On March 2, Ray Takeyh, Soref fellow at The Washington Institute, and Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, addressed the Institute's Special Policy Forum. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Richard Bush is chairman of the board and managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private organization that conducts unofficial relations with the island of Taiwan on behalf of the United States government. Established in April 1979, AIT has a small headquarters in Washington, D.C., and offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung. Dr. Bush was appointed to the AIT Board by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on September 2, 1997, and was selected as chairman and managing director on the same day.
Israel this week launched missile attacks against Palestinian security targets in Gaza in retaliation for the bombing of a school bus carrying settlers. Tel Aviv and Washington have blamed Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat for the current crisis, saying he could reduce the violence. In fact, the uprising is a spontaneous revolt against the terms of the Oslo peace process. Far from being undermined by the crisis, Arafat is using it to maximise his political and diplomatic position in the event that negotiations resume. The crisis marks a decisive shift in the Palestinians' conditions for peace with Israel.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Relations, Security, Diplomacy, Ethnic Conflict, Peace Studies, and Politics
Political Geography:
Washington, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Gaza
On Friday, October 27, 2000, Washington Institute Executive Director Dr. Robert Satloff delivered a presentation on the current Middle East situation to a Special Policy Forum luncheon briefing. Following is a rapporteur's summary of his remarks.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Diplomacy, and Politics
On October 13, 2000, David Makovsky, senior fellow at The Washington Institute and former editor of the Jerusalem Post, spoke at The Washington Institute's Policy Forum. The following is a rapporteur's summary of his remarks. The Grand Deal on peace is buried for now. Too many factors have conspired against attaining a Grand Deal in the near future, foremost of which include lack of trust, parliamentary arithmetic, and the undermining of the premises of Camp David.
A decision whether to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at a reconvened Camp David Summit may be made next Wednesday, but as it stands now, the prospects seem very uncertain. President Bill Clinton is scheduled to hold separate meetings with Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasir Arafat during the United Nations special Millennium Summit. Mindful of an array of ticking clocks, Washington would like to reconvene Camp David for a short and final session sometime during the second half of September. Yet, given the failure of the last summit in July, a generally recognized precondition for a revival of summitry is the prior resolution of almost all outstanding issues between the parties, in order to virtually guarantee the success of renewed negotiations.
The recent delay in talks between the Israelis and Palestinians is the result of an unnecessary crisis initiated by Palestinian Authority (PA) chairman Yasir Arafat. The motivation behind this tactic is the idea that you can squeeze more out of the Israelis through crisis than you can at the negotiating table. This artificial stalemate is designed to achieve more for the Palestinians, but ultimately it will not. Such political maneuvering is a mistake. The current dispute regarding the transfer of 6 percent of West Bank territory concerns implementation of one aspect of last year's Sharm al-Sheikh agreement, and this technicality has no real meaning with regard to final status. The Israelis are willing to discuss such issues, but Palestinian eagerness to stonewall the talks pertaining to them draws both parties away from the most important concerns.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Washington, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Arabia, and Arab Countries
While Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara are talking peace at Shepherdstown, the fighting in south Lebanon still goes on. Last time the two leaders met in Washington in December, the party was almost spoiled after a stray shell fired by South Lebanese Army (SLA) gunners hit an elementary school in the Lebanese village of Arab Salim, wounding twenty-four children. Residents of Israel's northern settlements anticipating Hizballah's wrath had to spend the night in their bomb shelters. Only after Israel's prompt apology, describing the incident as "an unfortunate mistake," did Hizballah, breaking with its usual pattern, agree not to retaliate by firing katyusha rockets at Israel's north.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Washington, Middle East, Israel, Arab Countries, Lebanon, and Syria
To contain Soviet-led communism and, secondarily, to prevent a militarily resurgent Japan, Washington established a network of alliances, bases, and deployments throughout East Asia after World War II. By the 1990s the Soviet Union had imploded, China had become a reasonably restrained international player, and other communist states had lost their ideological edge. At the same time, the noncommunist nations had leaped ahead economically. Despite such momentous developments, however, U.S. policy remains fundamentally the same.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Washington, Israel, and Soviet Union
Good morning. Thank you for coming. I'm Michael Green, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations here in Washington, and the director of this independent task force on Korea policy, which is sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. We are here today to release and explain our recent study on policy towards North Korea. This is, in many ways, the culmination of a two-year effort by the Council.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Arms Control and Proliferation
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, East Asia, North Korea, and Korea