• English Site
• > World
• > Middle East Peace Process

Progress in Annapolis

Hope from Bush for Middle East Peace

By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington, D.C.

Few thought it was possible that the Middle East conference in Annapolis would generate anything other than photo ops. But now, the Palestinians and the Israelis have agreed to talks. The hurdles remain large, however.

It was exactly 11 a.m. when US President George W. Bush walked on stage. He had woken up on this Tuesday morning to headlines from around the world blasting his Middle East conference in Annapolis, Maryland this week for being little more than a meaningless photo op. But on Tuesday morning, Bush stood up on stage and began his speech with confidence. Talks, he said, had gotten "off to a strong start."

Moments later, it became clear what he meant. The president read out an agreement that had been reached by the Israelis and Palestinians earlier in the day -- an accord that only a few people in the hall knew about. Like so many earlier agreements, the one Bush read on Tuesday affirmed both sides' determination to engage in earnest negotiations with the aim of eventually living peacefully side by side. But there was more. Rather than just airy rhetoric of the kind Bush is so good at, he was able to present a concrete timeline. The first meeting is scheduled for Dec. 12 with further negotiations scheduled for every two weeks thereafter. The talks will be facilitated by an American president committed to reaching an agreement by the end of his term at the end of 2008.

It is a real coup. And it is a surprise for all those who expected nothing of import to result from the conference -- as well as for those who question the Americans' ability to help negotiate a peace agreement due to their close relations with Israel. Even the mega-news network CNN was caught off guard. The channel completely forgot about the simultaneous translation of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' speech delivered on the heels of Bush's announcement. There was no sound other than the leader's speech in Arabic. For five long minutes, only Arabic could be heard, before CNN interrupts the program and cuts to a correspondent. "We are watching history be made," is all he can think to say.

A Referee of Talks

Whether it's "history," of course, remains to be seen. But it is a new initiative, and Bush's presentation contained new elements as well. He spoke emphatically about the suffering of the Palestinians and even used the world "occupation."

He addressed the Israelis directly when it came to dividing up the upcoming tasks. His explicit call for a Palestinian state isn't new -- he first made it in 2002. But at the time he refused to negotiate with the Palestinians' then-leader, Yasser Arafat, so his call wasn't worth much. Now Bush says: "Our job is to encourage the parties in this effort." Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said Bush's speech contained a new dimension -- the US will act as referee of the talks, and will judge both sides.

Bush will again meet Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the White House on Wednesday, and his aides will keep a close eye on the details that make Middle East peace talks so difficult -- at their first meeting on Monday they made sure that each side had exactly the same time allotted for their meetings with Bush.

Many questions remain. Does the new agreement amount to a historic breakthrough? How important was the participation of the Arab states really? After all, it was the first big international conference on the Middle East since 1991.

Admittedly, the agreement announced by Bush contains -- besides the commitment to a fixed negotiating framework -- no specific details on the most contentious issues, namely the borders of a Palestinian state, the right of return of refugees and the exact status of Jerusalem. Still, the US president listed three reasons why the time for a settlement is better than ever: The two leaders in Israel and the Palestinians are committed to peace; a historic battle is raging against extremists over the future of the region; and the whole world wants peace more than ever.

Cause for Optimism

Prior to his departure for Annapolis, Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made it clear that he agrees with the first point. "I have never seen so much willingness on the part of the Israelis and Palestinians to work together to make a conference a success," he said. Soon after the conference began, Steinmeier reiterated that there hadn't been such cause for optimism regarding the Middle East for a long time.

This optimism is, however, undermined by the fact that neither Abbas nor Olmert enjoy solid political standing domestically. Furthermore, the ongoing violence in Iraq combined with the rising power of Iran has seriously dented US authority in the region. Furthermore, while it may be that the world wants peace in the Middle East more than ever before, it is also clear that not all countries in the region are comfortable with the idea. Iran reacted to the summit by announcing it would hold its own anti-Annapolis conference.

"We have had a good day. The real challenges will come in the next few months," commented Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, reacting to Bush's speech. He also pointed out that, no matter how committed the parties may be to peace, the process can easily be derailed by suicide bombers.

Still, the surprise is complete -- helped along by the president's dampening of expectations prior to the event. Now, though, he will have to show a skill that his presidency so far hasn't demonstrated: attention to detail.

'Not the End of It'

"If you're going to do Middle East peace process, you can't just lay out a broad vision," warns Dennis Ross, the US Middle East envoy under former President Clinton. You also have to take care of the details, he said.

Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution adds that the painstaking struggle to come up with an agreement in the run-up to Annapolis underscores not only the differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but also the reluctance of the Americans to apply direct pressure. But that could become imperative. In the past, the Americans have "asked the Israelis and Palestinians to thrash out their differences on their own," the Economist points out.

Still, there is at least a framework for the talks. And while regular talks don't automatically mean that peace will be the end result, Bush's words leave some room for hope that the US is committed for the long term. "This is the beginning of the process," he said, "not the end of it."