The REFUGEE WORKING GROUP of the Middle East
Multilateral Peace Negotiations
Source: Israel-Palestine Journal 2, 4 (Autumn
1995)
by Rex Brynen and Jill
Tansley
The multilateral track of the Middle East Peace
Process (MEPP) was launched in January 1992, a few
months following the start of bilateral talks in Madrid.
The purposes of the multilateral negotiations were
three-fold: to complement and support the bilateral
process by engaging the international community in
addressing issues that extended beyond any two parties;
to promote greater contact, trust and confidence-building
among the regional parties; and to accommodate views
of the parties as to both negotiating frameworks (bilateral
vs. multilateral) and the issues to be discussed.
Of the five working tracks of the multilateral negotiations
of the MEPP, the Refugee Working Group (RWG) has been
perhaps the most difficult to manage. The other working
groups (water, environment, regional economic development,
and arms control and regional security) deal with
technical issues on which progress is less dependent
on the bilateral negotiations. The refugee issue,
however, is at the core of the conflict and is the
most politically- and emotionally-laden question of
the multilaterals. Yet, without a solution to this
issue, true peace in the region is unattainable.
The RWG is not the only or even the principal forum
where refugee issues are discussed. The Declaration
of Principles (DOP) signed between the PLO and Israel
on September 13, 1993 reserves the 1948 refugee issue
for final status negotiations which are scheduled
to begin in May 1996. The Quadripartite Committee,
comprised of Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian
representatives, is charged with deciding the modalities
for the admission of persons displaced from the West
Bank and Gaza in 1967. Nevertheless, Article 8 of
the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty recognizes the RWG
as one forum outside of the bilateral arena where
progress on the refugee problem can be realized.
Canada was requested to assume the chairmanship or
"gavel" of the RWG in part due to its impartiality
with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict and refugees.
It was actively involved in UN deliberations which
led to resolution 181 and the admission of Israel
into the UN. Equally sensitive to the rights and needs
of Palestinians, it has been a major donor to the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) since the beginning,
and has explicitly upheld the Palestinians’
right to self-determination. Canada's peacekeeping
experience in every UN peacekeeping force in the Middle
East is another factor which enhances its credibility
as gavel for the RWG. In 1986, the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) granted Canada
the Nansen medal in recognition of its work on behalf
of refugees and displaced persons. Finally, it might
also be noted that the close relationship between
Canada and the United States may have played a role
too, with the latter concerned that the sensitive
refugee portfolio be entrusted to a judicious and
reliable third party.
In supporting the efforts of the bilateral negotiations
on the refugee issue, the role of the RWG is to improve
the current living conditions of refugees and displaced
persons without "prejudice to their rights and
future status; to ease and extend access to family
reunification and to support the process of achieving
a viable and comprehensive solution to the refugee
issue". The RWG has defined refugees as those
displaced as a result of the conflict between Israel
and her Arab neighbours, with overwhelming bulk of
its attention paid in fact to the question of Palestinian
refugees.
Aims and Achievements
of the RWG
At the first full meeting of the RWG in Ottawa in
May 1992, it was decided to organize work on a thematic
basis. Lead countries or "shepherds" were
identified to lead each theme: databases (Norway);
family reunification (France); human resources development,
job creation and vocational training (the United States);
economic and social infrastructure (the European Union);
public health (Italy) and child welfare (Sweden).
The role of the shepherds is to define the needs of
each sector and to mobilize an appropriate response.
Across all of these themes, the RWG has identified
a number of key imperatives in its work. The first
of these is defining the problem: members of the RWG
recognized a need for a common understanding of the
scope of the refugee problem and how to deal with
it. The Working Group has sponsored basic data collection
and analysis to define the scope of the refugee issue,
establish priorities and assess the impact of choices.
This work has included two surveys of living conditions
of the West Bank and Gaza; needs assessments to identify
refugee needs in public health, child welfare and
economic and social infrastructure and; an inventory
of ongoing assistance programs. The RWG is also sponsoring
a living conditions survey of Jordan which will include
a study of Palestinians living inside and outside
the camps.
A second priority has been promoting dialogue: the
Canadian gavel sees the RWG as a forum for regional
parties to state positions, develop and test options
and generally build confidence among the members.
As gavel-holder, Canada led an international mission
in April 1994 to Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan
and Lebanon. The subsequent report identified a number
of immediate pressing needs for refugees outside of
the West Bank and Gaza, which the Working Group has
since attempted to carry out. Another key focus in
this area has been the question of policies and procedures
for family reunification. France has worked to bridge
differences between the parties, and although the
number of individuals benefiting from family reunification
have tripled since it began these efforts, there are
still major stumbling blocks.
Finally, the RWG has worked to mobilize resources
for refugees. The Working Group has worked with UNRWA
to raise funds for UNRWA's Peace Implementation Plan
(PIP) for the West Bank and Gaza, an initiative to
improve infrastructure and create jobs. It has also
supported individual PIP projects, sponsored education
and training of Palestinian refugees; implemented
credit schemes and job creation programmes; and tried
to address the urgent health needs of refugees by
providing medical supplies. One particularly noteworthy
project has been the reunification of Palestinian
families living in the Rafah area of Egypt (“Canada
Camp”) with their relatives in Tel El Sultan
in Gaza. Canadian funds sponsored the transfer of
70 refugee families (800 individuals) in July 1994.
There are plans to relocate a larger group of families,
with assistance from Kuwait.
Obstacles and Challenges
In the seven plenary meetings of the RWG (with an
eighth to be held in December 1995), significant achievements
have been registered. Nevertheless the Working Group
faces a number of stumbling blocks. One set of these
is financial: there is still a serious shortage of
resources to meet the pressing humanitarian needs
of refugees, particularly for those outside the West
Bank and Gaza. This comes at a time when UNRWA's future
is uncertain, and the Palestinian Authority is not
yet in a position to take over. Moreover, the RWG’s
efforts to mobilize resources substantially overlap
with those of others, notably UNRWA itself as well
as the international donor group for the West Bank
and Gaza. Consequently, it is not always clear how
much new funding for refugees is actually generated
by the RWG.
A second set of problems facing the working group
are structural in character. The RWG does not operate
as a cohesive group, but rather assembles periodically
for plenary meetings or intersessional activities.
Consequently, the Gavel-holder remains unsuccessful
in wielding influence outside of the working group
structure, and has not obtained a seat on the Quadripartite
Committee. The RWG itself must necessarily function
on a consensual basis, making progress slow. The RWG
is also forced to operate within the context of the
peace process as a whole, and consequently is affected
by the ups and downs of the process and by developments
in the region.
The refugees of the Middle East diaspora-notably,
the large concentration of Palestinians in Lebanon,
Syria and Jordan-have yet to be addressed in peace
agreements. Efforts of the RWG to alleviate this situation
have been frustrated by the decision of Syria and
Lebanon not to participate in the multilateral process
until they deem that satisfactory progress has been
made in the bilateral negotiations. In turn, Syrian
and Lebanese non-participation in the RWG has hampered
the working group’s efforts to target resources
at refugee communities in those countries. This problem
is particularly acute in Lebanon, where much of the
refugee population endures extremely adverse socio-economic
conditions.
Finally, the RWG faces formidable political obstacles
in its work. There remains a large gap between the
publicly-articulated positions of Israel and the Palestinians
on the refugee issue, with the former insisting on
the “resettlement” and “rehabilitation”
of refugees, while the latter emphasizes the Palestinians’
right to compensation and “return”. These
sorts of differences have been manifest in discussions
on family reunification, which have met with the most
controversy and resistance from Israel. The Israeli
delegation is willing to consider family reunification
as a discretionary humanitarian issue, but not as
a political right for Palestinians.
Ironically, the consensual format of the RWG, coupled
with the political differences evident within it,
can also generate an unfortunate degree of depoliticization
in Working Group activities-that is to say, a focus
by default on less controversial humanitarian issues.
Indeed-and despite some press reports-it is striking
that, with the exception of family reunification and
the proforma declaratory statements of the parties
during plenary sessions, the RWG has not discussed
or addressed the core political arrangements and compromises
that must characterize any ultimate resolution of
the refugee issue. Israel insists that such questions
are appropriately dealt with in bilateral final status
negotiations or (in the case of 1967 displaced persons)
the Quadripartite Committee. Other participants in
the RWG have also often shied away from controversial
areas. Past database activities, for example, have
largely focussed on social indicators, rather those
that might have greater significance for political
outcomes.
Palestinian participants have lamented the depoliticization
of the RWG. However-with the senior Palestinian leadership
focussed on more immediate concerns in the West Bank
and Gaza-the Palestinian side has also shown little
sustained effort to use the RWG to explore or prenegotiate
such issues at this time. Compounding this, Palestinian
delegations generally lack the diplomatic, administrative,
policy research and other supports enjoyed by their
Israeli counterparts, further limiting their ability
to advance an effective political agenda.
Looking Ahead
In assessing the overall role and potential future
contribution of the RWG, it is important to recognize
the constraints under which it operates: substantial
political differences, consensual procedures, and
subordination to the broader dynamics of the peace
process. The RWGÊhas done important work in
mobilizing resources for refugee communities at a
crucial time for them, and for the region. It has
also provided a valuable forum for the regional parties
to meet, and discuss, refugee-related issues.
In the future, as the Quadripartite negotiations
continue and the parties move closer to final status
negotiations, there is even more in these areas that
the RWG might do. Resource mobilization will continue
to be important, to address the social needs of refugees,
build support for the peace process, and facilitate
the transition to a settlement of the refugee issue.
The RWG might expand its dialogue function, not only
facilitating official and semi-official contacts but
also encouraging the production of new and innovative
thinking about the refugee issue by scholars, non-governmental
organizations, and others within civil society. Its
database and research functions might also be focussed
on more strategic refugee-related research, in areas
ranging from the absorptive capacity of the West Bank
and Gaza, to compensation, repatriation, refugee camp
rehabilitation, residency rights, and so forth. In
short, the Refugee Working Group cannot, by its very
nature, be in advance of the Middle East peace process.
It can, however-by addressing both the humanitarian
and core political dimensions of the refugee issue-play
an important role in advancing progress toward peace.
Sources
"Canada and the MEPP: Gavelling the Refugee Working
Group", delivered by Marc Perron, to a conference
sponsored by Medical Aid for Palestine, "Development
and Nation-Building. Canadian Initiatives in the New
Palestinian Context", 8 February 1995.
Remarks by Andrew Robinson, to Middle East Working
Group Symposium, 5 October 1995. Middle East Peace
Process.
Refugee Working Group. Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade Canada, August 1995.
Rosemary Sayigh, “Palestinians in Lebanon:
Harsh Present, Uncertain Future.” Journal of
Palestine Studies 25, 1 (Autumn 1995).
Rex Brynen is Associate Professor of Political Science
at McGill University in Montréal. Jill Tansley
is a researcher based in Ottawa.
|
