Mr. Peres once again expounded on the need for a regional approach to resolve the problems of the Middle East. The formation of the new Middle East must be based on an economic foundation, not on a military one and probably not just on a political one. He then listed the massive costs of war and the need to reorder Israel's national priorities and regional concepts, especially after the end of the Cold War. Text:
Amos Oz has said that he would prefer a Chekhov-type resolution to the conflict in the Middle East rather than a Shakespearean one.
At the end of a Shakespearean tragedy, the stage is strewn with dead bodies and perhaps there's some noble sense of justice hovering high above.
A Chekhov tragedy, on the other hand, ends with everybody disillusioned, embittered, heart-broken, disappointed, shattered, but somehow still alive.
Having considered these two bleak alternatives, I confess that I decided to turn away from the field of literature and seek an answer in the economic sphere. I concluded that I would prefer neither a Shakespearean nor a Chekhov-type resolution, but rather one founded on the thoughts of Jean Monnet. Monnet felt there could be no real solution for a historical conflict, but only a new beginning. The new beginning should be an economic one, definitely not a military one, and probably not just a political one.
Until now our eyes and attention have focused on the conflict, and the way to solve it. In other words we have placed the main emphasis on the price we have to pay for peace. Solving the conflict, however, is not necessarily the complete answer to our problems. The real question we have to ask ourselves, is what will come in the wake of the resolution of the conflict? How can we replace the misery of actual hostility with the dynamics of a real and enduring peace?
We should focus not just on the price of peace, but the benefits of peace. For the same price, we can continue to have either a poor and unstable Middle East, or with more thought and determination, build a vibrant peace, namely, a new and modern Middle East.
For Israel the prospect is clear. Israel paid, and continues to pay heavily, not because of the size of the country or the scarcity of its resources. Israel suffers economically, because she suffers politically, in three principal ways:
- the cost of her defense; - the burden and ongoing damage of the Arab boycott;
- the vast resources needed for the absorption of new immigrants.
Conversely, the Arabs suffer politically, because they suffer economically.
They were unable to build the most important element of any modern economy, namely a democratic system in the real sense of the term - a political democracy, as well as an economic one.
As a result, the disturbing and dangerous phenomenon of fundamentalism has emerged in the region:
Fundamentalism is a protest, not a religion. You may become more of a fundamentalist, by becoming more extreme politically and militarily. Amos Oz termed the food of fundamentalism "poverty and waste."
- It becomes a struggle between leaders and people. The leaders depend on armies, and the masses on prayers.
They could have done otherwise. I would like to recall a few basic figures: - $500 billion have been spent on armament in the region;
- The Gulf War cost a total of $620 billion;
- $700 billion have been spent on infrastructure of the region, with only $1 billion of such projects originating in the region;
- $32 billion is spent on the import of fresh food from outside the region, instead of purchasing products already available in the Middle East.
They are developing a regionalism based on religion and politics, as opposed to a regionalism based on economic cooperation and prosperity.
We cannot escape the vicious cycle of belligerency without changing our national priorities and regional concepts. Our national priorities must provide a new emphasis on economic issues. Nobody is going to feed us and no one will develop for us the markets to sustain stable and productive societies. The regional concept which creates a new economic order in the Middle East, can constitute the real guarantee of peace, rather than external international guarantees or foreign armies. (It has been said that the value of armies without the right enemies, is very much in doubt.)
The dangers in the Middle East today emanate more from ballistic missiles than from territorial dimensions.
The opportunities at present are regional rather than national and are to be found in the areas of development of tourism, water resources, energy, transport and ecology.
Demographics are going to play a vital role in modern-day economy just as in previous times did strategy, for there will be large markets in close proximity to each other,
The strength of a nation will be Judged not by its size but rather by: - the level of freedom its inhabitants enjoy;
- achievements in the fields of science and technology;
- marketing techniques - good relations with the neighboring countries may not be the rule but the customer is always right;
- education; and
- the nation's moral fiber and the suppression of forms of tyranny and dictatorship. The two levels of negotiations currently underway between Israel and its Arab neighbors are interdependent. The multilateral talks depend on the bilateral talks insofar as the dimension of time is concerned, while the bilateral level is contingent upon the multilateral level from a substantive viewpoint.
- The time factor is crucial.. The opportunity is great but it will not continue indefinitely. There is always the danger that the process could at any given time go sour.
- Planning for a better future does not necessarily entail commitment. For example, Italy has agreed to conduct a feasibility study regarding the possibility of building a canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. The potential implications of such a project in various fields are immense. Planning in such a way does no harm, but rather enables all the parties to have a glimpse of how we could dramatically contribute to a better future.
The world will not wait for us. We must act now to preserve the historic opportunity before us. We must invite the world to build a New Middle East - a new region that will promote the welfare and prosperity of all its inhabitants and provide for their human needs and basic aspirations.
We must prepare the public opinion of our people to realize the potential fruits of the peace process and dwell not only on the necessary price of that peace. Once the peoples of the region begin to see the tangible benefits of peace this will enable the decision-makers to be stronger and more confident in their quest for a genuine and profound peace.
We must mobilize the international business community and those personalities which can influence world priorities.
We should not only consider the questions of territorial borders but also seek new human horizons, which contain the promise of greater democracy, respect for human rights, free market economies, a danger-free ecological environment and above all, to be a step ahead of the times rather than be just up-to-date.
All this is designed to bring about a Middle East for the people and not for its leaders. A peaceful Middle East in a troubled world. A region of hope rather than a region of despair.