Tor Wennesland, United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, shared his thoughts on the relevance of the Middle East amid the globe’s shifting focus to issues such as the war in Ukraine, the ongoing ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the erosion of democracy worldwide.
The Oct. 25 event entitled “Does the Middle East Still Matter?” was sponsored by the School of Arts & Sciences’ Middle East Center and moderated by the Center’s executive director, John Ghazvinian.
Wennesland, a longtime Norwegian diplomat, told the audience at the Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics auditorium that he has been involved in the Middle East peace process for decades, since the Oslo Accords.
“Here we are 29 years after, and everything we thought could happen with Israeli-Palestinian dynamics did not happen,” he said. “Everything we hoped we could achieve we couldn’t achieve.”
He went on to describe the ways in which the Middle East has changed since then, how those changes have impacted the way the U.N. and others are dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and why that conflict has received less attention because of the shifting dynamics of the Middle East.
He pointed to political turmoil that no one envisioned, like the Arab Spring; the fast-growing, small oil-rich countries like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates that modernized themselves with a speed that no one thought possible; and the outpouring of refugees from Syria that have changed domestic politics in countries around the globe.
The aftermath of these upheavals is affecting elections worldwide and is part of the reason the radical right has persevered in Europe and in Scandinavia, he said.
Wennesland also addressed the sudden and somewhat unexpected surge in violence on the West Bank and his contention that despite the lack of momentum in political negotiations toward a two-state solution, very few on either side of the conflict is interested in a one-state solution.
The time for negotiating peace in a secret villa or backroom is past, and days of signing peace deals on a lawn in front of the White House are over, he said. Diplomats need to reimagine the way forward.
He and Ghazvianan went on to discuss the United States’ relevance in the region, Russia’s strong history of diplomacy in the Middle East, and what has surprised Wennesland most in his nearly 30 years in his role.
As for what has surprised him, he noted three moments: When Mohamed Morsi became president of Egypt in the wake of the Arab Spring; the rise of the Islamic State group; and when Hamas took over Gaza in three days back in 2007.
The discussion then moved to a question-and-answer session with audience members, many of whom sought elaboration on his idea that a two-state solution was still the best, if not immediately achievable, outcome for the region.
“What are the unintended consequences of pretending that there still will be a diplomatic solution? What kind of struggle for equality for example, does that postpone?” asked Penn political science professor emeritus Ian Lustick, whose most recent book is “Paradigm Lost: From a Two-State Solution to a One-State Reality.”
Wennesland replied that it’s not that he doesn’t think a solution is possible but rather that diplomats need to be sober and honest with themselves when they make the wrong calculations or missteps, as a way to reach different solutions.
One audience member asked if he could share any career advice to the undergraduates in the room.
“Why should you be a diplomat? Because it’s big fun and its serious work and you can come to it from very different points of departure,” he said. But it’s important to make the distinction between having big dreams of creating peace and the betterment of the world and dealing with the harsh realities of what’s happening on the ground, whether it’s in the Middle East or Europe or elsewhere, he said. “You get used to it. If you can, take the job. If you can’t sustain it, find something else to do. That’s my advice.”
