Remarks to Working Group on Middle East

Check against delivery

Mr President, parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to address the European Parliament. It is not a regular task for a Norwegian Foreign Minister – a fact that I regret as an individual but respect as a minister!

However, Norway and the European Union cooperate closely on a whole range of issues – including the Middle East. I would like to commend the EU for its will to engage, politically and financially. This engagement is indeed needed. The Middle East borders Europe. It is in our direct interest that the peace process succeeds. It is an honour for me to work so closely with Commissioner Benita Ferrero Waldner, and I applaud the European Parliament for supporting the active EU engagement.

For decades Norway has been engaged with parties in the Middle East in their complex search for peace. Today our focus is on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But let us not forget: no single issue can be separated from the broader regional perspective – and broader regional security arrangements.

Today such arrangements are merely a vision. But the EU is in itself the story of a vision that materialised against historical odds. Thus, Europe and the EU should have valuable experience and lessons to share from its own dramatic road from conflict to peace and development.

The EP Working Group on the Middle East is well informed about the situation on the ground, and Quartet representative Tony Blair has given us a unique insight into the realities. The situation is complex. No matter how we define it, what is needed is political will and courage to move beyond complexity.

Let me – from a Norwegian perspective – take this opportunity to make six observations:

First: we need to keep mobilising support for the process initiated at Annapolis. I admit that the results so far have been limited. The growing impatience is legitimate. People on the ground do not see much change for the better.

But there is real value in maintaining an established process of dialogue and negotiations. We need to urge the parties to keep the existing channels open. This process itself – with active US involvement – is an accomplishment and constitutes a step towards a negotiated final status settlement.

*****

Second – and a sobering addition to my first point: we need to keep the parties accountable. At Annapolis President Bush stated that the US would be the judge of the progress made. Let us then be the jury.

It is intolerable for Israel to live with the rocket threat from Gaza. And Israel has the right to defend itself. But we must call on Israel to do so without excessive use of violence, which leads to a new spiral of increasing violence.  

At the same time – as the negotiators negotiate – the average Palestinian and Israeli need to see that the peace process is resulting in steps towards peace.

This means that the Palestinians should not have to witness new settlements on occupied territory.

This means that the Palestinians should feel a gradual easing of the many restrictions on movement and access that apply in the West Bank. This is necessary to enable the Palestinians to develop their economy and bring progress to their people.

I know that the Israeli authorities say that easing the restrictions would jeopardise Israel’s security. We all know that providing security is critical for any elected government. But a cautious step by step easing of these restrictions is necessary – hand in hand with a gradual strengthening of the Palestinian’s capacity to impose law and order in the West Bank.

Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority (PA) needs to move forward on reform. Prime Minister Fayyad’s concerted efforts are resulting in tangible progress. He is a partner that the peace process can hardly afford to loose. But he and the PA need active follow-up from all of us.

I would like to commend the role of the EU and Quartet representative Tony Blair. The European Commission, together with EU member states, is by far the most important donor and development actor in the Palestinian Territory. We, the Europeans, need to provide direct assistance to take small and large projects forward, in accordance with Mr Blair’s schedule and Prime Minister Fayyad’s reform plan.   

*****

Third: broad support at home is a prerequisite for reaching a peace agreement. Both parties face serious challenges here.

In Israel the coalition is struggling with sharp differences on core issues such as Jerusalem and settlements.

Even worse? More seriously, the Palestinian negotiators are negotiating with the backing of only part of their population, while being at odds with the other part.

Events have turned Hamas into a structural spoiler. The dilemma we are faced with goes to the core of how extremism should be countered in the Palestinian Territory – and beyond – in the Middle East.

A key problem in Palestinian politics is the lack of trust in and respect for established democratic institutions. Hamas has argued, ever since the days of the Oslo Process, that they – and not the elected President of the Palestinian people – were in a position to make decisions on war and peace. This is an approach Hamas has in common with other fundamentalist groups in the region. Through terrorist activities they have undermined both the peace process and the credibility and legitimacy of the elected Palestinian authorities.  

I believe the international community, no matter how you define it – in this case, let us say the Quartet of which the EU is a member – is still struggling with how to deal with non-state actors.

You may – as I do – profoundly object to Hamas’ principles and values. But is it wise to ignore them? Not to talk with them? Not to engage them and provide incentives to move out of violence and into politics?

This is “the control question”: If we don’t do any of these things – will Hamas simply go away and vanish? Or do they represent a reality – a political, social, even military element in the fabric of Palestinian society that we have to relate to in one way or another.  

In my opinion, it was a step in the right direction when Hamas decided to take part in the Palestinian elections in 2006. Hamas won a majority, but failed to deliver in government and cut itself off from the international community by disregarding key principles and standards of relations between states.

The National Unity Government failed in June 2007. Still, the attempt was a first effort to bring Palestinian reconciliation into government structures.

*****

This leads to my fourth point: how should we relate to Palestinian factions? Do we know where Hamas is heading? Is it possible that Hamas, as some of its leaders have stated, is ready to live side by side with Israel in peace? Will they accept a democratic Palestinian society that is not built solely on their vision – or will they, as their actions in Gaza indicate, remain structural spoilers, ready to undermine the democratic process when it does not deliver the results they hope for?

Let me be clear: this is for the Palestinians to decide. But are we, the international community, doing enough to test their readiness, by pushing them to show more of their hand than the rockets hitting Sderot and the terror affecting Israel?

*****

Fifth: Gaza. The dramatic development in Gaza has had a profound impact on the Palestinian population.

A recent survey of living conditions and opinions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by the Oslo-based Fafo Institute shows that 70% of the Palestinians fear that the West Bank and Gaza will remain separated for years. The survey also indicates a dramatic drop in household incomes in Gaza, declining trust in political leaders and fading support for negotiations with Israel. Still, 47% of the Palestinians support a negotiated settlement. This is, however, down from 77% in December 2006 and 58% in July 2007.

We need to insist on democratic legitimacy. There can only be one Palestinian Authority, and it is only the PLO – headed by Mahmud Abbas –that has a mandate to negotiate a final settlement with the State of Israel.

My point is this: in the long run Palestinian reconciliation is essential to achieving political stability and a sustainable negotiated settlement. However, the international community cannot resolve this issue. It is an internal matter, for which the Palestinian’s themselves are responsible. What is certain is that it will have a profound impact on final status negotiations with Israel, irrespective of how it is sorted out.

*****

Sixth and final point: while we wait for progress in the negotiations, we must not let existing Palestinian institutions crumble.

Under Minister Kouchner’s leadership, the Paris pledging conference delivered tangible results in December – more than 7 billion dollars.

Prime Minister Fayyad has taken on the task of carrying out reform initiatives to increase revenues and control – also over the security forces. We are working to monitor the follow-up on the Paris commitments and pledges.

The next step is the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, the Palestinian donor forum that Norway has been chairing since 1994. It will convene in London on 2 May – at yet another critical moment in the peace process.

The meeting will focus on international support for the Palestinian Authority, reforms and the easing of restrictions on economic activity. In London it will be time to turn pledges into real assistance. It will be time to hold Israel responsible for improving access and movement. It will be time to call for more direct engagement from the Arab states. 

Direct budgetary support to the PA is key here. I am familiar with the PEGASE mechanism developed by the EU. Norway has supported the establishment of a World Bank trust fund (the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan Trust Fund, PRDP-TF) with a view to attracting a wider range of donors, including Arab states. We will disburse 28 million euros to the Trust Fund in the next weeks to support the PA’s ability to pay salaries and provide vital public services such as health care and education.

Finally, let us not forget: if the Palestinian Authority collapses – so will the institutional foundations for a final status settlement on the Palestinian side. We cannot allow that to happen.