By Valentina Conde Maldonado
Peace agreements have always been the quintessential mechanism for ending conflicts. Since the signing of the Westphalia peace – the beginning of the current state system – negotiation and compromise between the parties has not been the most common form to end conflicts, and the ideal to which not only countries but also people aspired.
But with the emergence of what Kaldor called “The New Wars”, the center of conflicts changes. Now the disputes are mainly intra-state in nature. Geopolitically this is important. Security continues and will continue to be the main concern of States, which should remain faithful to the ideals set out in the United Nations Charter, seeking to prevail the use of dissuasive mechanisms, such as sanctions, rather than military force. However, the preponderance of non-state actors, who are not subject to the rules of the game to which states are, makes difficult the correct resolution of conflicts.
The signing of peace agreements in South Africa, Ireland and Colombia, among others, are a sign of important progress in conflict resolution. But they also posed gigantic challenges due to internal and external factors that truly imply their application.
An element present in all currently existing conflicts is the transnational nature they have, both because they have direct effects through their overflow, as happens, for example, with terrorism; or because the interests of states are directly linked to the end of the conflict. The first scenario involves concrete efforts by states to address massive displacement, drug and human trafficking, environmental consequences, illegal extraction and exploitation, etc. Etc. The second, on the other hand, not only takes up the realistic view that states are necessarily guided by their interests, but also takes the global view that multilateralism is necessary to solve problems.
The Abraham Accords
The Arab-Israeli conflict is a mosaic. On the one hand, the conflict has a state origin linked to the formation of borders and the recognition of the state personality of both Palestine and Israel as members of the International Community. On the other hand, the actions taken by the Arabs raised new conflicts, for example in the Intifadas or other resistance actions of the Palestinians against the Israeli public force.
Notwithstanding, there are several necessary elements to be considered before taking in consideration of the Abraham Agreements between Israel – Bahrain and the UAE. The Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly establishes the division of the disputed area into a Jewish state and an Arab territory corresponding to Palestine. Nevertheless, the conflict remained permanent and the armistices before the peace agreements were the only concrete attempts to establish peace in the Middle East, even if they were not effective.
The 1948 war ended with an armistice in 1949, leaving the door open for future confrontation. The war of the Suez Canal in 1956 showed the instability of a non-existent system of balance of peace and ended with the withdrawal of foreign forces promoted by the UN Security Council. The six day war also ends with the acceptance of a ceasefire promoted by the United Nations. The war of attrition between Egypt and Israel from 1967 to 1970 ends with a ceasefire between the two countries. The 1973 Yom Kippur War ends with the signing of the 101 Kilometer Agreements. The 1982 Lebanon War ends when Prime Minister Ehud Barak complies with Security Council Resolution 425 in 2000 and its resumption in 2006 was also canceled with the creation of the interim United Nations Force for Lebanon.
In this regard there are two elements in common that are present in all the stages of the previous hostilities. First, since 1947, there have never been any definitive resolutions to the conflict, especially regarding the territorial disputes and the human rights violations. And second, there has never been an agreement that comprehensively covers all actors who at some point have been plunged into clashes with Israel. Until both elements are covered, there will be no definitive peace.
On September 15, 2020, with the signing of the Abraham Agreements, progress was made in easing tensions in the region, but once again it is not peace that was established, also considering that neither Bahrain nor the UAE were in war with Israel, and therefore recognition was simply given to the restoration of commercial, tourist, scientific, educational, food and consular relations.
Nor does it refer directly to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the displacement or annexation of the territory, which led to Hamas’ violent reaction to the agreement and Iran’s cautious reaction. The underlying motivations are also different from the establishment of relations with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), considering that these mainly respond to economic interests rather than border interests or as a means of getting out of direct confrontations.
However, the deal has consequences. Israel hopes that the success of the agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain “may also serve to encourage Egypt and Jordan”, as Benjamin said, to create more intense relations beyond security, that is an issue where collaboration has so far been intense …
Also, the Abraham Agreements represent a radical change in the Middle East, the isolation to which Israel has been subjected for decades is largely broken and a whole new bloc of allies has been created in that area. unstable and conflicting, but has a greater scope, affecting the entire Arab world (Jorda, 2020, sp).
Negatively, the new agreements represent a reduction of what was one of the strongest points in favor of the Palestinian cause: the support of Arab countries through the non-recognition and maintenance of relations with Israel. The resolution of the conflict with Palestine may therefore remain unfinished.
Anyhow, peace agreements may be effective only to the extent that they represent the only possible solution to the ambitions of the parties, both internally and externally. A cessation of hostilities does not necessarily mean peace, and not all expressions of intent translate into concrete action. Only the balance between interests, will and necessity, makes an agreement viable.
Author: Valentina Conde Maldonado (Internationalist, Analyst of International Missions and Peace Operations, Research Assistant. Diploma in International Relations at the Universidad del Rosario. Colombia).
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)
Image credit:: Issam Rimawi / Anadolu Agency