REMARKS BY FOREIGN MINISTER SHIMON PERES
TO THE JERUSALEM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCE
JERUSALEM, OCTOBER 31, 1993
Entering a New Era:
The time is a time of twilight. We are at a period of transition, where
the past is disappearing, a new future is arriving - but where again,
while we have to pay an immediate price for peace, the return of it will
come later on. So we feel more the agonies of the departure than the
fruits of the arrival. While an old period is leaving us, the departure
is not a simple one. They say their farewell with guns and knives and
bombs and blood, and the feelings are really heavy with sorry. Yet, the
incoming period is more in a way of contemplating conferences, trying to
think out the future.
In spite of all this, and in spite of the difficulties that goes by this
very strange combination, I do believe that what we are really doing is
not just correcting a political mistake, but answering a new era in our
life. I know, too, this is not as simple as it sounds, because when you
have to build something, you have to build it with the forces of
yesterday: with the establishments, with the norms, with the
mentalities, and especially with the worries of yesterday. Because most
of the experts are experts that provide us with early warnings. They
say, 'be afraid of this', and 'be careful of that'. I don't know really
if we have experts for what we need. Because most of the experts are
experts for things that did happen. We hardly have experts for things
that may happen.
I am looking at the United States, where they have had a brilliant group
of experts, journalists, authors, professors, who assembled mountains of
knowledge, penetrating knowledge, about the major subject that took
place in the life of the United States of America for 75 years: the
subject of the Soviet Union and Communism. They were Sovietologists,
Kremlinologists, they wrote brilliant books. Who reads them today? Who
is referring to them? Who is asking for their advice? They remain
brilliant, but totally unemployed.
I am afraid that many of our own experts, too, will learn that what they
have known, has already disappeared; and what is arriving, is out of
their knowledge. Because I believe it's a change of generation. It is a
change of a historic dimension that wanders around the world from Russia
to South Africa to the Middle East, and every day we see the impact of
it in an expected area - taking a new shape, offering new problems, but
also offering new hopes.
Arab-Israeli Economic Cooperation:
It is for that reason that we have to try and have a look where we are
really moving. Probably one of the most important things - and that is
true about the Arabs as about ourselves - we used to think about the
Arab-Israeli conflict basically in political and strategic terms, where
maybe the real issue resides in the economic and social domain. One of
the great changes that we have to understand is that we do not just have
a conflict between two parties, but we have a conflict in our own midst,
with ourselves. And that what we have to build is basically a new
economy - not just a new relationship.
I know, when we are trying to think about the new economy in the Middle
East, there are different models. One of them, which worries me very
much, is an attempt to submit the economic model to the inspiration, to
the hopes, of having a national entity, a national expression. If the
economy will be submitted to the need to express ourselves nationally,
we shall have simply the wrong economy, and without national salvation.
What we really have to choose is between an economy of flags or an
economy of markets. It doesn't go together. Modern economy is not built
upon flags, but upon speed, upon open borders, upon being international,
global, changing places, changing items as fast as one may think. But if
some people and some leaders would like to close their markets and their
economy, so they say: 'Here is what we have a achieved' - a so-called
economic independence - they will learn soon enough that what they have
really achieved was an independent poverty, an independent illusion, an
independent disappointment; instead of answering the trust and the need
and the prospects of an entirely new age.
I know that for many of them - and let me deal with it very openly from
the outset of my remarks - when an Israeli speaks about a Middle East
market, about a regional economy, the immediate reaction is that Israel
wants to become a dominating force in a larger market than its own. May
I say quite clearly: We didn't give up territorial control to gain
economic control. We are not interested in controlling the Arab life -
clear and loud. Because one must understand that what we are doing today
regarding Gaza and Jericho is not just answering an Arab demand, but
also answering a Jewish call. According to our history, we have never
governed the lives of other people, and it was a wise decision. Because
the others who governed us, disappeared from history. We don't want to
dominate anybody.
The age of colonialism or imperialism - economic or political - is over.
How can you do it? And anyway, what colonialism and imperialism may
bring to you is totally unimportant. It is not the size of the land, nor
the wealth of your natural resources, nor the number of people that
makes the country great or small. What really makes a country great and
rich and strong, is its intellectual capacity, is its science,
technology, education. Japan is a very small piece of the globe, almost
unnoticeable. Japan doesn't have either oil nor gold. Nor does it sit in
the center of a huge population - and yet it became, relatively
speaking, the richest country in the world. On the other hand, Russia
has a vast piece of the globe, they have every imaginable mineral and
natural resources from oil to gold, and the Russian economy can hardly
support the Russian people.
So whatever you can conquer, you can conquer at your schools - and not
at the territories of other people. Whatever you can succeed, is by
elevating your own science and technology - and not by trying to grasp a
piece of a market of another people.
What we are suggesting to the Arabs is not Israeli knowhow, neither
Israeli wisdom, nor Israeli advancement. We are not going to patronize
anybody. We are not interested in it. For us, the Arab feeling is even
more important today than the Arab market - because we feel that a good
neighbor, or a neighbor that feels well, is a good neighbor. A neighbor
that feels bad, is bad for his neighbors. And for us today, neighborhood
is more important than another piece of the market.
And then, I am not sure at all that there is anything to conquer
economically. If there is, it is to build a new economy. What can we
conquer in Gaza? What we have to do is to build Gaza. What can we
conquer in the West Bank? What we have to do is to build the West Bank -
or Jordan.
Because in my judgment, the greatest problem of the Middle East today is
the standard of living. If the standard of living will remain in the
Middle East at the average of 800 to 1,200 dollars, it's a lost case.
Fundamentalism will win, because poverty is the food of revolt, of
protest, of fundamentalism. The greatest task ahead of us is to provide
the people of the Middle East with a new standard of living, in the
vicinity of 20,000 dollars - 20 times as much as they earn today.
Because the higher the standard of living will become, the lower the
standard of violence will go down. It's totally connected.
I know that many of the Arab leaders understand today that as far as
they are concerned, the problem was never - or is never - Zionism, but
fundamentalism. Iran more than Israel. The shadows hanging on the sky
are the shadows of protest and fanatism and extremism.
So from that point of view, the only thing that we are really suggesting
is to do regionally the things that cannot be done nationally; to do
together things that we cannot do separately. And that is true from the
defense of the region, up to its economy.
How can we really defend today a country, when you have missiles that
are totally unimpressed by frontiers, or fronts, or fortifications? They
hit at the heart of the civilian population, without paying any
attention to the marks on the map or to the obstacles on the ground. We
cannot defend the Middle East, unless we shall defend it regionally.
How can we develop the Middle East - its waters, its tourism, its
infrastructure - unless we shall do it in a regional way, as the
Europeans are doing, or the Americans are doing? Namely, to translate a
geographic proximity into an economic advantage and hope.
So we are not going to govern anybody, we don't want to have any lion's
share of the economy of anybody, we dont want to advise, we don't want
to consult. We are saying: People of the Middle East, if you really want
to answer the call of our age, let's raise the standard of living of the
people - and that can be done, really, in a regional manner. So I reject
the idea of a national economy, whether it will be a Jordanian economy,
or Palestinian economy, or Israeli economy. Each of the three will pay
separately a dear price for closing its eyes to the nature of a modern
economy.
Economic Models:
We have three models that I would like to refer to:
One is the national model, which I have already referred to. The second
is to build right away an economic triangle, if you want, a fertile
triangle: and that is between the Jordanians, the Palestinians and us.
It is an inseparable economy. And as you can hardly cut the map, so you
can hardly cut the economy - unless you want to have several systems of
customs, of tax, of closures, which will punish all the three of us.
Furthermore, most of the important geographic assets are shared by the
three of us - from the south of the Lake of Galilee to the north of the
Red Sea: the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, the Arava desert, and the Red
Sea itself. It can serve as a dividing line, as a long confrontation
between the three of us. It can serve as a joint treasure, to the
benefit of all the parties concerned.
Basically, I believe, we do not have a solution for the three of us,
unless we shall do it 'en trois'. You cannot have a triangle where each
angle is needling the other angle. We have to organize the three angles
together, and do it in a way, like the Benelux, to have an economic roof
and maybe a national platform. Maybe nationally, there should be two
entities - a Jordanian-Palestinian and an Israeli one; but economically,
it must be done together.
As you know, I met Prince Hassan at the White House, and President
Clinton asked us if this is our first meeting. I said: 'Publically, as a
matter of fact, this is our second meeting though the first
hand-shaking, because I heard Prince Hassan making a eulogy at the
memorial service of De Gaulle.' I told the President that he spoke a
superb French, as he speaks a superb English. Then I added that my
impression is that the Prince speaks even the Hebrew language. The
President turned to him and said: 'Your Highness, do you speak the
Hebrew language?' He said: 'Yes, I studied for two years Talmud and
Mishna'. And then he said in Hebrew: ' -
Rise and go through the land in its length and width.'
I closed my eyes and I went through the land in its length and width,
and I asked the Prince, for example: We are going to build an airport
north of Eilat. You have an airport already north of Aqaba. The distance
between the two airports may be six miles, or something like it. Why not
make the airport north of Aqaba a joint airport, an international one?
We shall save money, you will gain landing rights and fees for landings.
Why shouldn't we have one railroad instead of two parallel lines running
from the north to the south? We shouldn't we keep the Red Sea as a clean
sea, and take the two ports - Aqaba and Eilat - which are half employed
and push them to the north by cutting a canal, and having one port for
the two countries? Just by joining the electricity nets of Jordan,
Egypt, Israel and the Palestinians, we can save 6 billion dollars a year
- all of us. And electricity doesn't have any particular political
orientation. It can really be run jointly in accordance with an economic
logic.
Then, there is a third model in addition to the national one and to the
triangle one - I think Andre Azoulai referred to it - that was offered
right now by the European Community. The European Community suggests
that there will be two markets: the Maghreb, which compromises three
countries - Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria; and the Mashreq, that should
comprise six parties - Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the
Palestinians. Each of the two markets will be connected with the
European market, and among themselves. I think it's an interesting idea,
and I think Europe is showing an important interest in the structure of
the Middle East. And this idea should be checked to see what are the
advantages of it.
There is a fourth model which I want to refer to, and that is really to
construct the region as an economic region - to comprise all the 21
members of the Arab League (whoever wants to join in), Israel, maybe
later on Turkey, and if there will be a change in Iran maybe Iran as
well - and try to build a Middle East for the people, instead of a
Middle East for the rulers.
Common Regional Efforts:
I know that, from the outset, many people are asking: 'How can you do
it? The systems of government are so varied, the levels of economy are
so different - how can you put all of them in one basket, where the
differences are by far greater than the similarities?' It's a good
question. It doesn't have even the minimum common ground which existed
in Europe. But my answer is: We have again to refer to the geography and
to the relations among the different people. I know that we cannot
equalize all the governments and all the economies in a decade, and
maybe not in 20 years, and maybe not even in 50 years. But there are
things that we can do jointly, and they can be done jointly, and only
jointly can they be done in a profitable manner.
I am referring basically to three major efforts:
- One, to reduce the negative expense. The Middle East is spending 50
billion dollars a year on the arms race. God know what for. Nobody is
going to reduce the arms race, unless all will reduce the arms race -
proportionally speaking. If all countries who participate in this race
will agree to reduce the race, say by a third, we can devote 17 billion
dollars a year for education and hospitals. We have now a working group
on arms control which is meeting, with a view to try and achieve a
restraint in the arms race and a direction of much of the money, or an
important part of it, to more positive purposes.
- Then again, we have oversized armies. If we are going for peace, what
do we need such a large army? One of the Chinese leaders told me that
they are going to copy the Israeli army, and to have a small army like
the Israelis - say three million soldiers is enough, they are not going
to increase it. So even smallness has its own proportions. But anyway,
again, this cannot be done, unless we shall agree to do it on a regional
level, mutually agreed, with the understanding that we are going to
spend the money otherwise.
- A third negative expense is old-fashioned governments - governments
that keep an outsized secret service, an army to create an impression, a
bureaucracy that controls every corner, an air of worry, of suspicion,
of silence; killing the enterprise, the initiative, the freedom of their
own citizens; and actually cutting in size their natural strength as a
nation, as a people. I myself like a Syrian poet who is in exile - his
name is Kabani - and he wrote the following lines that I shall quote by
heart. He says:
Would a bird need the permission of the interior ministry to fly,
Would a fish need permission to swim,
We would live in a world where the birds cannot fly and the fish
cannot swim.
We need a world where the birds can fly, and the fish can swim, and the
people can walk around freely, openly, without fear and without worries.
This may become the greatest economic contribution, from the people to
themselves. By the way, this will happen. I don't have the slightest
doubt. Because I believe that in Russia itself, the changes did not
occur by a revolutionary movement, neither by an army, nor by
theoreticians. I think what really introduced the change in the Soviet
Union was the media - the daily information running on the screens of
every person as a Trojan horse, telling him what's happening all over
the world, forcing him to compare his lot with the lot of other people.
Television undoubtedly reduced the force of dictatorship, as it has
reduced the force of democracy. Both of them are suffering. But one of
them, at least, is suffering rightly.
The Middle East cannot turn to anybody, and say to Europe or to America
or to Japan: 'Pay for our army, pay for our arms race, pay for our
old-fashioned governments.' Nobody will pay for it. The time that people
were paying for follies is over, because the conflict between East and
West is over; and even the differences between North and South are
disappearing, with the great economic awakening in Asia and not in
America. Yes, the world may help the Middle East, if the Middle East
will move in the right direction. Nobody will finance mistakes of other
nations. And financing won't help anyway. We have to build an economy
that produces money, not a society that consumes money because some
strong man or some ruler wants to keep the hold upon their people.
Then, there are also positive sides to it.
- The greatest problem for the Middle East, as for many other countries,
is the desertification of the land. Instead of measuring the size of the
land, we have to measure its fertility. Because what is really
disappearing is not the land, but the fertility of the land. Africa is
deeply in trouble because AIDS is eating up the people, the desert is
eating up the land, and in some cases - not in many of them - corruption
is eating up the governments. Many people gave up looking for a solution
to the African situation, at least in some of the places.
To fight desertification, we need a combination of two things: To handle
properly the available water, and to produce new water by
desalinization, by artificial rain, by recycling. The Arabs have a piece
of land which is 13 million square kilometers - a very nice piece of the
globe. Yet 89 percent of it is already desert - and according to the
FAO, they are going to lose a quarter of the remaining 11 percent until
the end of this century. It is a declaration of desperation, of poverty,
for the young people. To use properly the available water, to take out
the desert from the land, the salt from the water and the violence from
the people, and also introduce modern science and technolgoy.
If Israel can really show an example - and Israel, too, was a
semi-desert land: in 25 years, from 1950 to 1975, Israel has increased
its agricultural yield 12 times - 1,200 percent - without increasing the
size of the cultivated land or the quantity of the water used for
irrigration. It was basically almost purely an achievement of science
and technology. And what could be achieved in Israel can be achieved in
every other place. We have to go with joint forces on a regional level,
and try to stop the desertification of the region.
Again, neither the desert nor the water nor the science have really to
do with political orientation. The rain does not go through customs, and
the rivers don't follow the frontiers. And even if you carry your mind
together with you body through customs, no officials in the customs can
really check what you have in your brains. So this, again, may be the
number one task in order to build a new Middle East.
- The second positive part of it is to introduce an industry which is
totally modern. The Middle East was blessed by natural attractions:
tourism. Tourism can create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and our
forefathers built pyramids and holy places. Furthermore, tourism is an
industry which is based upon tranquility and calls for the maintenance
of tranquility. It creates a vested interest to have a hospitality
nature and to keep the country quiet and nice and secure.
- Then we have to build - this will be the third point - an
infrastructure for the Middle East, a modern infrastructure. We have a
modern infrastructure for the armies. Now we need an infrastructure for
the people - pipes for oil and gas and water, railroads, roads, modern
communication, airports, seaports, power stations - in order, really, as
I have said, to translate the geographic proximity into an economic
advantage. All this can be done without equalizing the governments or
equalizing the economies.
International Investment:
I know that this, too, calls for a very serious investment from the
within the region - because the region apparently is rich when you think
how much money we spend on arms and armies - and from outside the
region.
Here we have approached many of the leaders in the United States, in
Europe, in Japan, and we told them in a simple way that, actually, the
Americans, the Europeans and the Japanese reached such a high
productivity in their work that the only thing they can really produce
is unemployment. The more productive they are becoming, the more
unemployed people they are having. We told them: Why shouldn't you
export your unemployment, not to geographic markets - the world is
already divided - but to social markets. To raise the market, say, from
a level of 1,000 dollars per capita in the regional GNP, to a level of
10,000 or 15,000 dollars? You will get the money back. By the way, this
should be done by the companies, not by the governments. The governments
should provide investment guarantees, but the ones that have the money
are the companies. The governments have large budgets, but all of them
are committed. They hardly have free money. Who really has both the
available resources and the necessary search for new enterprises, are
the large companies. I think they can come to the Middle East, help to
build a market of producers and consumers, on modern lines, and be
repaid later on according to their investment.
I always thought that the revolution introduced by Henry Ford was a more
telling one than the revolution introduced by Vladimir Lenin. Ford made
from the workers customers and producers. Lenin made from them
disciplined citizens, so to speak. So in one country, the economy was
taking off; in the other country, the economy was going down.
Conclusion:
Here is, more or less, the lines that I believe are the right ones, to
go from an immediate triangle between the three parties, also to solve
the political aspect, to a region that will start to build itself. For
Europe and America, a healthy Middle East is more promising and even
cheaper than a sick one. For the Middle East people, the time has come -
less to remember and more to think; less to be prisoners of the past,
and more to become loyal to the future - or actually to the existing age
which is spreading with such a great force and invitation all over.
Our task is to prepare for the young generation to enter the 21st
century according to the new rules, and become registered on the list of
the winners, not on the list of the losers.