Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad heads a cabinet meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Monday, Dec. 31, 2007. (AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed)
Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier and U.S. President George Bush recently went on tours of the Middle East.
On January 12, after the visits, CBC News Middle East correspondent Peter Armstrong interviewed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Ramallah about his thoughts on the peace process and Canada's role in it.
Peter Armstrong: What role can and really what role should Canada be playing here and now?
Salam Fayyad: Canada has been playing a most constructive role helping the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority since the inception of the Authority, and not only in the economic sphere. That too, is important but also Canada has played a most constructive role in the context of various donor meetings and also other meetings on the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Canada also does have an important role to play in the work that's done in connection with the refugees, which is a most important permanent-status issue. Canada has been giving us about 30 million dollars a year, actually in the course of last year, we received about 35 million dollars, that's 2007. We just came back from Paris and there the Canadian government made a pledge of 300 million dollars for the next five years beginning this year, which effectively raises the amount of assistance provided to us by Canada by about 100 per cent on an annual basis.... Canada enjoys very good standing in the international community, both in the context of the G8 and the role it plays there but also in other for a. It's a voice that's well heard and respected.
PA: On the streets here, when you talk to regular people both in the West Bank and Gaza, there's a sense the role Canada has played has changed dramatically in the last five years. How have you seen it manifest itself?
SF: What Canada and the rest of the international community have been doing over the past five years was more than blurred by the developments on the ground capable of obscuring just about anything anybody was prepared to do. The international community has done quite a bit to intervene on behalf of the Palestinian people, internationally and domestically here trying to provide the support necessary. However given the adversity of last five years, most of what they could do was diverted to intervening on an emergency basis for humanitarian relief and the like. This, of course, is essential and we're grateful to the international community, Canada in particular for all they have done over the past five years to help us. The problem with that though is that this isn't the kind of assistance or effort that will have a lasting impact in the nature of things, if you intervene for humanitarian purposes and reasons. That is there for immediate relief; it's not in the nature of intervention; that could have lasting impact. So it's not only really Canada, but all of the international community found itself having to do over the past five years, was to intervene in this way. We're looking forward to an improvement in the coming years and the immediate future I hope, to see a beginning at least of a re-orientation of intervention on the part of the international community more in the direction of sustainable economic development than intervention for humanitarian relief purposes. We'll be working closely with all our friends in the international community, Canada included to see that the shift occurs. The shift is going to be gradual because even if the overall context in which we are operating changes, and I hope it will because it's very difficult for me to see how we can have sustainable economic development with the restrictions, mobility restrictions imposed by Israel continuing to be how they are today. Nevertheless, I think even if we were to begin tomorrow, and I hope it will we have a problem on the budgetary side of thing as consequence of years of degradation.... In the immediate future, I hope that good chunk of what the Canadians government will be providing us with, which is as I said at a rate of 60 million dollars a year, would be devoted to direct budgetary assistance to give us flexibility we need to fund our institutions and get prepared to deal with the challenges of the period ahead.
PA: What specifically are you hoping to hear from (the Canadians) Maxime Bernier?
SF: Given that we are very eager to get away from this path of hand to mouth existence and more toward sustainable development, this is one and two, to discuss the possibilities. This is a moment in time where every effort that can be made should be made in order to move the political process forward. Important though as it is, the economic dimension of what we have to deal with is something clearly central to what we do, but dealing with it is not going to be adequate to dealing with the basic issue, and the basic issue we have to deal with here is political in nature. I'm referring the conflict, the Palestinian - Israeli conflict is fundamentally a political conflict, not an economic conflict and to resolve it you need politician intervention and a political process. We have one that's under way. We look forward to the international community making a concerted effort to give this process a chance, to give it a push necessary to try to take advantage of the Annapolis conference, to see if in fact there may not be an opportunity that should be exploited as a matter of highest urgency.
PA: Politically though, is there a specific role that Canada can play in this Annapolis process?
SF: As I said, Canada enjoys very good international standing and in this way, it can make a contribution which others may not be able to make.
PA: Can you give me an example?
SF: It does have good relations with key players in the international community and in that sense we look to Canada to contribute in that way. Obviously this is an issue that's way too big for any one single international player to handle and Canada do it by itself. But I think it's important, in the period ahead, to be looking for ways the international effort can be strengthened by will Canada playing a role taking advantage of the good standing it enjoys within G8 and the international scene in g
PA: Mr. Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister has said several times that Canada is a full supporter of Israel. Do you get the sense that its on equal footing with the Palestinian Authority?
SF: Well, nothing we've heard from Canadian government over the years is inconsistent with our perception that Canada wants to play a constructive role toward the resolution of this conflict. That it has good relations with Israel is not a negative, it's a positive. After all this is a conflict that needs to be resolved and settled between us and the Israelis and the countries capacity to be helpful in this area is undermined vastly if its not on good terms with or the other of the two players. I don't believe that Canada's relationship with Israel or Canada's relationship with Palestine can or should be at the expense of its relationship with Israel. We want the international community to be engaged fully. It does have to have good relations and equidistant, or equi-close if you will, from the parties in the conflict. How else are you going to play this role?
PA: What is your assessment of President Bush's visit?
SF: It was a busy and constructive, the President visit is most important. It reflects a great deal of influence on his part to be personally involved with what was going on. Not that he wasn't before, but it was the first time he visited the region and it definitely was a good opportunity to demonstrate that and talk directly to the people.... Definitely we're encouraged by the enthusiasm and energy he's devoting to this particular issue. He definitely, more than once, said that and it was very clear, so we're going to try to build on that and carry the momentum of that visit forward. It is my hope that those discussions would form the basis, discussions both with us and the Israelis, which would form a basis for us to move forward. That's the most important thing, are we going to see a qualitative shift in the way business is done, when it comes to political process between us and the Israelis? Or are we going to slip back into a mode of operation where it takes too long to agree even on matters of procedure? Because, to be frank about it, Annapolis was a most important event, there's no question about it, a landmark event. It sort of gave everyone sense of direction and purpose, it got the world community all energized, but what happened between Annapolis and President Bush's visit here was not consistent with the pace of a process necessary to really have us all conclude an agreement in the course of 2008. It is my hope that the discussions that President Bush had here would form a basis for creating new momentum because clearly, we are already in 2008 and happy new year, we don't have a whole lot of time left if indeed we are to deal with all the issues and in the kind serious way that we need for us to conclude a deal.
PA: The settlements issue appears to be going nowhere and when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert said that Jerusalem is of a different status than the West Bank; Bush said nothing to contradict him. To what extent are the obstacles that have always been there, still very much in place?
SF: This issue has been going on for a long time, by this I mean the conflict and the longer it lingers without a resolution, the more serious and detrimental the settlement expansion issue becomes. That has to stop. That has to stop. I have just told you how important that policy statement made by George W. Bush back in June, 2002 was because he talked about, and he was the first sitting U.S. President to talk about the need for Palestinian people to live as free people in a state of our own. Hugely significant. We were as deeply touched by it then, as well as today. But the fact of the matter, we're beginning to wonder what sort of state we're talking about against the backdrop of continued settlement expansion. These two things can't go together. They're mutually inconsistent. Where is that state going to happen and quite honestly it's not sufficiently re-assuring to be talking about contiguity when settlement expansion continues to happen. What sort of contiguity are we talking about, are we talking about transportational contiguity, a little bit of road that connects an enclave to another? That's not the kind of state we're looking to have, we're looking for a state that's viable. We can't have a viable state certainly on the West Bank and insofar as West Bank, part of the status concern with continued settlement activity going on. I could go on on this particular issue. But I can tell you, that continued settlement activity and pursuit of political process are two parallel lines. It's difficult for me to see how they can meet. Besides, besides it's a key obligation that Government of Israel agreed when signed off on they roadmap that was agreed to by the parties in 2003. It includes the commitments that Israel accepted then, including stopping settlement expansion, that's clear, and the removal of all illegal posts, settlement posts (he means outposts) illegal by Israeli definitions.
PA: And the split with Gaza, even Bush said himself he doesn't see how that can be solved within a year, what do you do about the situation in Gaza, given the context of the talks right now?
SF: First of all, I think the talks can and should continue. We've committed ourselves to this process, path of peace, and we have made a serious commitment to having this conflict resolved through non-violence, through peaceful means. That's the essence of the political process that we have committed ourselves to. We have signed an agreement, back in 1993; we remain committed to that, deeply committed to that. The talks can and should continue and the only way we're going to end this conflict is activating this process and moving it forward and drawing on all the help we can possibility get from the United States and the international community to move this process forward. I distinguish between this and the actual implementation of the agreement. I believe if the political process were to move forward, that in itself would facilitate the resolution of our own problems. Let's remember, one of the reasons we have the problems we have today, is the failure of the peace process to produce over the years. We have a little over 14 years since Oslo. Well, we had a few bright spots from then to now, but a lot more disappointments than reasons for satisfaction. Clearly that has to change. And when people begin to see a horizon, when people see that this is going somewhere, it will definitely have a good impact in terms of overall perceptions. I'm not saying the situation in Gaza is going to resolved tomorrow, but it has to resolved and lest there be any doubt on this issue, Gaza is and will always be, an integral part of our homeland that's going to be state of Palestine both West Bank and Gaza.
SF: It is absolutely necessary for the P.A. to re-assert its control; the P.A. is in charge of both West Bank and Gaza. Now it isn't in Gaza because of the violent take-over by Hamas back in June of last year. That's something that has to happen and that's how have to frame it. The P.A. is home for all Palestinian people living in Gaza and West Bank and it has to be recognized as such. The P.A. is not a party to a dialogue as such, but the P.A. has to reassert its authority in Gaza, that's something we're working hard and I hope it will happen sooner, rather than later.
PA: The Israelis are doing military operations in Nablus and Gaza, we have ongoing settlement activity, flagrantly announced two days before the negotiations were set to resume and still we have the fundamental split between Fatah and Hamas between the West Bank and Gaza. Bush says he wants to see a signed peace deal by this time next year. Is it realistic?
SF: What are the issues that have to be discussed and agreed for there to be an agreement? They are the so-called permanent status issues, we know what they are. They've been extensively discussed if not negotiated in previous occasions, so it's not that we're starting from scratch. That's a plus relative to the point in time when these issues were visited for first time. So I think the fact we're not starting from scratch gives us reason to believe we could actually make progress sooner, rather than later. Now the other set of considerations are very serious complications, there's no doubt about that. Very serious obstacles in the way of getting there. As I mentioned to you, its difficult for me to see how we move forward in a convincing way, in a process the people see as credible, a process that people can buy into with those adverse developments continuing: Settlement expansions continuing and these other for example, incursions into Erez continuing (Erez is crossing into Gaza) and the rest of it. For our part we'll do all we can to deliver our end of the bargain. And our end of the bargain relates to governing ourselves better and more effectively including in the security sphere and I'm happy to say we're making substantial progress, we have been making a good deal of progress in the past couple of months, I look for that to continue, I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case. Our capacity to deliver and perform isn't dependent on what the Israeli's do or don't do, it's not dependent on what the international community does or doesn't do, so we have to work together, it's a tripartite process, the three parties have to deliver for that optimism to be justified.
PA: We've seen what's happened before when hopes have been raised. What happens if this fails?
SF: It'll be a problem, a very serious problem and I don't know if one has to wait until the latter months of the year before beginning to experience the frustrations of failure because as I say its a process. And you know, people are smart. If adversity continues, and if the facts on the ground continue to evolve in a way that is not supportive of the evolution of a political process, than people begin to see more failure than chances of success. And so I'm afraid this is going to be a long year if the facts on the ground would not begin to change in a hurry.
PA: Do those frustrations almost assuredly manifest themselves in further violence?
SF: I certainly hope not. I can tell you that this is something as far as we're concerned, we're committed to avoiding and relinquishing completely. Frustration is a big problem and frustration with the peace process is a big problem. I'm not sure the answer to that is resorting to violence. That would bring us back to square one. We're committed to doing everything we can to continue to promote a culture of non-violence, we believe this is the strategy that is capable of getting us to where we're going, it's a commitment we made and we take the commitments we make seriously.
