Arab Spring. France and the UK have emerged as vanguards of freedom and democracy in an effort to promote their interests in the region, Spain has welcomed political reform in Morocco, and Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has made a plethora of statements praising the reform minded protest movements taking place throughout the region. The same strategy should be utilized in the Israel and Palestine issue. Too many years of depressing economic conditions for the Palestinians and insecurity for the Israelis have gone by. It is time for the EU to step up its efforts and publicly advocate for a resumption of serious negotiations. This would signal a fresh start for the thus-far failed Peace Process.
The EU and the Quartet have attempted to breathe new life into the Peace Process by giving the two parties deadlines for negotiations. Yet, the most significant contribution to peace that the EU could make is issuing a unanimous and united resolution that lays out key principles that all twenty-seven EU member states agree upon. This resolution should support Palestine as non-member observer state at the United Nations (UN), which would solidify the 1967 borders. French President Nicolas Sarkozy already suggested such a course of action at the UN in September. Moreover, it would finally provide a united and authoritative recognition of the borders of Israel and Palestine. If such an action were taken it would take great strides to compromise with the Palestinians regarding their statehood bid.
The Israeli settlements and the barrier in the West Bank should once again be condemned for their illegality under international law. The International Court of Justice, most UN member states, and even the U.S. have condemned these activities.
The resolution should also reaffirm that violent extremism is not to be tolerated, and that Israel’s security is an absolute priority. The EU already considers Hamas a terrorist organization. Thus, such strong language would only serve to further delegitimize violent strategies, and reward pacific and political solutions.
If these core statements were agreed upon, the EU would send a strong message to both sides. It would be a show of strength, unity, and pragmatism. More importantly, it could potentially jump-start the Peace Process.
Why is such a bold and engaging strategy necessary for the EU? Unfortunately, U.S. power in the Middle East is diminishing, and trust in U.S. foreign policy is basically non-existent. Its eight-year war in Iraq, its support of Arab dictators, and its staunch and unyielding support of Israel are some of the main reasons for its steep decline in Arab opinion.
A recent opinion poll by the Arab American Institute Foundation confirmed the notion that attitudes towards the U.S. are extremely unfavorable. In countries such as Egypt and Jordan (seen as necessary allies in the Peace Process), only 5 percent and 10 percent, respectively, have favorable views towards the US. Throughout Arab countries, an average of only 12 percent believe that the US contributes to peace and stability in the Middle East. In all countries polled, most see U.S. interference in the Arab World and the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands as the main obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East. Furthermore, over 50 percent of the population in each country polled believes that the Obama Administration has in fact worsened the prospect for peace between Israel and Palestine. Many of these figures are lower now than they were by the end of the Bush Administration. These figures point to an obvious loss of legitimacy by the U.S. in the Arab World.
Additionally, the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN last September put on full display a diplomatic standoff in which the U.S. clearly stated that it will veto any attempt by the Palestinians to become a state. This has indeed created a rift between the Palestinian leadership and the Obama Administration. A change in administration would likely not change this policy, as Republican candidates for U.S. President have stated in numerous debates their firm and inflexible commitment to stand by Israel in any situation as well.
The EU, on the other hand, does not have the tainted legacy that the U.S. has in the region. Although European countries (in particular France and the UK) were colonial powers in the Middle East in the 19th and 20th centuries, most have positive images in terms of their foreign policy decisions and humanitarian aid.
The support of many European leaders for the masses during the Arab Spring has indeed resounded well with Arab populations. In post-Qaddafi Libya, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and English Prime Minister David Cameron were the first Western leaders to visit the nation. Moreover, many European states have been lobbying for action in Syria. France, for example has a 54 percent approval rating from the Arab countries polled. The same poll also states that Sarkozy has a 53 percent approval rating (over 40 percent higher than Obama).
In terms of aid, the EU is the biggest aid donor to the Occupied Palestinian Territory with an annual sum of €295 million, and €4.26 billion since 1994. This aid has directly supported development programs, humanitarian relief, refugee assistance, and financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
With regards to the Middle East Peace Process, the EU has not lost its legitimacy as a peace broker, whether it is through statements of Catherine Ashton or the Quartet. The image of the EU is in direct contrast with that of the U.S., and thus can be seen as a legitimate, unbiased and untainted power broker.
The EU is therefore better positioned and better equipped to engage more extensively and assertively in this conflict. US presence in the Peace Process will, of course, not disappear. However, its significance and legitimacy are diminishing, as other actors such as Turkey, the Gulf States, and the EU become increasingly important in regional affairs. Nevertheless, Europe, in particular, has a unique opportunity to engage in the greatest struggle in the Middle East and revitalize the Peace Process. Europe has a lot to gain if it does so, yet bold and pragmatic action must be taken.
Miguel de Corral is an independent policy analyst with a focus on the Middle East. He studies International Affairs at Northeastern University.
