Seven Questions: Sandy Berger on the Prospects for Peace

Foreign Policy

November 2007

Was the Annapolis conference just a glorified photo shoot? Or could it lead to real peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Either way, “there is no going back,” says former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, a veteran of the Clinton-era peace negotiations.

Foreign Policy: Despite all the media attention, the Annapolis conference was just one day long and the list of attendees wasn’t confirmed until less than a week before. Was this any way to run a summit? Or did the media unfairly write this off as a failure before it even began?

Sandy Berger: It’s an opening. The issue now is whether it can be turned into a dynamic. It’s not insignificant that everyone, including the Arabs led by the Saudis, convened under the banner of peace. It revived a peace process that has been dormant for seven years. But whether it can produce progress depends upon Olmert, Abbas, and Bush. Are they capable of being visionaries? Nothing in their past or their circumstances suggests so. But now there is a process that will test this.

That said, the media is correct to be skeptical. The leaders are not in strong positions. Both sides opposed to a negotiated peace—Hamas and the Israeli right—have become more powerful and more lethal. But let’s not write this process off before it begins. At the very least, it hopefully can create momentum for the next administration to build upon.

FP: Why did the Saudis attend? What did it mean to have Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal there?

SB: The Saudis attended because of their fear of Iran’s growing influence and because they did not want to take responsibility for a failure. Foreign Minister Saud’s involvement provides some cover for both the Palestinians and the Israelis if they choose to use it. It would have been an act of statesmanship had Saud shaken Olmert’s hand.

FP: Let’s talk for a second about who wasn’t invited to Annapolis: Hamas and Iran. Are they isolated in the region right now? Do they stand to gain if or when this process falls apart?

SB: It is too much to say they are isolated. They both can do too much damage to say that. It will take great courage by Olmert and Abbas for this to succeed. If the process falls apart, it will be a victory for Iran and Islamic radicalism. There is no going back.

FP: Many analysts have speculated that Syria is desperate for a deal and that the Syrians might be tempted into breaking with the Iranians. How realistic is that? Will the Syrians hold out for a comprehensive regional deal, or are they willing to cut a separate peace? What would their price be?

SB: It is unlikely that the Syrians would cut a separate peace. The price—in terms of the Hariri investigation and Lebanon—would be too great. And I don’t believe there is the time or the will for a comprehensive settlement.

FP: What’s the most meaningful commitment you heard at Annapolis (or before)? Is a deal really feasible by 2008, as the joint statement outlines?

SB: The joint statement was vague and not particularly helpful, but Olmert’s and Abbas’s individual statements were constructive. This is only feasible if the parties are fearful enough of the consequences of failure.

FP: President Bush has been very cautious about getting involved in these negotiations, and it looked until Tuesday like this was the Condi Rice show. He gave a speech headlining the conference, but stressed that the Israelis and the Palestinians are largely going to have to work things out bilaterally. Do you see an unwillingness on his part to roll up his sleeves and get involved in the nitty-gritty details?

SB: This will not happen without the direct involvement of President Bush. He cannot delegate his authority to Secretary Rice. This will be difficult with the president. But it will be impossible without him.

The litmus test is whether President Bush is prepared to expend political capital to achieve real progress. Nothing I have seen to date makes me overly optimistic, but I hope I am wrong. On the way to Camp David in 2000, President Clinton told me, “We are either going to succeed or we are going to get caught trying.” I hope that President Bush at least gets caught trying.

FP: What do you think the conversation was like in the White House after the conference ended? Were there high fives all around?

SB: I think they got over the bar. If there were high fives in the White House instead of sober prayers for the future, the process is dead.

Samuel R. Berger was a national security advisor in the Clinton White House and is currently chairman of Stonebridge International, an international advisory firm.

Return to In the News

Back to Top^

About | Services | Expertise | Publications | News | Partners