Peace conference scores real results

By DAVID IGNATIUS, Washington Post
Published November 29, 2007

WASHINGTON

After watching President Bush earnestly deliver his benediction to the Annapolis peace conference, a caustic English friend likened the scene to one of the durbars held periodically to bolster the British Empire's rule in India. As with the long-ago gatherings of maharajahs, wrote my friend, "so the U.S. has convened its vassals from around the world to witness - mostly in silence - a grand event, the import of which is closed to them."

A note of skepticism is always warranted on the topic of U.S.-Arab-Israeli peacemaking. And in the run-up to Annapolis, expectations were so low that they were sinking into the Chesapeake Bay.

But in this case, I take the contrarian view: Something real did happen in Annapolis. The process that began Tuesday may not lead to peace, but that doesn't mean that Annapolis was simply a gaudy, empty show. A careful reading of the "Joint Understanding" that was announced by President Bush reveals the achievements, and the failures. I find several important steps forward:

- For starters, the document commits the parties to begin negotiations on a peace treaty "resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception." The text unfortunately doesn't specify what these unmentionables are, but negotiators understand that it does mean the two deal-breakers, Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

The most contentious passage was the last paragraph, which concluded that "implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States." The Israelis won an important concession here, in the understanding that a treaty won't happen unless there is security on the ground, as the road map mandates. But they gave up something important, too, in specifying that the United States will decide whether the road map conditions are being met.

This role of arbiter puts Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice squarely in the middle of the process and gives the United States leverage to prod the two sides.

- Second, it matters that all sides have agreed to "vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations" through 2008. This alters the agenda for the region, in a positive way. A peace process will be under way, and all the observers - including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas - will have to deal with it. The radicals will try to blow it up, but if any progress is being made, that will be difficult. The process will become credible if the road map conditions improve next year - if Arabs see Israelis dismantle settlements, and if Israelis see Palestinian security forces establishing order and curtailing terrorism. If the two sides fail to take these crucial confidence-building steps, and cede the ground back to the extremists, it will be their fault.

- Third, it's important that the Saudis, Syrians and other Arab League members were present at the conference as prospective midwives. That was Rice's goal when she began thinking about the Annapolis process - to get "buy-in" from the Arabs at the outset, so that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would have some cover.

The Saudis came because they are worried about the rise of Iran and the radicals. But it would be a mistake to see Annapolis simply as a pretext for a new anti-Iranian front. "There is a feeling that all of us are exhausted by this," one Saudi explained. "To have stability in the Middle East, the Palestinian issue must be resolved."

The Syrians came because Annapolis explicitly signaled that their issues are on the table, too. Some leading Israeli politicians, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak, would like to start negotiations with Syria tomorrow. Damascus, by its presence in Annapolis, showed that it may be ready to play.

Sometimes, the things that matter are the ones right in front of your nose, and that's the case with Annapolis. Critics talked for months about how the conference wouldn't happen, and wouldn't matter anyway. Well, it did, and it does.

David Ignatius' e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com

[Last modified November 29, 2007, 02:37:30]