CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Borders, Security, and the International Community

A DISCUSSION OF THE PAX MEDITERRANEO WOULD NOT BE complete without acknowledging the many complex and sometimes seemingly insoluble conflicts in the Mediterranean region. Even the best peacebuilding plans and media campaigns will come to nothing if past tensions and conflicts continue to be exploited in negotiations and other diplomatic interactions.

Creative diplomacy invites us to step back from the narrow view of unresolved issues as potentially painful “concessions” and to view them instead as opportunities to take an innovative approach to solving problems. Creative diplomacy avoids the use of surgical tools to split assets, territories, and issues. Instead, it employs measures that espouse compromise and entrench a feeling of gain, even pride, within both communities. Compromise is not a dirty word, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. The Pax Mediterraneo must set the standard for thinking outside the box in an effort to satisfy the interests of both sides. In creative diplomacy, everybody wins.

In the Mediterranean—particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—the areas of negotiation that need the highest level of creative diplomacy are border resolutions and comprehensive security arrangements. This section of the Pax Mediterraneo will be dedicated to offering innovative solutions to these seemingly intractable obstacles to the peace process. In the Middle East, bilateral negotiation teams can be established between Israel and Palestine, Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon. The spirit of these negotiations can focus on strategizing a modern peace based 190 on equality and respect for cultural identities, including the recognition of the Palestinian right to an independent state.

Borders

If a modern peace for the Middle East within the Mediterranean context is to be achieved, creative diplomacy will have to be applied to the hotly disputed issue of permanent borders. Here, I will focus on the Israeli-Palestinian border, including the emotionally loaded question of Jerusalem, and the Israeli-Syrian border, which contains the strategically important Golan Heights. Past negotiations regarding these borders have been rife with disagreements and “unacceptable” concessions, which is why the revolutionary approach of creative diplomacy is required, to shed new light on old problems. Instead of focusing on what each side is “losing,” we must emphasize the potential gains of permanent border resolutions, including economic growth and cooperative ventures that can generate peace dividends on both sides.

Border issues can generally be resolved based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)¹—Israeli withdrawals from territories occupied in 1967 (the West Bank and the Golan Heights) and territory exchange for designing the blocs of settlements. Security arrangements most likely to affect issues of jurisdiction for territories adjacent to the 1967 borders can remain open to negotiation. Israel’s recognition of such issues paves the way for Arab progress on issues of peace relations and security.

Rather than being demarcated by concrete blocks, deployed forces, and land mines, Israel’s border with the West Bank and Gaza can comprise ten industrialized trade zones that will develop high-tech and mid-tech industries with investment from wealthier Mediterranean countries, the European Union, and the United States. The ten zones can be strategically placed adjacent to the main cities of the West Bank—Bethlehem, Jenin, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Tulkarm, and two southeast of Hebron—and in Gaza, at the Erez, Kissufim, and Rafah crossings. 191

The borders can more or less reflect the 1967 cease-fire lines, with the exception of four Israeli settlement blocs—Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, the Latrun region, and the Alfe Menashe region, which together make up about 3 percent of the West Bank. These four blocs can be swapped on a one-to-one ratio with territory that expands Gaza into the Negev by 169.2 square kilometers. This area can be used to house Palestinian refugees whose right to return to their new homeland—the future Palestine—will be enshrined.

There is probably no more emotionally laden issue than the political fate of Jerusalem, a city that has been conquered by civilizations and empires but has not yet seen a peaceful resolution between two nations or religions. More symbols and passions exist in Jerusalem than anywhere in the world. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city under Israeli jurisdiction, but the city is split in terms of population and emotional perspective among approximately 465,000 Israeli Jews and 230,000 Arabs.² For Jews, Jerusalem is the heart and the magnet of the Jewish state, religion, culture, and history. For Muslims, Jerusalem is holy and is the symbol of the Palestinian national struggle.

What can creative diplomacy achieve in terms of a sustainable solution? Considering the value of Jerusalem to its constituencies, negotiations could conceivably continue forever. When an asset of such magnitude must be shared, a truly innovative and revolutionary effort is the only possibility for reaching a solution.

In view of the significance of the city to both peoples, a Pax Mediterraneo could include the following proposals: first, that the city of Jerusalem should remain as one city; and second, that the city of Jerusalem should have three political jurisdictions:

• Yerushalayim (“Jerusalem” in Hebrew) can be the capital of Israel and can include all Jewish neighborhoods and holy places, including the Western Wall.
• Al-Quds (“Jerusalem” in Arabic) can be the capital of Palestine and can include all Palestinian neighborhoods and Islamic192 holy places, including the surface of the Temple Mount and its mosques. The territory underneath the Temple Mount can be dealt with in coordination between the two sides.
• Jerusalem can be an area in the northwest of the city that enjoys joint UN, Israeli, and Palestinian jurisdiction. The United Nations can declare Jerusalem the world capital of peace. A quarter of UN institutions could be moved to Jerusalem, including the headquarters of the peacekeeping forces, UNESCO, and facilities for a temporary general assembly and secretary-general that will hold special sessions on peacerelated topics at least once a year.

  UNESCO could promote cultural exchange and multiculturalism, with a clear mandate to foster a culture of peace in the world. Simultaneously, the move can make Jerusalem a major center for interfaith dialogue and understanding. Buildings can be designed by world-renowned architects. Jerusalem can finally be worthy of its name, the City of Peace.

Through the establishment of three jurisdictions, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and everyone emotionally linked to this unique city will benefit.

In 2001, I expressed these ideas to the leaderships of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the United Nations and found reactions on all sides to be encouraging. The plan would make Jerusalem the second-biggest UN headquarters and a center of peace in the context of a permanent status agreement. Jerusalem also would adhere to a new security dimension and regime when UN peacekeeping forces, with a bilateral agreement, are able to position peacekeepers in sensitive areas among both populations. Although the logistics of such an operation may seem overwhelming, it would demonstrate a great commitment to the ideals of modern peace and would prove how the tenets of creative diplomacy can be a driving force for peace and security.

The Golan Heights also will require a creative diplomatic solution, between Israel and Syria. It has become clear that peace will 193 not reign in the Golan Heights without a full Israeli withdrawal from the strategic plateau that overlooks all of northern Israel. The exact border for withdrawal will require intense negotiations, because Israel will not allow Syria a foothold on the Sea of Galilee, Israel’s main water resource. However, using innovative measures that necessarily involve a degree of mutual respect and trust on both sides, negotiations can be eased by making the Golan Heights a special demilitarized zone for eco- and health tourism. The region would fall under Syrian sovereignty, using Spanish, French, and Italian resources and infrastructure. Syrian residents and Israeli, Arab, and international tourists all can enjoy the benefits of such a proposal. Further proposals for the Golan Heights are presented later in this chapter.

A New View of Security

Creative diplomacy requires us to take a new look at what we consider “security.” Instead of outlining the movements and limitations of each side’s military as totally separate entities, modern security arrangements can focus on joint military programs that encourage cross-border cooperation and the recognition of common peacekeeping aims. Security arrangements can expand into the sociopolitical arena, where regional bodies can counsel and support cooperation on issues of borders, peacekeeping, terrorism, and crisis management.

Mediterranean Partnership for Peace

To provide a forum for security arrangements, Mediterranean nations can come together in a Mediterranean Partnership for Peace (MPFP) modeled on the Eastern European Partnership for Peace with NATO. Given the strategic importance of the Mediterranean—particularly the Middle East—for the United States, it can take the lead with NATO in this process. The United States can emphasize its regional function in its defense relationships 194 with Palestine (antiterror cooperation), Jordan and Egypt (military assistance), and Syria (demilitarization of industries).

The special relationship between Israel and the United States can be similarly highlighted. A defense pact between the two can be created in light of Israel’s withdrawal from most of the occupied territories and its location amid Arab nations. This pact could guarantee Israel’s qualitative technological edge and security, aid its regional integration, and institutionalize existing and future relationships between Israel and the United States. This pact does not have to antagonize Israel’s Arab neighbors if it ensures that the United States will remain an honest broker in the political domain, and particularly in the economic sphere, where it can provide much-needed assistance to the Arab world.

All sides will feel more secure if the Pax Mediterraneo is conceptually linked to a political-military model that broadens the scope of security elements to ensure that, in the case of a political breakdown, a military reprisal is not on the agenda. The MPFP—in line with the Eastern European pact—is just such a model.

Under the framework of the MPFP, NATO could sign individual partnership programs (IPPs) with the non-NATO Mediterranean countries that do not already have IPPs (Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Montenegro, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Serbia, Syria, and Tunisia).³ Each IPP could entail military cooperation, peacekeeping arrangements, crisis management, civil emergency planning, politico-military dialogue, and transparency in national defense. Transparency in this context can involve parliamentary monitoring of public security and decision making in relation to potential security threats, territorial integrity, and political independence. Four Mediterranean countries—Albania, Macedonia, Malta, and Slovenia—already have IPPs with NATO. One of these countries, possibly Malta, can therefore serve as the central headquarters for MPFP activities.

Members of the MPFP can demonstrate their dedication to modern peace by signing a document committing signatories to 195 preserve pluralist society; to preserve the principles of international law, the UN Charter (1945),⁴ and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to refrain from the use of force, respect recognized borders, and settle disputes peacefully; and to fulfill existing obligations on disarmament and arms control. By establishing these common responsibilities, MPFP member countries can demonstrate solidarity and mutual trust.

Each member of the MPFP can appoint liaison officers to NATO. These officers can create a steering committee and working forum that link the new partners and NATO. These can operate in tandem with NATO’s North Atlantic Council and coordinate issues relating to the IPPs. The North Atlantic Council can address political and security issues as well as cooperate on security-oriented economic questions, social issues, and matters of science and the environment. The steering committee also can deal with cooperative peacekeeping activities, providing a forum for consultation and exchange on political and conceptual issues of cooperation. The committee can report periodically to the North Atlantic Council and to MPFP foreign ministers.

Through a planning and review process, NATO can evaluate the capacity of each MPFP partner to participate in multinational training, exercises, and operations with the alliance. NATO and the new partners also can cooperate on civil and emergency training; humanitarian assistance and disaster procedures; scientific and environmental issues; military issues, including the conversion of military industries to civilian industries; and air traffic and maritime management.

The Mediterranean Partnership for Peace has the opportunity to reflect the objectives of a modern peace and to convert matters of security into civilian and political concepts. It can employ joint discussions and open dialogue to implement stability rather than leaving it a matter for the battlefield. Indeed, the MPFP embodies many of the concepts of modern peace: civil-military dialogue; democratization of national armed forces; transparency of budgets; an enhanced role of foreign ministers in relation to security 196 issues; and scientific, environmental, and humanitarian cooperation in the defense arena. Security and defense arrangements can be approached from the perspective of peace and cooperation rather than as if to prepare for the next war.

This new approach would allow creative and sustainable frameworks for peace. Through the MPFP, for example, Syria and Israel can cooperate on military issues, ranging from monitoring to joint exercises to the exchange of military information, without the taint of “concessions.” On a larger level, this partnership can create a strategic alliance with the West that will serve to democratize and civilize security.

Other security arrangements can include the establishment of an arms control committee. In this context, all nations should declare a vision for a nuclear-free Mediterranean (excepting France), conditioned on a nuclear-free Iran, to prevent a nonconventional weapons threat against any of the parties.

Similarly, regional cooperation in the struggle against terrorism is an important part of creating regional harmony and security. Mediterranean nations must pledge to fight terror, arrest terrorists, and dismantle terrorist infrastructure on their lands, and they must freeze international financing of terrorist organizations that gain passage through Mediterranean countries. Along these lines, religious leaders can influence their constituents toward modern peace by endorsing such initiatives and denouncing the use of terror.

Mediterranean Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Force

The security arrangements outlined in the Pax Mediterraneo can include the establishment of a multinational Mediterranean peacekeeping and peacebuilding force (MPPF). This force can be deployed in previously agreed-upon areas for monitoring purposes, taking its mandate from the UN Security Council. In the Middle East, the force can be positioned along the Israeli-Palestinian border, the Palestinian-Egyptian border, the Israeli-Syrian border, and 197 the Israeli-Lebanese border to monitor bilateral security arrangements and to ensure the demilitarization of the future Palestine (except for its internal police force). Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian security personnel can join the MPPF in the Jordan Valley and along the Palestinian side of the Jordan River (including at border crossings), to facilitate border crossings. This arrangement should last for a period of no less than six years, but it can be extended with the consent of both parties.

The MPPF also can extend its skills to peacebuilding activities. The Jordan Valley can be the location of MPPF peacebuilding activity in the areas of agriculture and water, while the Israeli-Palestinian border will house MPPF-facilitated industrial zones. Forces also can be deployed on the Golan Heights, on top of the mountain and along the new peace border, and along the Israeli-Lebanese border. According to the modern peace treaty, the region should be otherwise demilitarized, and Syria’s standing army—as opposed to Israel’s mainly reserve army—can be deployed a reasonable distance from the border to prevent a surprise attack against Israel. Some arrangements can be made with respect to the Israeli army—again, to prevent a surprise attack on Syrian troops.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah can be disarmed according to UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 (2004)⁵ and 1701 (2.006).⁶ The MPPF can engage in peacebuilding activity in southern Lebanon and can monitor all security arrangements in the region, especially in light of the recent war. In a demonstration of cooperation and international support, the MPPF can be stationed in Jerusalem’s UN headquarters, which can also administer special forces—only by consent of both parties—in the city’s holy places. This deployment can serve to ensure public order and should be mostly symbolic in nature (i.e., light weapons only).

The creation of a Mediterranean peacekeeping and peacebuilding force is an innovative approach to long-standing security problems between Mediterranean countries. Implementing the MPPF and other nontraditional security arrangements will require a great deal of creativity and flexibility in the diplomatic process. 198

The Role of the International Community

The modern peace can be revolutionary—but only if it is given priority throughout the process and is not simply delayed until a treaty has been signed and a half-baked peace has been implemented. All the elements of peace—human rights, security, and the four pillars of modern peace—must be given equal political and financial footing during the peace process, both by the parties in conflict and by the international community. Within our Mediterranean context, the United Nations can deliberate the nature of peace, endorse the new peace deal, and guide the most effective implementation processes for governments within the conflict zone and in the larger region. In the event that a UN headquarters is established in Jerusalem (as is proposed in our creative diplomatic plan), these UN-Mediterranean discussions can take place in our world capital of peace.

Diplomacy that deals with peacebuilding, glocalization, and peace ecology can be subsidized by a financial mechanism established by the G-8. This mechanism could link Mediterranean partners, local governments, and local and international NGOs. Funding also can involve a Mediterranean regional bank that will assist in financing private-sector projects.

The role of the US administration in Mediterranean peace is critical. For this role to be executed effectively—that is, for the United States to show the true colors of its generosity and its genuine zeal for the gospel of democracy and the free market—the mind-set of both the administration and the American public needs to change. They must recognize and internalize the concept that peace is made by entrenching peace values within a local culture, not by forcing democracy and free market policies on societies so different from their own. Although both democracies and free market economies are desirable, peace should come first, bringing political and economic reforms in its wake. Furthermore, the United States must alter its security-oriented mind-set to take into 199 account cultural perspectives that will stimulate economic development, cooperation, peacebuilding, and peace ecology in a given region. The US government can improve its image abroad and improve opportunities for American businesses by recognizing that peace—not force—is the best path to democracy.

But great change in the American mind-set will not come easily. There can be public recognition of and debate about the failures of conventional peacemaking and about the reforms necessary to cultivate a modern peace. These debates can happen on local, national, regional, and global levels and can involve peace workers from all walks of life. The Pax Mediterraneo is a good starting point for grounding the ideals of modern peace into a practical yet revolutionary peace plan. Ultimately, it is the United States, along with regional partners and international counterparts, that must lead the way to innovative peacemaking in conflict and post-conflict zones, by empowering local parties to implement a modern peace within their own cultural frameworks.