MIDDLE EAST PEACE
PROCESS CONTINUES
Corporate Interests Smother
Environment
As we enter the new millennium, the
Middle East peace process continues to hold
international media attention. Little has
been said however about the relationship
between the peace process, public
participation and the fragile environment
of the region. With negotiations being
renewed on the Syrian and soon the Lebanese
tracks, the public deserves a chance to
influence the nature of the peace treaties
being negotiated - particularly when it
comes to protecting our environment.
Other sectors, and in particular the
business community, have been encouraged to
participate in the informal yet highly
influential behind-the-scenes diplomacy of
the peace process. Middle East and North
African economic summit meetings have
brought together several hundred
businessmen from the region and beyond to
mix with the most senior of negotiators and
government officials. At these economic
summits, the business community was not
only wined and dined but also viewed as the
engine that would turn the written words of
the peace treaties into on the ground truth
- that being economic prosperity of
course.
The existing and forthcoming Free Trade
Zones (FTZ) in the region are concrete
examples of how the business community has
succeeded in promoting its interests. The
FTZ concept appears as part of the economic
package of the peace agreements themselves.
And the economic summits are just a public
example of the access wielded by the
business community to our decision makers.
The vision of the so-called 'New Middle
East' as coined by our Minister of
Cooperation Shimon Peres has economic
growth at its very heart.
Economic growth through privatization,
economic liberalization and private sector
investment is seen as the means to raise
living standards in the region. Whether the
investment is environmentally harmful, or
whether it creates pockets of extreme
wealth surrounded by poverty, are just two
issues of concern that are being stifled.
Economic growth is not necessarily a bad
thing; increasing economic prosperity in
the region is crucial. However, other
stakeholders besides economic interests
must be heard, both formally and
informally.
The environmental community has been
denied access to each regional economic
summit to date. Expression of environmental
concerns, we were told, would just hamper
the attraction of much sought-after
investment to the region. But economic
prosperity is not the only objective of
peace. What type of development do we want?
New highways built over our last green open
spaces to truck this new economic activity
around, or the rebuilding of railway
infrastructure in the region? Are minimum
wage free trade zones with little or no
environmental regulations part of the
answer, or are they the cause of serious
environmental and social problems?
The recent demonstrations in Seattle
against the World Trade Organization, and
the failure of the official meeting to
agree upon anything, are examples of what
happens when a system ignores the public
interest. Public institutions can no longer
afford to listen to only one stakeholder,
as if industry held the single vision for
the future. The peace process is no
exception. The formal and informal
structures of the peace process are not
only about security, but concern the
shaping of development patterns and
priorities for our region. It's time for
the architects of the peace process to
invite other interest groups - both
environmental and social - to challenge and
reshape the conventional wisdom of peace
through economic prosperity alone.
Gidon Bromberg, FoE
Middle East
