03 Dec The Annapolis Agreement
This past week’s Annapolis Agreement has been received with lukewarm enthusiasm by the press. Commenters have described the agreement as simply a procedural document.
I’m not so sure that such a tepid response is warranted. For the moment, remove the general pessimism about the possibility of Middle East peace. Ignore spillover effects from the Bush Administration’s foreign policy baggage. If you simply focus on the actual results of Annapolis, I think that we should have cause for greater enthusiasm than is currently on display.
The fact that Palestine and Israel agreed “to make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008” is enough to consider this first meeting a success. But here is the paragraph of the Annapolis Agreement that really caught my attention:
The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 — this is called the road map — and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.
Note the phrase “immediately implement.” What are those obligations? The Road Map has the following key commitments:
PHASE I: Ending Terror and Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions
Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate end to all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere.
Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security with Israel, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians anywhere.
Palestinian institution-building includes drafting a constitution for Palestinian statehood and conducting free elections.
Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied since September 2000, as security progresses, freezes all settlement activity, and dismantles outposts. It takes measures to improve the Palestinian humanitarian situation.
PHASE II: Transition
An independent Palestinian state is created with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty. The Palestinian leadership continues to act decisively against terror and to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.
An international conference will be convened by the Quartet after the Palestinian elections to support Palestinian economic recovery. Multilateral Middle East issues also will be addressed, including water, environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control issues.
PHASE III: Permanent Status Agreement and End of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Palestinian reform is consolidated and its institutions stabilized while effective security performance is sustained. Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aim at a permanent status agreement in 2005.
A second international conference convened by the Quartet leads to a final, permanent status resolution on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements. It also supports a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria, as soon as possible.
If you interpret the Annapolis Agreement as a commitment by Palestine and Israel to “immediately implement” the Road Map, it means that, at a minimum, Palestine and Israel have promised in the very near future to begin down the road of peace, starting with Phase I. This includes Palestine renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel’s right to exist and Israel recognizing Palestine’s sovereignty and withdrawing from key settlement areas.
Why is that not viewed as a significant step forward, with both sides making firm commitments to implement concrete steps toward Middle East peace, and the United States assigned the role of judging whether each side has implemented those steps?
“immediately implement” sounds like “all deliberate speed” to me. Sorry – I will look for the facts on the ground.
Best,
Ben
Yes I agree that we must see movement toward implementing Phase I in the near future. But I am just suggesting that Annapolis deserves greater recognition than it is receiving. Both sides promising to make major, concrete movement toward peace is no small feat. Have such mutual promises ever been made before?
Roger