Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1999, pages 115-117

Waging Peace

Two Remarkable Women of Peace at University of Maryland

On April 29 the University of Maryland’s School of Public Affairs and Center for International Development and Conflict Management in College Park hosted a conversation with Leah Rabin, widow of Israel’s assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and Jehan Sadat, widow of Egypt’s assassinated President Anwar Sadat. Award-winning author and syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer moderated the lively discussion between the two former first ladies, who still are passionately involved in their countries’ peace efforts.

Despite the tragic assassinations of their peacemaker husbands, the peace they made did not come undone, Geyer said as she introduced the women. Leah Rabin, whose husband was killed by a Jewish religious extremist in 1995, does charitable work in Tel Aviv and is a passionate speaker for world peace. Jehan Sadat, who has earned a Ph.D. since her husband was killed in 1981 by an Egyptian Islamist militant, is a senior associate at the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland and a devoted activist for women and the disadvantaged. Like Mrs. Rabin, Dr. Sadat is a tireless advocate for global peace.

Leah Rabin minced few words as she explained her husband’s vision for peace and lambasted groups who say her husband betrayed his people by returning land captured in the 1967 war. She told the audience Israel has had enough tears and bloodshed. The train of peace halted and faltered during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s rule, Rabin pointed out, but “there is no return ticket and the train will eventually continue. There is no alternative to peace.”

It was easier for Israel to give back the deserts in the Sinai than it is to return the West Bank many believe was promised by God to the Jews, Rabin remarked. “But if we want to live in peace in this generation, we don’t want to have our freedom and independence at the expense of others. We don’t want to be occupiers of other peoples’ lives. We have to return land and compromise. After a war nations compromise on what to do with land occupied in war.”

When asked what American Jewry could do to encourage peace, Rabin said Americans should support the peace movements trying to bring Arabs and Israelis together.

Sadat also lauded efforts to teach Arab and Israeli students about each other by studying each other’s rich cultures, exchanging visits and dialogs. The Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland promotes faculty exchanges, encouraging face-to-face negotiations.

Sadat explained that Americans can also convince Israelis that when peace is made it never falters. “Look at how Egypt reacted when Israel invaded Lebanon,” she said. “Peace held. After 20 years it’s still holding. It’s not the kind of peace we expected. We wanted an exchange of culture, trade and tourism. But the coldest peace is much better than the hottest war.” Sadat concluded, “When Palestinians and Israelis make peace it will make Egyptian peace warmer. If we improve our relationship we can serve as a model for other conflict resolutions.”

The views of these two passionate women, who have dedicated their lives to carrying on their husbands’ legacies, were warmly welcomed by a capacity audience at the university’s Tawes Theater. The discussion also was broadcast by Maryland Public Television.

—Delinda C. Hanley

Western Sahara Discussed at MEI

Ambassador Charles Dunbar discussed the “Western Sahara: A Cautionary Tale About Winner-Take-All Referendums” at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC on May 14. Dunbar, a career U.S. foreign service officer, was special representative of the U.N. secretary-general for the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). He began his work in 1996 at the request of former Secretary of State James Baker, who had been appointed a special envoy by the United Nations to deal with the situation in the Western Sahara.

Dunbar explained that in 1991, 16 years after Morocco occupied what had been known as the Spanish Sahara and after subsequent serious fighting between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polasario Front, both sides agreed upon a referendum as a means of settling the political future of the Western Sahara.

The Settlement Plan, according to Dunbar, set forth an outline in which voters would be identified for eligibility. During the transition period before a vote would occur, details for how the referendum process would take place were agreed upon in what Dunbar termed a “heroic set of negotiations.” Voters were to be identified by their tribal identities, he said, explaining that under his predecessor, Eric Jensen, a list of some 80 sheikhs was drawn up between 1994 and 1995.

Of the 242,000 people who applied to vote, 180,000 were identified with the government of Morocco, 40,000 with the Polasario Front and the remainder gathered by the United Nations in Mauritania, which borders Western Sahara to the south, Dunbar said.

But a significant problem arose in 1995 when the Polasario Front contested the legitimacy of three tribal groupings. During the next year, the two sides tried to reach a solution to the impasse with the help of the United Nations.

In the Houston Accords, worked out at Baker’s request by the two sides in the United States, it was finally decided that the members of the three contested tribes could come forward as individuals.

In 1997, representatives of MINURSO thought that only a few hundred would come from these tribal groupings, but instead saw 12,000 turn up. In the end, it was determined that a total of 180,000 from all sides were eligible to vote in the referendum, and 170,000 showed up to be officially identified.

Dunbar noted that when people from Morocco appeared to vote, many could not name their family’s area of residence in the Western Sahara.

Dunbar warned that the United Nations must understand what it is getting itself into. He is concerned about whether the Moroccan people would allow their government to surrender the Western Sahara if the Polasario Front wins the referendum, and vice versa. A winner-take-all format is not the answer, according to Dunbar.

Dunbar believes that a United Nations presence must be maintained in the Western Sahara, but that it should not be increased at all until the two sides work out their differences over the details of the referendum and subsequent procedures. He closed by quoting his predecessor, Eric Jensen, who told him, “gristle is eaten away by the enzymes of social discourse,” meaning that both sides must continue to discuss the matter until they agree.

—Michael S. Lee

John Sfakianakis Discusses Egypt’s Military in Transition

John Sfakianakis, research fellow at Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies and a doctoral candidate at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, analyzed the Egyptian military on May 21 at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.

According to Sfakianakis, two factors have induced transition in the Egyptian military: the military’s steady withdrawal from the public sphere due to change in leadership, and various social changes in Egypt during the past three to five years. He cited the budget as a major problem, since it is neither discussed nor made public to the people or the politicians. Sfakianakis discussed the role, size, and effectiveness of the military; the relationship between the military and politics, society, and economy; and the relationship between the United States and Egypt.

“The role of the Egyptian military is very much related to its size,” Sfakianakis said. The size is justified by the need to guard against threats, he added, suggesting that size has been mistakenly equated with effectiveness. The Egyptian government tends to make quantitative rather than qualitative decisions, he indicated. Sfakianakis emphasized the need for balance between the army, air force, and navy, and a “double attempt to reduce the size of the military and use modern weaponry more efficiently.”

The political role of the military is influenced by the importance the president places on it to maintain his regime, Sfakianakis said. The military also plays a large economic role in the Egyptian manufacturing sector and in the production of civilian goods.

In his analysis of the military and society, Sfakianakis said, “Egyptian civilians will say that the military is the cause and solution for all things.” The private sector, he added, calls the military oversized and inefficient. He also noted the decline of the military as a desired career. Educated citizens tend to choose the private sector over the military, he said.

Finally, Sfakianakis discussed the U.S.-Egyptian relationship, calling it an important alliance that must continue. The U.S.-Israeli alliance and U.S. relations with the Middle East as a whole heavily influence the relationship between the United States and Egypt, Sfakianakis concluded. Obviously, the U.S. sees Israel as the preferential partner, which has a profound effect on the Egyptian military.

—Samia El-Mahdi