by Piotr Pietrzak
Thank you to Barbare Beridze for your challenging questions yesterday related to the multifaceted dimensions of the Oslo Accords of 1993. Thanks to your questions, I can now acknowledge that the road from ink on paper to actual results in Oslo wasn't exactly a walk in the park. The Oslo Accords, originating from Norway in 1992-1993, were an extraordinary and remarkably rational peace initiative that proved that every peace initiative of this caliber has its historical context and hidden diplomatic complexity, but we were still under the impression that those challenges were dealt with at that time. We thought that the Oslo process has shown that the art of dialogue and negotiation stands as an incredible, almost unstoppable force in conflict management. Engagement in meaningful conversations, even with historical adversaries, was to be considered the linchpin for cultivating understanding and charting pathways to potential long-term resolutions. Despite the improbability of such diplomatic talks, both sides decided to pursue something that at the time appeared unthinkable. This realization underscores the necessity for maintaining the right channels of communication between the leaders and their people and meticulous deliberation on practical steps, the fortification of enforcement mechanisms, and a steadfast, long-term commitment to preserving the success of diplomatic endeavors. Oslo took a swing at it and brought together two unlikely parties, the PLO and the Israeli government, at the time of the biggest trouble in generations, the first Intifada. In the end, both sides managed to recognize their right to existence, and self-determination, and they achieved progress that is unthinkable now. This goodwill on both sides gave birth to some stability in the region. Of course, from the perspective of hindsight, we know that getting everyone on the same page turned out to be very challenging. We know that the prospects of lasting peace did not appeal to the fanatics back then. But that is the thing; back then, those pieces of good news about the potential benefits of the Oslo Accords were not properly communicated to the ordinary folks on the ground.
The leaders back then forgot that what ordinary people think can make or break your peace plans. Keeping the public on your side is like fuel for the diplomatic engine; you can't go far without it. And last but not least, you can't talk about long-term peace without digging deep into the root causes of conflicts. While the accords received international and local recognition, the journey toward lasting peace faced an unforeseen twist with the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by an Israeli who was radicalized by fundamentalist ideas within the Zionist movement. In his eyes, the challenges to implementing these accords outweigh the benefits, and ever since, they have been fraught with challenges. Under such circumstances, the pacifist's voices always seem quieter than the voices of warmongers, nationalists, and hawkish politicians who just take advantage of the situation at hand to secure some short-term political gains for their political party. Still, I don't believe that Oslo was delusional, and I don't believe that it cannot be repeated. Oslo made massive headway, even though it left us with a stark reminder that you can't just import an easy solution to a complex situation. In the end, the parties that are not interested in overcoming their differences in the long run will struggle to secure peace and stability. For, in the long history of the world, nothing great was ever achieved by simply waging a total war of destruction against your enemy. Our conversation invites reflection on the challenges and triumphs of this pivotal chapter in the history of mankind that was dedicated to trying peaceful solutions and resolving regional conflicts of global importance, at least for a short period of time.
The concluding questions touch upon the likelihood of repeating such talks, exploring whether it is Israel alone that refuses to engage with Hamas or if deep-seated animosities between the parties contribute to the reluctance. The interview balances assertiveness with an objective analysis of the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the Oslo Accords and their implications for ongoing diplomatic challenges in the region and the entire world. Instability in one place in the world invites another. In today's context, we need to remember that the pivotal role played by third-party facilitators, epitomized by Norway in this instance, becomes a paramount consideration. In navigating the complex diplomatic terrain, due consideration must be afforded to the geopolitical and regional context, with a keen awareness of the consequential role played by the international community to orchestrate a harmonious symphony of enduring peace everywhere. It's a loud and clear reminder that you've got to think through the nitty-gritty steps, beef up those enforcement mechanisms, and stick around for the long haul if you want your diplomatic efforts to be anything more than just a paper trail.
コメント