December/January 1992/93, Page 30

What Should the Outgoing and Incoming Administrations Do to Secure Middle East Peace?—Three Views

Three Views from a U.S. Diplomat, an Arab American and a Muslim American

Six Suggestions for President-Elect Clinton

By Talcott W. Seelye

President-elect Bill Clinton is said to support a "last-ditch" effort by former Secretary of State James Baker to revive stalled peace negotiations during the remaining weeks of the Bush administration. At first glance this appears to be a positive step because of Baker's mediating talents and his great success in bringing the parties together.

Since Baker would be representing a "lame-duck" administration, however, there is virtually no chance of his breaking the current deadlock. He would have no mandate for the future. And, in any case, neither side is likely to make a move until the Clinton administration reveals where it stands on the issues.

Therefore, all that the Bush administration can and should do during the limited time remaining is to adjourn peace talks and to convey to the parties Clinton's stated desire that these talks should continue under his aegis.

Although Clinton's "plate" will be exceedingly full when he assumes the presidency, it is imperative that he assign priority to the Arab-Israeli question.

If negotiating progress is not achieved soon, escalating extremist pressures on both sides will make a resolution of the problem even more difficult.

In the occupied territories the lack of any progress in negotiations after one year, together with deteriorating living conditions, has given a new lease on life to the intifada. Extremist elements led by the hard-line Hamas are spearheading growing opposition to the peace talks. Time is running out.

Accordingly, here is what the Clinton administration should do to move the talks ahead:

Presidential Involvement. The president should demonstrate a strong personal commitment to a peace settlement by inviting the delegation heads to the White House early on (possibly in the company of their foreign ministers). There Clinton should: (1) stress the importance he attaches to the talks; (2) reiterate the long-standing U.S. position that a peace settlement must be based on the exchange of occupied territory for full peace; and (3) undertake to engage the U. S. actively in negotiations when a deadlock occurs—including the possibility of his personal participation in talks at some point. Appointment of Special Mediator. The president should appoint an "elder statesman" to serve as special mediator who would report directly to the secretary of state and to the president. This would ensure continuous and close monitoring of the talks by a person of considerable stature and one who would be free of other distracting duties. If U.S. intervention in the talks were required, this individual would be the first to undertake this initiative.

Action on Settlements. The continued construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank is an obstacle to peace. Even though Prime Minister Rabin has stopped new settlement building, some 11,000 units already under construction will introduce an additional 50,000 settlers into that territory. This not only complicates eventual withdrawal from the West Bank but it also inhibits Palestinian negotiators. Therefore, Clinton should inform Rabin that all settlement building on the occupied territories must cease forthwith regardless of previous internal commitments. If not, U.S. aid to Israel would be adversely affected.

U.S. Embassy and Jerusalem. Clinton's election campaign statement in support of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem should be countermanded. The new administration should reiterate our long-standing non-recognition of the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. And it should agree to continue to keep the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv pending agreement on the final status of that holy city.

Dialogue with the PLO. The Clinton administration should consent to resume the U.S. dialogue with the PLO. This would strengthen moderate elements in the PLO (led by Yasser Arafat) who have supported the peace talks and with whom the Palestinian negotiators have consulted on a regular basis. This also might alleviate at least some of the current Palestinian dissatisfaction with the status of the peace talks.

Statement on Self-Determination. A public statement by Clinton endorsing the principle of self-determination would be helpful in overcoming Palestinian concerns that, in agreeing to a limited autonomy under the umbrella of Israeli occupation authorities, they may be undercutting their objective of achieving full autonomy and even statehood. Such a presidential statement would give the Palestinians more reason to believe that some day the Israeli occupation will indeed end. Possibly, also, the limited nature of Israel's first-stage autonomy proposal would thereby become more palatable. Since the presidential statement would be one of principle, containing no specific U.S. commitment, the Israelis would have little basis for objection.

The gap between what the new president should do and what he is likely to do appears large. Clinton and Vice President-elect Albert Gore bring with them heavy pro-Israeli baggage. Furthermore, the Democratic Party has tended to tilt sharply toward Israel. Therefore, it is probably too much to expect that President-elect Clinton will take most of the steps outlined above or that he will ever push Israel hard to be more responsive in negotiations.

Yet the latter is what is most needed. The Arab side has undisputedly recognized Israel's right to exist and is ready to make peace with Israel on reasonable and internationally endorsed terms. While Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, unlike his predecessor, accepts the principle of exchanging territory for peace, he seems only to endorse a token withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories.

Without substantial withdrawal there can be no peace and without peace the Middle East will be a very unstable place. As long as the Arab-Israeli conflict festers there is a danger of a new and more destructive war. Therefore, the U.S. must involve itself directly in the peace talks—and push Israel hard.

Talcon W. Seelye served as deputy assistant secretary of state, ambassador to Tunisia and Syria, and special emissary to Lebanon before retiring from the U. S. foreign service in 1981.