Schultz on mideast peace (fwd)

Here is the transcript of an interview with George Schultz from the
Newshour with Jim Lehrer.  It's quite revealing concerning a major cause
behind the current violence in the Mideast.  And it raises an interesting
question - why was the Camp David summit called to begin with...

---------- Forwarded message ----------

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: With me is George Shultz, who was Secretary of State
during the Reagan administration. He has occasionally advised Governor Bush
during this presidential campaign. What's gone wrong, Mr. Secretary? We just
saw these pictures, barriers, violence. What has led to this, in your view? 
GEORGE SHULTZ, Former Secretary of State: I think the Camp David meetings
were an exercise in overreach. And the result was that every raw nerve
imaginable got exposed. And then we have seen this sort of interaction of
violence that presents us with all of these horrible pictures. 
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Explain what you mean by "overreach." 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, there has been a long process here going on for
decades, step by step by step. And always the people involved have said, "we
know you inch forward." Then occasionally maybe there's a good big step. But
be careful you don't go backwards because there's always this tension there.
It's also important, I think, to get the parties directly involved. Sadat's
trip to Jerusalem came about after there were a lot of subterranean
discussions, as I understand it, between is Sadat and Begin or their
representatives. The U.S. was not involved in that. The Oslo Agreement was
produced by negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. was not
involved. The U.S. was informed about it. And then they came to Washington
for a handshake, and we participated and it was good. But it was essentially
their doing. 
Camp David was done by the United States, and I think it's obvious after the
fact that it was a mistake. But before the fact, there were a number of
people who said, "Don't do it." And one of them was Yasser Arafat. He
basically said directly, "I'm not ready for this meeting." And I think he
should have been paid attention to, because the Israelis basically crossed
every red line they had, and still that wasn't acceptable. So I think you
have to respect the fact that each party within itself has to be ready to
make an agreement if it's going to be made, and probably you have to inch
along. You can't just do everything at once. 
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you think they took on too much, tried to do too
much there given the fact that Arafat wasn't ready? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, if he says... If you have one person, two people coming
and one of them says, "I'm not ready to make an agreement," you're asking
for trouble by bringing them together. 
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And do you think essentially it was destabilizing to
the whole process or that it made him look bad because he had to say... how
do you think it then led to this? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, looking at it from the standpoint of people in Israel
who have been in the let's-make-peace camp, what are they saying to
themselves now? They're saying, "we were told that Syria wanted to Golan
Heights back and then there would be peace." So the Syrians were offered the
Golan Heights. They said no. We were told that if we want peace with the
Palestinians, they basically have to get control of practically all of the
West Bank. I don't think it crossed many minds in Israel that they also
should have control of certain portions of East Jerusalem and other elements
in the Temple Mount area, but anyway, that was also put there, and they said
no. So now I'm an Israeli. What am I supposed to think are the prospects for
peace? 
Now, from the other side of the equation, I think two things have happened
that are unfortunate. One is that when it comes to something like Jerusalem,
that was an area that the Israelis had sovereignty over. They respected the
holy sites. The holy sites were really administered by the holy people. An
effort was made to provide access, although it wasn't satisfactory, but
there are real security concerns there. But at any rate, there was a
situation that certainly the Palestinians, the Arabs couldn't agree to, but
anyway, it was there. And it hadn't gotten to the point of real controversy.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The status quo was working, more or less? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, it was working more or less, but at least it wasn't
exacerbated to the point of all of this conflict. 
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you wouldn't have tried to deal with the Temple
Mount or Haram al-Sharif at this point? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, I think it was premature to do it, because if you
tackle something like that, particularly if important matters are put on the
table, and you don't get anywhere, then you have taken something that is
potentially always explosive, and you've exposed all of the raw nerves, as I
said, and then that really is an aggravation. Then I think there's also been
something that's happened here, and I feel this, although it's hard to
document it, but for a long time, the strength of the Israelis led
extremists on the other side to have to take a backseat for there to be a
kind of understanding. 
Yes, Israel is here to stay, and we're going to have to make some kind of
accommodation. And there is no real military option because Israel is too
strong. Now, as violence has worked, at least so it seems, I think there on
-- the position of extremists on both sides has been built up, whereas the
whole process has been one to kind of marginalize them and focus on the big
center people who want to have reasonably peaceful relationships and get on
with decent lives.




Is the peace process dead?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you think that the peace process as we've known it
since 1993 is basically dead? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, the effort to achieve greater stability, peace or at
least stable working arrangements, certainly isn't dead. Presumably there
are lots of people who want to work at that. And that has to be worked at.
But there is a lot to be done, I think, before you can try to reassemble
people at a bargaining table or at the discussion table. 
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What should be done? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: In any negotiation, any negotiator knows that in a way the
tip of the iceberg is my negotiation with you. My first responsibility is to
look at my constituency and be sure that I have people assembled who
understand what I'm trying to do and who are going to support what I agree
to. And I'm not going to agree to things that I know won't be supported. And
also, I look at you on the other side, and I ask myself, "are you in that
same position?" Because if I see that you aren't, then it's a question
whether I ought to make a lot of concessions to you. So each side I think at
this point has a lot of work to do. For example, in Israel right now, they
have an electoral system that makes it almost impossible to form a
government, because instead of there been two main parties with some others,
as has been traditionally the case, the Labor and Likud Parties are becoming
less and less important, and all sorts of little groups are there, and if
you try to form a government out of that mishmash, it's very difficult to
have anything that really is stable. 
On the Arab side, there are all these questions about the degree to which
the Palestinians are coherent. I think they're probably a little more
coherent than they're given credit for, but it's a real question. But I
think the Arab leaders too have to be a part of this. And for example, when
you take holy sites, are Barak and Arafat really the only people who should
have a say? Are there people in Islam who presumably have something to say?
For that matter, there are people in the Jewish religion that have something
to say, and I would have to say as a Christian, I think we have something to
say, too. So I think there ought to be a lot of thought given to how to form
the groupings that have something to say here, and they need to be much more
coherent. And in the meantime, however, I think that Israel needs to stand
there and quell the violence and be strong and presumably Arafat has to
gather his forces together. But the violence has got to stop. 

A troubled region
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How do concerns and issues and problems in the wider
Arab world play into all of this? 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Well, among the things... I don't know if you want to say
Arab world, but among the things around in the region, and I don't know that
we've heard from Iran yet or Iraq coming back into the picture. They're very
antagonistic to any settlement with Israel. And I was stunned to read that
an agreement had been made between Vice President Gore and Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin back in 1995 with Russia that went along with the sales of
really major pieces of equipment with submarines, with fighters, with
torpedoes and things like that that are very damaging to get into the hands
of the hands of the Iranians and not having that trigger the sanctions that
were there in a bill that Senator Gore with Senator McCain had sponsored. So
that's part of the picture here, that it isn't just the Israelis and the
Palestinians, but you are have to think more broadly about the situation in
the region.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Secretary Shultz, thanks for being with us. 
GEORGE SHULTZ: Thank you. 





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html