Speech at the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid
(October 30, 1991)
Prime Minister Gonzalez, and President Gorbachev, Excellencies.
Let me begin by thanking the Government of Spain for hosting this historic
gathering. With short notice, the Spanish people and their leaders stepped
forward to make available this magnificent setting. Let us hope that
this conference of Madrid will mark the beginning of a new chapter in
the history of the Middle East.
I also want to express at the outset my pleasure at
the presence of our fellow cosponsor, President Gorbachev. At a time
of momentous challenges at home, President Gorbachev and his senior
associates have demonstrated their intent to engage the Soviet Union
as a force for positive change in the Middle East. This sends a powerful
signal to all those who long for peace.
We come to Madrid on a mission of hope, to begin work
on a just, lasting, and comprehensive settlement to the conflict in
the Middle East. We come here to seek peace for a part of the world
that in the long memory of man has known far too much hatred, anguish,
and war. I can think of no endeavor more worthy, or more necessary.
Our objective must be clear and straightforward. It
is not simply to end the state of war in the Middle East and replace
it with a state of nonbelligerency. This is not enough. This would not
last. Rather, we seek peace, real peace. And by real peace, I mean treaties,
security, diplomatic relations, economic relations, trade, investment,
cultural exchange, even tourism.
What we seek is a Middle East where vast resources
are no longer devoted to armaments. A Middle East where young people
no longer have to dedicate and, all too often, give their lives to combat.
A Middle East no longer victimized by fear and terror. A Middle East
where normal men and women lead normal lives.
Let no one mistake the magnitude of this challenge.
The struggle we seek to end has a long and painful history. Every life
lost, every outrage, every act of violence, is etched deep in the hearts
and history of the people of this region. Theirs is a history that weighs
heavily against hope. And yet, history need not be man's master.
I expect that some will say that what I am suggesting
is impossible. But think back. Who back in 1945 would have thought that
France and Germany, bitter rivals for nearly a century, would become
allies in the aftermath of World War II? And who 2 years ago would have
predicted that the Berlin Wall would come down? And who in the early
1960's would have believed that the cold war would come to a peaceful
end, replaced by cooperation, exemplified by the fact that the United
States and the Soviet Union are here today not as rivals but as partners,
as Prime Minister Gonzalez pointed out.
No, peace in the Middle East need not be a dream. Peace
is possible. The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty is striking proof that
former adversaries can make and sustain peace. And moreover, parties
in the Middle East have respected agreements, not only in the Sinai
but on the Golan Heights as well.
The fact that we are all gathered here today for the
first time attests to a new potential for peace. Each of us has taken
an important step toward real peace by meeting here in Madrid. All the
formulas on paper, all the pious declarations in the world won't bring
peace if there is no practical mechanism for moving ahead.
Peace will only come as the result of direct negotiations,
compromise, give-and-take. Peace cannot be imposed from the outside
by the United States or anyone else. While we will continue to do everything
possible to help the parties overcome obstacles, peace must come from
within.
We come here to Madrid as realists. We do not expect
peace to be negotiated in a day or a week or a month or even a year.
It will take time. Indeed, it should take time: time for parties so
long at war to learn to talk to one another, to listen to one another;
time to heal old wounds and build trust. In this quest, time need not
be the enemy of progress.
What we envision is a process of direct negotiations
proceeding along two tracks: one between Israel and the Arab States;
the other between Israel and the Palestinians. Negotiations are to be
conducted on the basis of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338.
The real work will not happen here in the plenary session
but in direct bilateral negotiations. This conference cannot impose
a settlement on the participants or veto agreements. And just as important,
the conference can only be reconvened with the consent of every participant.
Progress is in the hands of the parties who must live with the consequences.
Soon after the bilateral talks commence, parties will
convene as well to organize multilateral negotiations. These will focus
on issues that cross national boundaries and are common to the region:
arms control, water, refugee concerns, economic development. Progress
in these fora is not intended as a substitute for what must be decided
in the bilateral talks; to the contrary, progress in the multilateral
issues can help create an atmosphere in which longstanding bilateral
disputes can more easily be settled.
For Israel and the Palestinians, a framework already
exists for diplomacy. Negotiations will be conducted in phases, beginning
with talks on interim self-government arrangements. We aim to reach
agreement within 1 year. And once agreed, interim self-government arrangements
will last for 5 years. Beginning the 3d year, negotiations will commence
on permanent status. No one can say with any precision what the end
result will be. In our view, something must be developed, something
acceptable to Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan, that gives the Palestinian
people meaningful control over their own lives and fate and provides
for the acceptance and security of Israel.
We can all appreciate that both Israelis and Palestinians
are worried about compromise, worried about compromising even the smallest
point for fear it becomes a precedent for what really matters. But no
one should avoid compromise on interim arrangements for a simple reason:
Nothing agreed to now will prejudice permanent status negotiations.
To the contrary, these subsequent negotiations will be determined on
their own merits.
Peace cannot depend upon promises alone. Real peace,
lasting peace, must be based upon security for all States and peoples,
including Israel. For too long the Israeli people have lived in fear,
surrounded by an unaccepting Arab world. Now is the ideal moment for
the Arab world to demonstrate that attitudes have changed, that the
Arab world is willing to live in peace with Israel and make allowances
for Israel's reasonable security needs.
We know that peace must also be based on fairness.
In the absence of fairness, there will be no legitimacy, no stability.
This applies above all to the Palestinian people, many of whom have
known turmoil and frustration above all else. Israel now has an opportunity
to demonstrate that it is willing to enter into a new relationship with
its Palestinian neighbors: one predicated upon mutual respect and cooperation.
Throughout the Middle East, we seek a stable and enduring
settlement. We've not defined what this means. Indeed, I make these
points with no map showing where the final borders are to be drawn.
Nevertheless, we believe territorial compromise is essential for peace.
Boundaries should reflect the quality of both security and political
arrangements. The United States is prepared to accept whatever the parties
themselves find acceptable. What we seek, as I said on March 6, is a
solution that meets the twin tests of fairness and security.
I know -- I expect we all know -- that these negotiations
will not be easy. I know, too, that these negotiations will not be smooth.
There will be disagreement and criticism, setbacks, who knows, possibly
interruptions. Negotiation and compromise are always painful. Success
will escape us if we focus solely upon what is being given up.
We must fix our vision on what real peace would bring.
Peace, after all, means not just avoiding war and the costs of preparing
for it. The Middle East is blessed with great resources: physical, financial
and, yes, above all, human. New opportunities are within reach if we
only have the vision to embrace them.
To succeed, we must recognize that peace is in the
interest of all parties; war, absolute advantage of none. The alternative
to peace in the Middle East is a future of violence and waste and tragedy.
In any future war lurks the danger of weapons of mass destruction. As
we learned in the Gulf war, modern arsenals make it possible to attack
urban areas, to put the lives of innocent men, women, and children at
risk, to transform city streets, schools, and children's playgrounds
into battlefields.
Today, we can decide to take a different path to the
future, to avoid conflict. I call upon all parties to avoid unilateral
acts, be they words or deeds, that would invite retaliation or, worse
yet, prejudice or even threaten this process itself. I call upon all
parties to consider taking measures that will bolster mutual confidence
and trust, steps that signal a sincere commitment to reconciliation.
I want to say something about the role of the United
States of America. We played an active role in making this conference
possible. Both the Secretary of State, Jim Baker, and I will play an
active role in helping the process succeed. Toward this end, we've provided
written assurances to Israel, to Syria, to Jordan, Lebanon, and the
Palestinians. In the spirit of openness and honesty, we will brief all
parties on the assurances that we have provided to the other. We're
prepared to extend guarantees, provide technology and support, if that
is what peace requires. And we will call upon our friends and allies
in Europe and in Asia to join with us in providing resources so that
peace and prosperity go hand in hand.
Outsiders can assist, but in the end, it is up to the
peoples and Governments of the Middle East to shape the future of the
Middle East. It is their opportunity, and it is their responsibility
to do all that they can to take advantage of this gathering, this historic
gathering, and what it symbolizes and what it promises.
No one should assume that the opportunity before us
to make peace will remain if we fail to seize the moment. Ironically,
this is an opportunity born of war, the destruction of past wars, the
fear of future wars. The time has come to put an end to war, the time
has come to choose peace.
Sources: Public Papers of the President |