REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES A. BAKER, III
BEFORE THE
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING FOR MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS
ON THE MIDDLE EAST
HOUSE OF UNIONS
JANUARY 28, 1992
Foreign Minister Kozyrev, Distinguished Delegates:
Less than three months ago, history was made in Madrid. There, in an
unprecedented gathering, Israel and its Arab neighbors sat directly across
the table from one another. Immediately after, bilateral negotiations
began: between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and Israel and a
joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.
We have now witnessed three rounds of bilateral negotiations in as
many months. In every case, the parties are engaging on substantive
issues. And even when the parties are seemingly bogged down in procedural
wrangles, they are for the most part the ones who are sorting them out,
resolving their problems in face-to-face negotiations.
I do not mean to suggest we are satisfied with all that has
transpired or naive about the hurdles and challenges that lie ahead. As I
said in Madrid, we must crawl before we can walk and we must walk before
we can run. We are not running, and there are those who would say that we
are not even walking. But we are moving, and that is key, for all the
potentially good ideas and formulas for peace count for little in the
absence of an agreed upon process to engage them. And such a process of
direct engagement a process designed to lead to comprehensive peace on
the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 is
now well underway.
We meet here today in newly independent and newly democratic Russia.
I find it hard to imagine any setting being more fitting. As recently as a
few years ago, few would have even dared to dream that Russia would be
going through the profound transformation we are now witnessing. This
should tell us something; simply put, where there is vision and where
there is courage, there is also possibility and promise.
We have gathered to explore new possibilities for the Middle East. As
you all know, the invitation to the Madrid conference stated that those
parties who wished to attend multilateral negotiations would convene two
weeks after the opening of the conference to organize those negotiations.
Well, I am afraid we are a bit late. But it is my hope and it should be
our determination that what we are embarking upon today will prove to
have been well worth waiting for.
So what is it that we are here to begin? We are here to organize
ourselves in preparation for a process that with time will address issues
common to all the peoples of the Middle East. Despite the political issues
that currently divide governments and peoples, there are real ties that
bind the peoples of the Middle East together. For after all, they drink
the same water, they breathe the same air, are vulnerable to the same
diseases, and have all suffered from the very tragic costs of war.
It is for these reasons that we have come together to address
those issues that are common to the region and that do not necessarily
respect national or geographic boundaries. These issues can best be
addressed by the concerted efforts of regional parties together with the
support of the international community and the resources and expertise
that it can provide.
Let me take this opportunity to make one thing clear. What we are
embarking upon here in Moscow is in no way a substitute for what we are
trying to promote in the bilateral negotiations. Only the bilateral talks
can address and one day resolve the basic issues of territory, security
and peace which the parties have identified as the core elements of a
lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
But it is also true that these bilateral negotiations do not take
place in a vacuum, and that the condition of the region at large will
affect those negotiations. In short, the multilateral talks are intended
as a complement to the bilateral negotiations; each can and will buttress
the other.
This is true for three reasons. First, multilateral negotiations on
regional issues will send a powerful signal that all parties are
unequivocally committed to peace and reconciliation.
Second, multilateral negotiations on regional issues will address on
their own merits a range of regional problems crying out for resolution.
There are pressing human problems poverty, refugees, disease, and above
all, the danger of war that need to be addressed. It would be tragic
and irresponsible to put these problems of real and profound human need on
hold while waiting for peace to come.
Third, multilateral negotiations on regional issues can begin to
improve the lives of people and create a basis for greater stability in
the area. As progress is made, as tangible benefits emerge, a vision of
what real peace might mean will also begin to emerge.
Today, we will be hearing statements by delegations from the region
and from others outside the region. I would hope that everyone would take
advantage of this opportunity to discuss how we can best approach the
challenges common to all who live or have a stake in the well-being of the
Middle East.
Tomorrow, we move from the conference hall to working groups where
the important task of organizing the discreet groups and determining how
they will proceed will begin. The regional parties will have the primary
responsibility for setting the agendas. The co-sponsors, along with the
international community, are prepared to play an active supporting role. I
would like to say just a few words about each of the five groups.
First, economic development. For too long, the substantial human,
natural, and financial resources of the Middle East have not been utilized
to their full potential. Military spending has crowded out development;
intra-regional trade and investment has remained small; and external
assistance flows have cultivated dependency more than growth.
An economic development working group could begin to consider how
this picture could be turned around by: 1) focusing the attention of
interested parties on the urgent economic needs of the West Bank and Gaza;
2) assessing and considering job-creating regional infrastructure projects
in energy, communications and transportation; 3) by looking into the
development of trade as an engine of economic growth and job creation; and
4) exploring the potential for expanding tourism in a climate of peace. We
urge regional parties to be creative as they shape an appropriate work
plan for this group.
Second, the environment. From groundwater contamination to oil
spills, Middle Eastern countries face daunting environmental challenges
which are mounting daily under the twin pressures of population growth and
industrialization.
Initially, an environment working group could be the catalyst for the
exchange of scientific findings on the extent of shared environmental
problems. The Gulf of Aqaba might be a good place to start.
Over time, the group could expand to explore parallel or joint
projects on the region's common problems ranging from preservation of
archaeological sites to waste disposal. Again the agenda could be as
expansive as the regional parties define.
Third, water. Assuring reliable supplies of this precious resource is
a fundamental security as well as economic challenge to all the
regional parties, especially in the arid, drought-prone conditions of the
Middle East.
A water working group could begin to explore the dimensions of this
challenge, beginning with seminars to exchange forecasts of demand and
available supply and leading over time to cooperative activities in the
areas of water pricing and allocation policies, desalination techniques,
and re-use of brackish water. Interested extra-regional parties could
share expertise, technologies and resources.
Fourth, is the issue of refugees. Almost all of the conflicts that
punctuate the history of the Middle East have been the occasion of a
substantial number of individuals leaving their homes. Often, they have
had to live for months or years in temporary, crowded camps. This
experience is common to all too many of the region's peoples. It is not
our objective to ascribe cause or attribute responsibility for the refugee
problem. Rather, it is to see whether the parties of this region, helped
by states from outside, can provide needed resources to improve the lot of
these men, women and children.
Finally, arms control and regional security. The Gulf War was a vivid
reminder of just how destructive patterns of arms acquisition and
production have and can become undermining the very security they were
intended to promote. An arms control working group could begin to tackle
this issue, but in a way that recognizes the vital security interests at
stake for all the parties of the region.
In the first instance, we envision offering the regional parties our
thinking about potential approaches to arms control, drawing upon a vast
reservoir of experience stemming from attempts to regulate military
competition in Europe and other regions. From this base, the group might
move forward to considering a set of modest confidence-building or
transparency measures covering notifications of selected military-related
activities and crisis-prevention communications. The purpose would be to
lessen the prospects for incidents and miscalculation that could lead to
heightened competition or even conflict.
In our view, and again, based upon our own experience with arms
control, we believe such an approach offers the best chance for success.
At the same time we would not discourage or rule out efforts to decrease
the level of militarization, especially involving those systems most
likely to contribute to instability amidst crises. Eventually, and as
called for by President Bush's 1991 initiative, we would hope to see the
level of conventional arms reaching the region greatly diminished and
weapons of mass destruction eliminated.
Let me close with one thought. We live in an age when many of the
world's regions, once ravaged by war, are now coming together. We see this
above all here in Europe, but we see it too in Asia and in Central and
Latin America. The results are obvious: peace and security, prosperity,
better quality of life. Increasingly, the Middle East stands out, but not
in the way that should make any of us proud. Our challenge our
opportunity is to begin the process of making the Middle East a region,
not just in the geographic sense, but in the political, the economic, and,
indeed, in the human sense as well.
This gathering here today reflects the commitment and resources of
those outside the region who want to assist in this effort. The
co-sponsors, the United States together with Russia, strongly encourage
the parties in the region for whom this process offers real benefits, to
engage promptly and fully. This is a rare opportunity; do not let it pass
by.