Commissioner Patten's Speech at the EP on the Middle East Peace Process

I do not wish or intend to repeat what the Presidency has said about recent discussions of the Middle East by the Council or how it has reacted to the statement made by President Bush in Washington last week after his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon. The statement of course surprised many people, whether understandably or not, and one cannot disguise the fact that it seems to have caused great concern in the Arab world. Some have subsequently argued that it should not have done so. They have said that it offers us a way into the implementation of the road map rather than a tearing up of the road map. They have argued that we should seek out the positive - like the promised and welcome Israeli withdrawal from Gaza - rather than focus on the negative. Well, so be it. I do not seek to second guess the doubtless well intentioned interpretations of others or to undermine efforts to make the most out of the present exceptionally difficult situation. Some of course always see a glass as half full when others believe it is half empty. Others find it rather challenging to believe that a glass is half full when they can't see very much liquid in the glass at all. I guess that like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

But I do not wish to dwell on those matters. I will just make five points which we must address if we are to get anything positive from the present situation.

First, as the GAERC and the European Council have said again and again a final settlement can only be achieved as a result of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians resulting in two viable sovereign and independent states based on the borders of 1967 (perhaps amended by agreement), living side by side in peace and security as laid out in the road map This has been the main thread of European thinking from Venice in 1980 to Berlin in 1999 to Seville in 2002, right up to the latest European Council conclusions of last month. It is not surprising that we have agreed with what has been for 37 years the consistent American position that settlements beyond the 67 line are illegal and represent 'obstacles to peace'. We all know what will be the ingredients for a final settlement. They are there in the Mitchell Report and subsequent documents including the Arab League Peace Initiative of 2002. They are there in the road map which has been endorsed by the international community. A settlement does not await some heavenly insight. What it does await is the exercise of political will by both sides, Israeli and Palestinian. It is a tragedy that the courageous proposals of the representatives of civil society who negotiated the Geneva Initiative do not seem to be shared by the political leadership in their communities.

Second, we deplore the violence which postpones reconciliation and any chance of peace. We have always deplored without reservation, deplored and condemned with all our strength, the suicide bombings which take innocent lives and the dark propaganda that clouds the minds of so many. We are also profoundly critical of heavy handed military retaliation which destroys lives, homes, and livelihoods the sort of retaliation which increases extremism and does not increase security. We believe that targeted assassinations are wrong, illegal and counterproductive. One of the Palestinian politicians whom I most admire, a voice of sanity and reason, referred recently to the deafening sound of war drums on both sides and to the bitter fact that both communities seem to be locked in an embrace in which all that seems to matter is causing pain to the other side. There is plenty of pain on offer but not much promise of peace.

Thirdly, whatever the criticisms of the European approach to the dispute, one thing we can say is that we have sustained throughout the weeks, months and years of bloodshed and hopelessness, institutions which can one day form the basis for a reformed Palestinian government. That has been the policy of the European Council endorsed by this Parliament. We have been congratulated for what we have done by among others the World Bank. Only recently I received a letter from the Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad which noted that with the help of the European Union the PA has now delivered on all of the reform commitments it had made to the Palestinian Legislative Council a year and a half ago. There is now a high degree of accountability with transparent budget procedures. There are no more cash payments to Palestinian security personnel; their salaries are now transferred through bank accounts.

We have been encouraged in private to do more, to give more help. We have been criticised in public for doing anything at all. Some have argued - could there be a more serious accusation? - that the attempt to promote reform and to sustain some sort of life in Palestine has bankrolled terrorism. Parliament has had its own enquiry into these matters. OLAF has investigated these allegations. I have no more to say on the subject save to pay tribute to my officials who have tried to implement an important but difficult policy honestly, transparently and with integrity. I have to say that when I look at what has happened in the last few years, I can see all too little that has achieved as much as they have.

Fourthly, let me turn to the future. It is said, by some, perhaps a trifle glibly, that after the promised withdrawal we will rebuild Gaza and try to create the foundations for a new Palestine. What they presumably have in mind is a Palestine which is genuinely viable, not a collection of isolated 'bantustans' divided by tanks and settlements and walls. We are certainly prepared to continue our humanitarian assistance and to support the rebuilding of the infrastructure of those areas from which the Israel defence forces withdraw. But I have to say that this time I think we should seek certain guarantees from the Israeli defence forces that they will not destroy again what we build. And they should pay regard to the five points made by the European Council on 25-26 March, notably the anchoring of the withdrawal within the Road Map, and the facilitation of economic life in the territory that the IDF leave. It was the World Bank which noted that the biggest obstacle to economic revival is lack of access and the lack of sufficient freedom of movement of persons and goods. Access to the outside world is essential for reviving the Palestinian economy. We should also seek to ensure that humanitarian assistance can be provided as it would be elsewhere; at present it costs more to provide the assistance than in most other places because of the behaviour and activities of the security forces.

If we are to find a way back into the implementation of the road map then we need to discuss very carefully with the Israeli government the terms of withdrawal and see how we can associate the management of the withdrawal with the objectives of the road map. Our aim must be that Israelis recognise again the Palestinian Authority as their partner in the peace process. The objective should be to hand-over Gaza and parts of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority not to Hamas, and to ensure that the hand-over takes place in an orderly fashion not in a way that leads to more chaos and violence.

Finally, there are still, thank Heavens, moderates in Palestine, Israel and the Arab world. I ask this question as quietly and diplomatically as I can. How much support are we giving those moderates today? If we are not prepared to be courageous for moderation how can we expect them to be? It is not hyperbolic to say that the outlook today in the region is more worrying than it has been for some time. It certainly seems to me a good deal more disturbing than it looked for example at the beginning of last year when we were being told that the road to peace in the Middle East lay through the military liberation of Baghdad and the installation of democracy in Iraq.

Maybe one day Iraq will be stable and democratic and maybe it will be a beacon for other countries in the region. How could one hope for anything else? Whatever one's views about the past, what else is there to work for? But if we are to have any chance of accomplishing that outcome, and of encouraging modernisation and democracy in the whole region then we have to avoid words and policies which alienate large parts of the Islamic world and threaten the very clash of civilisations which all sane men and women should want to avoid at all costs. It has been a deeply depressing feature of my five years as a Commissioner that the world I look out on today seems to me far more dangerous than it was in 1999.

We must always try to work for a better world, and not throw in our hand in introverted despair. So today, among other things, we have to see what we can rescue from what is left of the Middle East Peace Process. It is not a very encouraging prospect. What alternative is there?

| Top |

• EU Presidency Statement - The situation in the Middle East (19/4/2004)
• EP - Statement on the Middle East  (24/3/2004)
• EU and Middle East (16/9/2002)