Special MEPP Update: Annapolis

Submitted by Davis Lewin on November 25, 2007 - 5:58pm.
To all NCF MEPP Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since most of our esteemed members work in the field, you will no doubt have been watching closely, and have your own opinions.  Here is a little roundup from NCF, thank you as ever for all the comments and conversations that have been so enlightening.  In keeping with the new format, please click through in the text to get to original sources.
Annapolis as a diplomatic initiative is perhaps best described as 'strange', at least in terms of planning.  Jeremy Bowen's analysis tellingly recounts the White House press secretary's failure to term the nature of the meeting, with an aide suggesting "get together".  So, the Annapolis get-together.  Sounds inviting, doesn't it?  And invitations have been sent.  Finally.  With less than a week to go and most people in the dark about the Agenda.  Could it be that the US administration has come to understand the value of a trusted old NCF tactic in getting heads together?   
But seriously, Newsweek reports that "major Arab states that are to be invited to Annapolis say that with a little more than a week left, they have not been told what is on the agenda. "No one knows what is happening," says a senior Arab official in Washington, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "A lot of us are reading the Israeli press [for clues]."
From Haaretz (via AP) then, here is a link to the list of invitees, which calls Annapolis a "peace conference" but is unclear about the level of representation for most of the invited parties.
It seems to me that one thing about Annapolis has been an unmitigated success for the US already:  Lowering expectations.  Of course, for many, these were extremely low in the first place.  As a result, the diplomatic landscape in the build-up to the meeting is not exactly teeming with positive energy.  Nor are the analyses - few and muted as they have been by comparative standards when it comes to Middle East summits.
The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens defines the 'low expectations crowd' by asking 'why have a summit at all?', a question more people in that camp will agree with than will agree with Stephen's analysis, which is scathing about Secretary Rice's diplomatic strategy.   Hillel Halkin, in Murdoch's other Sun (NY), is also sharply critical of the diplomatic process, and whilst his analysis ends up in a rather different place than many others, it is no endorsement of his conclusions to reprint the apt analogy that serves as his point of departure for a piece entitled 'Unpopular Child': 
"The once much-vaunted Annapolis conference has been reduced, a few days before its convening, to the dimensions of a birthday party for an unpopular child at school.
Everyone now agrees that the parents were foolish to think they could improve their child's social standing by staging an event in its honor with lots of food, fun, games, and a special magic show, but the invitations have already gone out and it's too late to call the party off.
All that can be hoped for now is that enough children will turn up to prevent a fiasco and that the party will be gotten through quickly without fights, broken dishes, or other embarrassments."
So, will the 'children' appear?  One such 'child', and, so as not to rustle diplomatic feathers, it is an analogy, which I shall now leave -  one such guest is Syria.  There are strong views regarding Syria inside NCF at this time, with a flurry of diplomatic activity seemingly coming to an end.  I cannot talk for those of our members actually handling this, nor divulge details at this point, but I will say that NCF is naturally always disappointed when our efforts are curtailed and continues to engage our interlocutors in a positive way, in line with our long-standing effort to help smoothe understanding between Syria and our other friends.
Though unusual to speak for members in this way, it was clear that most of our membership was very keen to see Syria invited to Annapolis, and would consider this a wholly welcome, majorly important US policy shift.  As such, I took a strong line by the standard of these circulations, welcoming Secretary Rice's indication that Syria would be invited.  I should then logically take an equally strong stance - call it a personal view for these purposes - that Syria should most definitely choose to attend the meeting.
And they are dithering.  Checking my RSS feeds continuously, I could give you all the speculation and opinion, but I can honestly not say what they will do.  I assume the phone-lines between Damascus and Tehran are as busy as those between Damascus and Washington, but I won't go into it, we will have to watch the wires and will know soon in any case.  I suggest this piece form Ynet as a good primer for where things stand.  This remains a vital issue to watch.
The truth is though, the Syrians are not the only ones who are deliberating their attendance.  I will not link here, because the stories change rapidly, but it looks as though, Egyptian support aside, China is sending its Foreign Minister.  The Saudis seem more willing to engage at the moment, with even the Crown Prince not ruling out attendance.  But the Arab states have long threatened not to show up if the meeting does not address substantial issues.  And yet, as it stands, reports from the Arab League meeting in Cairo, aimed at going to Annapolis in a coordinated manner, seem to suggest that we may yet see a positive result from the summit. 
As for the Palestinians, entirely predictably, Mahmoud Abbas is urging the Arab states to attend, and Ismail Haniyeh says the conference is 'stillborn'.  The latter is of course not invited.  Which leads me to an interesting piece by Noah Pollak, on whether to engage Hamas in the diplomatic process.  It takes issue with the letter about Annapolis published in the New York Review of Books, which I circulated previously and which was sent to me by Nicolas Pelham of Crisis Group (who had a hand in organising it).  He has sent another piece - received with gratitude - which is the latest ICG briefing on 'Annapolis and After'.  Given the glum expectations, Justin Alexander also sent piece addressing the need to plan for failure, also received with thanks.  Both are attached. 
In keeping with these efforts to look beyond Annapolis, Israel's Prime Minister Olmert has told his cabinet that the real negotiations will start after the meeting.  The IDF chief of Staff has defended his public misgivings that amongst the 441 prisoners Israel has agreed to release as a confidence building measure prior to the meeting, 16 will return to Gaza.  He said he was not against the release of prisoners, but that none should be returned to Gaza as long as Gilad Shalit was held there. 
For further roundups on Annapolis, HERE is the New York Times, and HERE is one from IPS.  I leave you with a short briefing from the Washington Institute about the aftermath of Annapolis, and a piece by the ever lucid Shmuel Rosner for Slate, who employs another 'Party' analogy to define how to judge the success or failure of the Annapolis 'get-together'.
Since unfortunately we do not expect it to be a happy party either - latest is that even agreement on a short, vague document to be released at the summit remains elusive, according to the New York Times "Agreement has been reached on only the first two paragraphs, including a line about the fact that the meeting was being convened in Annapolis" - NCF is working frantically to arrange a conference to help as best we can to contribute to a better climate of understanding in the aftermath of Annapolis.  We will be in touch as soon as the arrangements are confirmed.
In the meantime, allow me to leave you without the usual positive note.  Chatting with the deputy High Representatives for the Palestinians in the UK recently, we both agreed that as much as we would like, the conflict is not about to end.  The aim must be to reduce the suffering as much as possible.  And I maintain Annapolis is better than nothing.  But not good enough to finish on a positive note. 
Compiled by Davis Lewin on behalf of the MEPP Working Group - with best wishes to all our members.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Next Century Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK: 4 Vincent Square, London SW1P 2LX
USA: 190 Longhill Street, City of Springfield, MA 01108

AttachmentSize
ICG_Briefing_'Annapolis_and_After'.pdf243.1 KB
Reut_Institute_-_'After_Annapolis'.pdf227.07 KB