Day: January 28, 2020
No real deal
President Trump’s much-vaunted “deal of the century” landed with a thud today. Conceived and developed without input from the Palestinians, it gives Israel the territory it has sought in Golan, the West Bank, and Jerusalem in exchange for a $50 billion aid package and a supposedly contiguous Palestinian state.
There are lots of ambiguities, which I suppose will be resolved only once we study the 80-page text (not yet on the White House website):
- The President claimed in his announcement that Jerusalem will be undivided but also said there would be a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. That doesn’t make sense.
- He also said Palestinian territory would be “doubled,” which by my calculation suggests that at least 10% of the West Bank (and possibly much more) would be taken by Israel without land swaps.
- There would be a four-year period during which Israel would not encroach further on the West Bank, but it is not clear whether this would require prior Palestinian acceptance of the plan, which is not forthcoming.
- The President did not mention the Jordan River valley, but given his claim that Israel’s security would not be even marginally compromised it is likely the idea is for Israel to hold on to it.
- The plan is said to be “conceptual” and will now be elaborated further in a joint committee, which isn’t going to happen as the Palestinians won’t go along.
What happens now? Nothing much. Most of the Arab world seems to have shunned the announcement–the President mentioned only that the Omani, Bahraini, and Emirati (he said Emiratris) were present. That would mean most of the political heavy hitters, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, stayed away.
The main destinations for this peace plan are the political campaigns of President Trump–whose impeachment trial was ongoing while he made the announcement–and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who today was indicted on corruption charges (specifically fraud, breach of trust, and bribery). They are both hoping to get a bit of political boost out of the White House peace plan, which will likely be forgotten within days.
There is however a broader significance: the playing field has tilted against the West Bank Palestinians in recent years, in part because they have mostly abandoned violence against Israelis and internationals. It would be surprising if no one noticed how their cause has suffered from resorting to nonviolence.
Trump and Netanyahu are trying to supplant the “land for peace” formula that has prevailed in negotiations since 1967. They want “money for peace” instead. It should be no surprise that Trump views the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as requiring a real estate deal for its resolution. But then remember: Trump was no good at real estate and made most of his money franchising his name. Like so many of his deals, this one is a sales gimmick. There is no real deal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s other diplomatic initiative
Veljko Nestorović of ALO! asked questions. I replied (the Serbian version is here):
Q: Following the agreement on the establishment of an airline between Belgrade and Pristina, and the announcement of the establishment and a railway line, does this indicate that the dialogue will be resumed soon?
A. I don’t see how the dialogue can resume before government formation in Pristina. It may be delayed longer than that, because Serbian elections are coming by May. I doubt it is in Kosovo’s interest to negotiate during an election campaign in Serbia.
Q: Who has first to give up, Pristina or Belgrade, to abolish taxes or stop the campaign to withdraw Kosovo’s recognition?
A: Those moves will have to be simultaneous.
Q: Have you changed your mind when it comes to Richard Grenell or have you maintained that his appointment as Special Envoy is bizarre?
A: I’m glad progress has been made on the air link and railroad, despite the limits on use of the air link by people like me who arrive in Kosovo without coming from Serbia. I still think the appointment strange, but I’m glad to give credit where it is due.
Q: In your opinion, is territorial exchange something that is definitely no longer on the table now?
A: It is a zombie idea that wanders the earth, seeking someone who will revive it. I won’t be surprised if it finds someone, but I don’t think it is a good or feasible idea. The main barrier is a fundamental diplomatic principle: reciprocity. Whatever Serbia gets in the north it will need to give the equivalent in the south, and vice versa for Kosovo. I don’t think either capital is ready for that.
Q: Do you think President Trump is anxious to find a quick solution for the Kosovo because of the November election, or does the US election not affect the Pristina-Belgrade dialogue?
A: There is no doubt the President is looking for any kind of success internationally that distracts attention from his impeachment and the trial in the Senate. There are few countries where domestic politics don’t have an impact on foreign policy.
Q: In your opinion, can Belgrade and Pristina come to an agreement, and in your opinion, what should it entail?
A: Yes, I do think an agreement is possible. It will have to entail Serbia’s acceptance in some form of Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as exchange of diplomatic representatives at the ambassadorial level. It will also need ample provisions for protection of minorities and Serbian cultural and religious sites in Kosovo, with equivalent protection for minorities (including Albanians) in Serbia.
I should have added that there will need to be sweeteners from the international community: progress on EU membership for Serbia, at the very least the visa waiver and I hope candidacy for Kosovo, as well as a substantial economic aid package for both.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 28
–Britain won’t ban Huawei.
– Congress may punish such action.
– WSJ says Putin outfoxed US in Venezuela.
– NYT says Russia is outmaneuvering US in Africa, too.
– Israelis report US is building bases in Iraq close to Iran.
-House Democrats warm to resuming earmarks.
– FP calls O’Brien the anti-Bolton.
-Conservative Max Boot says Pompeo is worse than Tillerson.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
