 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Excellencies, distinguished guests, colleagues and friends: Thank you for the honor of inviting me to give the keynote address at this Seminar. Although South America is physically distant from the Middle East and unique in many respects, its history is replete with experience of many of the issues underlying the situation in the Middle East. The principle of asylum from persecution is embedded in the constitutions and consciousness of this continent. During the years prior to the Second World War and through to the post war decade, South America gave safe haven to Europe’s refugees, many of whom have since become integrated in the societies in which they settled. In the post-war period, the region was caught up in revolutionary upheavals and proxy conflicts which characterized the Cold War. From the 1970s armed conflict and political violence in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, generated turbulence and mass refugee flows, making this region the focus of international concern (and one producing refugees I myself dealt with during my years in UNHCR). The historical themes of socio-political discourse in South America – claims to land ownership based on ancestral ties, the equitable distribution of wealth, resistance to oppression and the demand of ordinary people for fundamental rights and freedoms – find more than a passing resonance in the Middle East. Similarities begin to fade, however, when we consider some of the elements of complexity affecting the Middle East today. Underpinning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Palestinian claim to self-determination. This conflict is one in which one protagonist is a fully fledged State, a regional economic and military power, while the other consists of a largely exiled people grappling with human rights violations, economic deprivation and grave issues of internal disunity, while searching for a State of their own. This asymmetry in the profiles of Israel and Palestine has been reinforced over time, influencing the contours of the conflict and the prospects for resolving it. As a result, and in tandem with persisting hostilities, several of the fundamental matters in dispute have been materially altered. These include the dimensions, demarcation lines and possession of land; access to and rights over water, natural gas and other natural resources; and the legal and demographic constitution of Jerusalem. Instead of being addressed or awaiting a just dispensation at the time the conflict ends, these issues have been - and are - in a state of ferment. One example currently receiving prominent attention is the systematic, policy-driven expansion of Israeli settlements on expropriated Palestinian land, cementing, in the process, entrenched scenarios which will not be easily or rapidly overturned. Another example is the West Bank separation barrier and its associated regime of exclusion and security zones. These further whittle away Palestinian land and curtail the space available for social, economic and cultural interaction. There is also the experience of Gaza where, since the year 2000, a succession of conflict situations have decimated the economy, from commerce to the production and export of industrial and agricultural goods. The blockade of Gaza, to which I will return shortly, ensures that the decline in living standards will take years to erase. The erosion of the status quo - including the foundations for economic self-reliance and growth, as these stood at the outset of the conflict - have dissipated Palestinian confidence in the prospects for the emergence of an economically and politically viable Palestinian state. This has also generated skepticism regarding the good faith of the parties, draining the goodwill essential for an effective, sustainable negotiation process. In the meantime, the increasing intensity with which the adversaries confront each other on the ground – all too often ignoring the restraints of international law – have served to replenish the extremism and animosity that exist on both sides. As a consequence, the sponsors of armed struggle and confrontation are bolstered, while the forces of compromise and mutual accommodation find themselves more often at bay. Distinguished colleagues: Wherever conflict occurs in our modern world, the UN Charter stipulates that dialogue is the preferred method for resolving differences. It is through communicating directly, in good faith and on equal terms of mutual respect, that parties to a conflict can genuinely understand each other’s interests and proceed jointly to carve out a space where compromise, accommodation and healing can thrive. Since 1945, conflicts around the globe that were once thought intractable have ultimately yielded to the injunction of peace by peaceful means. The fact that year after year, decade after decade, the Israeli-Palestinian situation has proved impervious to peacemaking, underscores both the immediate relevance and the challenge of addressing the headline under which we gather today. From my experience of living and working in Gaza since mid-2000, it is clear to me that any meaningful discussion on promoting Israeli-Palestinian dialogue must be informed by an unbiased appreciation of the context I have just outlined. This context is more than a static backdrop. It is dynamic and constantly evolving, frequently in directions prejudicial to the long-term interests of both sides and, thus, contains within it, the currents that perpetuate the conflict. In this regard, the recovery and reconstruction of Gaza is a useful lens against which to examine a cross-section of relevant issues. In January this year, following the two unilateral ceasefires which ended the most recent violent episode, UNRWA and other agencies spared no time in preparing recovery and reconstruction plans. The activities involved, all of which were complementary to well-established programmes, cover a wide range of sectors from cash assistance, education and food security to psycho-social services, shelter, water and sanitation activities and, not least, the reconstruction of damaged buildings and infrastructure. Six months on, it is apparent that the effectiveness and impact of the emergency response and other humanitarian activities are - and will continue to be - severely curtailed by the blockade of Gaza. That Gaza’s crossings have now been closed for some 26 months reflects the difficulty of making headway on issues where neither side feels able to afford the concessions which will provide the other with the assurance upon which compromises could be based. And so, the revolving wheels of claims, counterclaims, demands and refusals, continue to spin: nightly arrests in the West Bank; 11,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons; the firing of rockets, albeit fitfully, into Sderot and Ashqelon; live fire incidents persist, often involving the loss of lives; while Staff Sergeant Shalit remains in captivity. Amidst the stalemate, the closure of Gaza’s crossings to the normal flow of people, currency and goods - including construction materials - renders almost entirely aid-dependent the 1.1 million Gazans now receiving food assistance. It precludes the re-building of nearly 3,000 homes destroyed and 58,000 damaged during the recent conflict, in addition to those from the second intifada, and a further 4,000 sub-standard shelters that are in need of renovation. As long as the blockade of Gaza remains in place, the destroyed factories, government buildings and public infrastructure are also destined to remain mounds of rubble. Furthermore, the consequences of Gaza’s blockade must be understood in a broader light than its constricting effects on the recovery effort and the reconstruction of physical damage. There is, as well, the fact that the isolation of Gazans and their present state of mass incarceration are antithetical to the conditions in which meaningful dialogue can occur. The blockade of Gaza exacts a heavy price in fueling frustrations, and the sense of injustice among Palestinians, significantly detracting from the possibilities for negotiation and peace-building. Amid this bleak political and physical landscape, UNWRA remains committed to its human development objectives through education, health, microfinance, relief and social services programmes, which offer an alternative to extremism, namely, a future, grounded in universal values, of dignity and self-reliance for the next generation. This Seminar’s panel on "The Peace Process, the United Nations and New Actors" will afford an opportunity to consider the approaches the international community has thus far employed in its search for a negotiated solution, and to assess whether these approaches have been effective in advancing a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In this regard, I expect the discussion to touch upon the extent to which the processes of negotiation have been inclusive of the major constituencies within the Palestinian body politic. If it does not, what is the validity of the grounds for excluding one group or the other, the implications this has had on the credibility of the negotiation process and the possible scope for revisiting these criteria? Another issue demanding review relates to the framing of the negotiation agenda. A particular question here is whether the inclination since the Oslo Accords to leave the so-called "final status" issues (Jerusalem, borders, water and refugees) to one side has served the cause of peace. For me, as Commissioner-General of UNRWA, there is an obvious need for negotiations to accommodate and seriously reflect the interests and concerns of Palestine refugees. Under the universal refugee protection framework, informed individual choice, which is the essence of durable solutions for refugees the world over, must equally benefit Palestine refugees. Given the complexities of return and settlement issues in the Palestinian context, informed choice must serve as the basis for clarifying refugee expectations and the rights attached to choices the refugees themselves might make. These considerations appear to be absent from recent approaches to negotiations. Ensuring that the refugee voice is heard and refugee choice ascertained and respected are matters of protection principle as well as practical value. Taking these issues into account will ensure that the outcome of any dialogue or negotiated settlement benefits from the understanding – if not the full support – of the refugee constituency and will thus be accorded the credibility required to stand the test of time. Distinguished colleagues, In this gathering, it is fitting that I touch on the role of the media and its considerable potential to shape public policy and public opinion, regionally and internationally. In the Middle East, the reasons for the media’s sway include relatively high literacy rates, a majority of the population under the eager-to- learn age of 25, widespread access to and popularity of the internet and the profoundly emotive nature of the Israeli-Palestinian question. The fact that people across the region identify with the Palestinian cause, associating it with the struggle of the unjustly dispossessed against oppression and occupation, guarantees high levels of interest in media output related to the conflict. Further afield, the international press plays to the global security implications of the conflict in the Middle East, including its association – both actual and perceived – with the phenomenon of international terrorism. In some instances, the role of the media has been less in the realm of shaping policy and opinion than in transmitting the views and positions of particular groups or interests. This is especially the case during and in the aftermath of active hostilities or where, in the moribund phases of a negotiation process, the parties unofficially "communicate" through the medium of media outlets and spokespersons. The influence of the media brings with it heavy responsibilities. In a conflict underpinned by competing, existential world views that draw inspiration from religious convictions, balanced objectivity in the portrayal of events and issues is as rare as it is crucial. UNRWA has a record of positive cooperation with the media. Many of our counterparts appreciate my Agency’s commitment to our humanitarian and human development mission. They note the contribution UNRWA makes to stability and calm in the communities in which we operate and the difference we make in the lives of 4.6 million Palestine refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territory. They value the reliability and objectivity of information UNRWA provides, drawing on our extensive network of field staff and they depend on the accuracy of our analysis. States and some sections of the media also recognize UNRWA’s fidelity to UN principles of impartiality and independence. They understand these principles to be consistent with the discharge of UNRWA’s obligation to call the attention of States to violations of human rights and international law as they affect Palestine refugees. These are essentially humanitarian matters and central to the implementation of our mandated responsibilities to protect the rights of Palestine refugees. Scrupulous adherence to impartiality is inseparable from UNRWA’s operational identity and integral to the Agency’s capacity to function as it has over the past sixty years, including leading the emergency response, for refugees and non-refugee civilians alike, in the midst of high political tension and armed conflict. And yet, it is these volatile and insecure contexts, epitomized by the recent Gaza conflict, in which political stakes are particularly high, that often prove to be the instances when our relationships with the media are at their most delicate. These are the occasions when an unbiased and dispassionate approach can help to maximize the role of the media and the leverage it wields. Distinguished colleagues: The organizers could not have chosen a more opportune moment to debate and explore questions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. This is a time of possibilities, a time when the new President of the United States has struck a refreshingly frank and balanced tone for addressing this sixty-year old conflict, deploring the suffering endured by both Israelis and Palestinians, and affirming his determination to bring this conflict to a peaceful end. His words have fired the imagination of all who are weary of war, and thirst for peace, in the Middle East, inspiring hope and a belief in the future, where less than six months ago, only despair reigned. I welcome the tenor of this new ‘dispensation.’ While UNRWA’s role belongs to the humanitarian and human development world, not to the political sphere, it is, nevertheless, axiomatic that our exertions will come to fruition only when the work of political actors hastens the realization of a just and lasting solution to the plight of refugees and the establishment of a viable Palestinian State, co-existing in peace and security with Israel and its neighbours. I trust that your discussions will be informed by the expectations generated by recent developments and that you will explore the prospects offered for invigorating existing currents of the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and channeling the outcomes into the political process. At the same time, I trust that you will bring critical perspectives to bear. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be resolved by the power of inspiring words alone. Lofty pronouncements will not assure the security of Israel. Neither will they conjure up a just and durable solution to the plight of refugees or cause a viable, responsible State of Palestine to materialize. Unraveling the realities and complexities of this conflict demands meticulous, painstaking, inclusive processes of dialogue, mediation and negotiation, conducted in accordance with established principles of international law and sponsored by the international community acting in concert. It is my hope that the proceedings of this seminar will go some way towards illuminating a path to these goals. |
|||
 |
