European and Islamic Foreign Ministers Meet in Istanbul

I wrote this for extra credit in my International Conflict and Negotiation class. Hope the context is clear enough for you to enjoy and digest it.

On the surface, European and Islamic foreign ministers seemed to have a productive meeting yesterday in Istanbul. The Europeans stated a strong stance in favor of a Palestinian state, not a new stance, but one that has been gaining momentum. For their part, Islamic ministers were quoted with unremarkable sentiments about Israel, the U.S. and the "War on Terrorism."

So why do I say this meeting was productive on the surface only? Because no real negotiation occurred in Istanbul. This is by no means to say that the meeting was anti-productive. But each bloc or nation's stance was already firmly prepared, and the meeting was essentially a photo-op. Now, photo-ops and surface productivity are vital in international relations, and have intrinsic value of their own. What I am driving at is the fact that each country or bloc's stance and statements must be looked at in a void: the European position was probably not affected by anything that went on in Istanbul, nor were the Islamic nation's statements anything that they haven't reiterated ad nauseum whenever faced with a microphone. Thus, we must discuss each position separately, and since the European stance is the new and interesting one, I will focus now on the motivations for and consequences of the European statements.

Motivations

Since Israel established herself in the 1967 Six-Day War, Europe has ceased to see Israel as a victim. This is in contrast to dominant Israeli and American views, which continue to reinforce the idea of Israel as a small state surrounded by stronger enemies. Furthermore, many Europeans have come to see Palestinians as victims, while the majority of Americans and Israelis have not. Thus, Europe feels more of a moral imperative to protect Palestinians than Israelis, and acts accordingly.

From a domestic political point of view, European politicians do not pay a high price for criticizing Israel, as American politicians do. Many E.U. members have large Islamic minorities, and support for Palestine will pay political dividends. On the negative side, support for Israel could anger the same constituency and could make Europe a more likely target for terrorists. While the E.U. fully condemns terrorism against the U.S., it would honestly rather see terrorism in NewYork than in Paris or Frankfurt.

The European Union does maintain good ties and engage in heavy trade with Israel, and considers the U.S. a vital ally, and therefore will not make demands of Israel beyond a certain point, but at the same time it tries to influence U.S. policy towards Israel to accommodate their own desires. The European position may be slightly overstated to accommodate the anti-Israeli audience in Istanbul and to encourage the American administration to compromise with the E.U.

Lastly, from a realpolitik point of view, Europe has a vital interest in maintaining good relations with Islamic states. Europe is more dependent than the U.S. on Persian Gulf oil, borders Turkey, and very nearly borders North Africa. Europe may be in range of Iraqi missiles, and is certainly in range of state-sponsored terrorism if such states ever decided Europe needed a nudge. Unlike the U.S., which is supremely confident in its defense system and military strength, Europe feels compelled to take a more conciliatory stance towards threats that are not yet, but could become, enemies. Calling for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state is a very good way of convincing any possible Islamic threats that Europe is helping them now and should not be attacked.

Consequences

A glaring oddity in yesterday's AP story jumped out at me: Europe is calling for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state. So why not recognize it themselves? Arafat has declared statehood a number of times, most notably in 1988. Certainly if the E.U. would agree to recognize it immediately, Arafat would agree to make any necessary pronouncements. But the E.U. obviously does not want to recognize a Palestinian state - it wants the U.S. or Israel to recognize a Palestinian state. If that occurred, Europe would certainly be right behind, but the E.U. seems loath to take any real leadership on this issue, deferring to, despite disagreeing with, the powerful U.S.A.

The likely consequences of the E.U. pronouncement are a slight increase in the warmth of relations between the E.U. and Islamic states (hence the announcement's venue), a slight increase in the warmth of the fire under Colin Powell's chair, and a slight increase in the warmth around Ariel Sharon's collar. The announcement was not earth shattering, but the Arab and other Islamic ministers love the chance to be seen agreeing with reputable, U.S.-approved Europeans and feel quite vindicated every time a non-Islamic country condemns Israel. Colin Powell and other U.S. decision-makers are going to have to stew over whether and how to respond to our European allies' desire for a shift in our policies towards Sharon, and how to deal with a problem which really isn't going away. Lastly, Ariel Sharon and other Israeli hawks, who are hot under the collar to begin with given the situation in Israel, will only get madder when they hear this announcement by the E.U. Sharon has agreed to the principle of a Palestinian state, though in his mind it would be stripped and denuded of most of the trappings of statehood, but he is in no hurry to be the Israeli Prime Minister who actually has to sign the papers.

Conclusion

Is the E.U. helping the "peace process"? Are they as disinterested as they would like us to think, or do their own interests and fears govern their politics? I posit that they are helping, though whom they are helping is another question. Arafat is certainly helped and encouraged, as are Israeli doves. But while this in general encourages Palestinians, will they really be helped? If this leads to a premature or dictatorial Palestinian state, or a pitched war, the lot of the average Palestinian may get even worse, if that can be imagined.

While the cliché is probably true that no state is disinterested, Europe is about as disinterested a supporter as the Palestinians are likely to find. Having firmly supported Israel in the past, Europe has credentials of at least having seen both sides of the conflict. Yes, Europe has an interest in the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict. No, Europe is not trying to benefit itself primarily. The E.U. may accrue marginal benefits from support of Palestinian independence, but ultimately the bulk of the benefits from this action are paid out to Arafat and others directly involved in the Palestinian cause.