(Washington, DC) - U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Queens/L.I.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, today made the following opening statement during the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing entitled “After Annapolis: Next Steps in the Middle East Peace Process.”

“Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling today’s very timely hearing. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair sketched out what I think is a good summary of where a discussion on how to advance the Middle East Peace Process ought to begin:

‘There are three parallel tracks that have to be engaged simultaneously, otherwise things will not move ahead: political negotiations, creation of a Palestinian capacity for governing, and the taking of steps on the ground. If there is progress in all three areas, it will be possible to find a solution. But anyone who thinks that negotiations are a substitute for creating capabilities–or similarly, that actions on the ground are of no importance–will never reach a solution. All three are crucial.’

At Annapolis, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas undertook to begin ‘vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations’ on Final Status issues, and agreed further to establish a tripartite–U.S., Israeli and Palestinian– mechanism to follow up on the implementation of the first, and stickiest, stage of the Road Map. There are no guarantees in life, and fewer still in the Middle East, but the stage is set at least for the first and the third tracks to come on-line. But the second track, the governance track is, I believe, the key to both success in negotiations and changing the situation on the ground.

Put simply, if there is no Palestinian governing capacity, and specifically, security reforms, negotiations on core issues will seem like a merely academic exercise at best, and senseless political masochism at worst. Without Palestinian governance, there will be no law and order for ordinary Palestinians; there will be no future for a Fatah party that had become too dumb fat and happy to recognize it was losing the confidence of the Palestinian people; and there will be no loosening of Israeli checkpoints, no settlement freeze and no removal of illegal outposts.

There are some signs of movement on the governance track, but I remain concerned that there is still a lack of international coordination and agreement on an overall strategy for reforming the Palestinian Authority. The Bush Administration has proposed a $400 million boost in U.S. assistance, including $150 million in direct cash assistance. I believe this request should prompt Congress to consider a substantial reorientation of U.S. project-based assistance programs. The immediate needs of the Palestinian people are for clean government, public order, economic opportunity, and salaried employment.

In my view, U.S. assistance should be used—and should be designed to leverage international support—for financial and personnel reforms in the Palestinian Authority; for housing or other labor intensive projects; for the effective operation of a Palestinian police force and an independent Palestinian judiciary; and for long-term economic development and job creation programs. I look forward to exploring these proposals, and the history of our assistance to date, with officials from State and AID next week in the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

Additionally, in two weeks, Paris will host an international donors conference to discuss effectual ways to support the government of President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad. The PA needs at least $1.2 billion to survive the next year, and news reports indicate that they will be asking for as much as  $5.5 billion, with 70 percent going for direct budget support, much of which will be little more than welfare and loyalty payments, and the remaining 30 percent for development projects.

Unfortunately, even if every penny of the $5.5 billion was pledged and then delivered, without real reforms in the Palestinian Authority, there will be no real change in Palestinian quality of life, or prospects for statehood. Abu Mazen is ready for a two state solution, and Salam Fayad is ready to govern. These men are partners for peace. The question is, can we help them create the institutions and economy upon which both a Final Status agreement, and a just and lasting peace can be built?”
 

###

Return to Gary's Homepage