Clinton Can Deal From Strength in Peace Talks

As he prepares for this week’s Middle East peace talks at Camp David, President Clinton is assembling an array of carrots and sticks to try to coax the Israelis and Palestinians to compromise on issues that have divided them for decades, U.S. officials say.

Administration officials and independent experts acknowledge that Clinton can’t force Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat to reach agreement during their summit, starting Tuesday, at the presidential retreat in the mountains of western Maryland.

But even if Clinton has already slid into lame-duck status on many of the issues confronting him as president, the sources say he appears to be at the height of his powers as a Middle East peace negotiator.

Clinton has a variety of tools at his disposal, from promises of big financial aid packages and other favors to threats of tough diplomatic reprisals, that he can use to try to prevent a potential collapse of the peace process and escalation of violence in the conflict-torn region.

In previous Mideast negotiations during his 7 1/2 years as president, a more cautious Clinton used only a few of the weapons in his arsenal. But now, with only six months left before he leaves office, he has little reason to hold back.

“His strongest card, ironically, is his lame-duck status,” said Geoffrey Kemp, a former White House Middle East specialist. “Whoever wins in November will be overwhelmed by other priorities. Neither of them will have anything like the background and sheer hands-on experience that Clinton has.

“He is peaking in terms of his capacity to be an effective facilitator,” Kemp said. “What he needs to do is to remind Barak and Arafat that he ain’t going to be here forever.”

U.S. officials acknowledge three possible summit outcomes: total success, utter failure or a partial agreement. Experts say complete success is unlikely, and total failure is unthinkable.

And heading into the summit, Clinton plans to divide the issues in dispute into three categories: those where agreement seems likely; those where agreement is at least possible; and those where a solution is expected to be most difficult.

“You have a strategy for dealing with the first two sets,” said a senior administration official who requested anonymity. “And then also you can begin to focus on the ways you might overcome what are the hardest differences.”

He says Clinton and his aides will try to break stalemates by suggesting U.S.-drafted compromises that incorporate ideas from both sides. Of course, whether they are accepted will depend on how deftly Clinton uses his tools of persuasion and how far apart the two sides are on the issue at hand.

In announcing the summit, set to begin Tuesday, Clinton said his objective was to “reach an agreement on the core issues that have fueled a half-century of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.”

That is a laudable goal, but Middle East specialists say the president will almost certainly have to settle for something less if he wants to prevent the region from sliding back into violence.

“At some point, Clinton will have to move from the objective of complete success to a partial deal,” said Richard Haass, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Haass says the parties are too far apart on emotional issues such as the future of Jerusalem to have any realistic chance of reaching a comprehensive agreement at the summit. But he says some significant disputes can be settled, providing new momentum toward a long-postponed final peace treaty.

“The United States can provide the last few percentage points of an agreement,” said Haass, a Middle East expert in the Bush administration. But he said Washington cannot “promise or threaten enough” to bring agreement in matters where the parties remain far apart.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators say they have reached an impasse after months of trying to draft a final peace agreement. Arafat has vowed to issue a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood if there is no agreement by Sept. 13, a target date set last year that has taken on increasing importance as it draws closer.

Barak has said that, if the Palestinians declare a state on territory they now control, the Jewish state will annex West Bank tracts that remain in Israeli hands. Regional experts say substantial amounts of the West Bank would be claimed by both sides, probably setting the stage for firefights between the Israeli army and the militarized Palestinian police. Violence among civilians on both sides also seems inevitable.

Most independent observers believe that Arafat recognizes the danger of unilateral action and would like to find a face-saving way to avoid it. A partial agreement at Camp David covering at least some of the final-status issues could give him an excuse to do nothing.

“Arafat would like to avoid having to take unilateral action on Sept. 13,” Haass said. “All he needs is an ability to back out of that corner.”

The most effective lever at Clinton’s disposal is money. The Palestinian Authority is critically short of cash. A Palestinian official said it will take $40 billion in outside aid to seal the deal. U.S. officials say that the sum is an unrealistic figure but agree that some money from Washington--combined with cash from the European Union, the oil-rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf region and Japan--will be required to complete an agreement.

Foreign aid is less popular in Congress now than it was 22 years ago, when the United States promised $1.8 billion a year to Israel and $1.2 billion annually to Egypt to sweeten the first Camp David pact. Even so, U.S. officials expect to be able to make a substantial contribution. Moreover, the U.S. government will play an important role in persuading other countries to contribute.

“I think that the leaders on Capitol Hill understand, as the president does, that reaching an agreement and moving toward a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is in the interest of the United States. It’s in the interest of the rest of the world,” said White House spokesman P. J. Crowley. “I think they understand that resources will be necessary to support and sustain an agreement.”

Since the accord between Israel and Egypt was struck in 1978, the Jewish state has become one of the world’s more affluent countries. Although Barak has made it clear that he expects Washington to bear some of the cost of implementing an agreement, money is not as important to him as it is to Arafat. But Israel wants additional U.S. cooperation on security and technology, something Clinton can use as an inducement.

More subtle, but probably just as important, the United States can offer political cover. Both Barak and Arafat would find it easier to explain to their publics any concessions they made if they could say Clinton forced their hands.

“For either of them to take a deal back to his own people, it has to be a complete package,” said Richard Fairbanks, a Middle East negotiator in the Reagan administration. “Clinton can help by emphasizing that both got something.”

Although Clinton clearly prefers carrots to sticks, he can apply the latter if needed.

At the most basic level, Clinton could threaten to blame one side or the other for a failure of the summit. Such public finger-pointing could be damaging to the recalcitrant party.

He could warn Arafat that the United States would refuse to recognize a unilateral declaration of statehood and would pressure other countries to withhold recognition as well.

And Clinton could withhold additional security cooperation from Israel if Barak was the cause of an impasse.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Mideast Issues

Israelis and Palestinians have engaged in direct negotiations since 1993 but have yet to resolve the most difficult and sensitive final status issues.

*

Territory and Borders

Palestinians: Israel must relinquish all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, just as Israel relinquished all territories to Egypt and virtually all to Jordan. Palestinians have already made significant compromises by releasing claims to 77% of present-day Israel.

Israelis: Israel is prepared to turn over more than 90% of the total territory of the West Bank and Gaza but does not want to return all of the territories. Pre-1967 borders are unacceptable.

*

Jerusalem

Palestinians: Israel should give up all of East Jerusalem and the Old City, the portion controlled by Jordan before the 1967 war. All Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem are illegal. When a Palestinian state is declared, its capital will be in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem.

Israelis: Jerusalem must remain under Israeli control, but a high degree of autonomy may be extended to Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

*

Refugees

Palestinians: Israel must accept responsibility for Palestinian refugees, who abandoned, fled or were expelled from their homes as a result of the creation of Israel. Israel should grant them a right to return and compensate those who can’t.

Israelis: Refugees have no right of return and should be permanently settled in the countries where they reside or in another country of resettlement. Refugees are due compensation, but most of it should be provided by Arab states, which Israel holds responsible for the refugee problem.

*

Settlements

Palestinians: All settlements are illegal. Israel should not retain any settlements or allow Israelis to continue to live in the West Bank or Gaza unless they are willing to apply for Palestinian citizenship.

Israelis: More than 170,000 Israelis reside in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel must be allowed to incorporate the majority of this population and the land into Israel.

*

Security and Water

Palestinians: Israel must relinquish all of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Jordan Valley and water resources.

Israelis: Israel must have access to the Jordan Valley and be allowed to maintain an ongoing security presence there. No foreign army will be allowed west of the Jordan River, and the Palestinian state must remain demilitarized. Israel should retain control over water resources in the West Bank. Desalination projects should be undertaken to provide sufficient water for Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians, instead of redistributing existing resources.

*

Source: Americans for Peace Now; compiled by SUNNY KAPLAN/LOS ANGELES TIMES *

SET ON HIS GOAL

Despite long odds at home, Israel’s premier is unrelenting in his quest for peace. A11