Baker& Fares during the 1996 Tufts Lecture Serie in Boston



Excerpts from the Fares’s address:

The peace process in the Middle East is without doubt the main issue of our age. It is, to a great extent, the center of international relations. It is central in U.S. –Russian relations and in U.S.-Asian relations; and it is crucial to the security and stability of the millions of people in the region.  We are honored to have among us this evening the architect of the peace process, Mr. James Baker, the former U.S. Secretary of State, who succeeded in bringing together the opponents in the region in order to start up the peace process. In his address, he will focus in American interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, a subject that is organically related to the peace process. American politicians agree that American interests in the Middle East are the following:

1) to protect the Gulf oil; 2) to ensure its transportation to American markets and the markets of U.S. –allied states; 3) to ensure air and sea routes in the region; 4) to support pro-American Arab regimes; 5) to support Israel: 6) to encourage democracy in the region; and 7) to endeavor to establish a new pro-American order in a peaceful Middle East.
American foreign policy is undoubtedly determined by national interest. We expect, however, that the national interest in a democratic country like America will always take into account the system of moral values, such as freedom, justice and equality that have marked its political and social institutions since the founding of America two hundred years ago.

My country Lebanon is also a democratic country, which inherited a system of political, human and cultural values that are based on justice, freedom and equality and date back to six thousand years ago. Although Lebanon is a small country, it is at the same time big, due to the ambitious goals and outstanding achievements of the large Lebanese Diaspora wherever it exists, regionally and internationally. Their qualitative influence is much more important than their modest quantitative value. And at home, thanks to its people’s skills and energy, Lebanon has become the regional center of political ideas and Beirut has become the real capital of the Arab world, culturally, politically and ideologically, and a free forum for the region.

After a long and destructive war sparked by unresolved regional disputes and international contradictions, Lebanon launched into the process of national development and reconstruction. This huge challenge is being accomplished with the constant help of our neighboring friend, Syria. And thanks the Arab and international efforts, the U.S. and the European community have been making essential contributions in designing and guaranteeing the implementation of a number of projects.

The peace process is for us a high priority; many of our internal political, economic and social operations depend on it. Israel is supposed to withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, but Israel is still dithering, presenting tactical proposals within the framework of the peace process, depriving Lebanon from its right to regain its occupied territories, and perpetrating armed aggressions against our people in the south and in the Bekaa in order to delay its withdrawal.

We expect the peace process in the Middle East to ensure the existence of all states in the region within secure and internationally recognized borders. We want the peace to be just and provide long-term stability and we hope that this will lead progressively to the establishment of democratic regimes with a free economy and entrepreneurship that will open up the vast market in the region.

Peace will undoubtedly restore to Lebanon its central role in the Middle East, especially in providing its distinctive services in university studies, medical facilities, tourism, cultural promotion, banking and all others kinds of commercial services. Peace will certainly encourage a large segment of the Lebanese Diaspora to return to live in their homeland and contribute to its development, in both investments and human power.
If you really want the peace process to progress, Mr. Baker, the United States should concentrate more and more on Lebanon and Syria. Peace in the region will not take place without Syria and will not reach a stable situation without Lebanon. While American diplomats go from one city to another in the Middle East to find a solution, they should not ignore discussions with officials in Beirut, which always reflects the atmosphere of the region as a whole.
American interests will not necessarily contradict ours in the region, provide that you look at your interests through the eyes of the moral principles of your democratic civilization.

Preserve the oil, but try to help direct its revenues to human development, to the improvement of the quality of life for the people of the region. Protect the strategic pathways, but remember that there are people who live on these pathways, people with their own history, civilization and pride, people still attached to their values and respecting their old traditions, people who can have considerable power for good if you approach them with good will and sincerity.
You are free to support Israel, but this support should not be at the expense of your impartial position as a mediator or at the expense of the rights to the other countries and peoples of the regions. It should be exercised on the basis a state has rights but also has obligations. If Israel is America’s friend, this does not mean that the Arabs are its enemies. Work for a new order in the region, for the rearrangement and redistribution of its natural resources, but let us work together to establish this order.

Baker: The peace process can either progress or regress, confronting the region
with a choice between peace and violence


Summary of Baker address:

Mr. Baker addressed the issue of American interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, putting special emphasis on his observations regarding the Arab-Israeli peace process).

Mr. Baker began with words tribute to Lebanon for its constructive role in the peace process and for the ambitions of its people, as exemplified by Mr. Fares, and remarks that the Lebanese have disseminated, in all the countries where they established themselves, the ambitions, successes and human values of their beautiful and hospitable homeland. Mr. Baker then expounded on the details of the Middle East peace initiative that was launched at the Madrid conference and expressed how his deep interest in this vital issue has continued ever since he took office as the U.S. secretary of state.
He recalled his visits to former U.S. presidents Nixon, Carter And Ford and how he discussed with them the possibilities of achieving peace between the Arabs and Israel.

He commented that when he tackled the issue with Nixon, the latter told him: “I advise you not to approach the Middle East or the Middle East crisis, for this issue has no solution and those who deal with it could be burnt”. Noting that this very day coincided with the fifth anniversary of the launching of the peace initiative in Madrid, he said that over these years, the process kept moving along, although with numerous difficulties. Now, however, due to the victory of Netanyahu in the Israeli elections, the peace process was witnessing a serious collapse, despite the important advances made in the preceding five years.

Mr. Baker noted that the first positive stage of the peace process was achieved through the shuttle missions that he and his collaborators undertook in the region to pursue in-depth discussions with the leaders of the concerned states. This effort culminated in the Madrid conference. The first negotiations between Arabs and Israelis came at the end of the cold war between Washington and Moscow and in the wake of Kuwait’s occupation and the Gulf crisis. It was then, Mr. Baker said, that the peace process was structured. It was a time when Israel was facing problems with Hamas and the Israeli people were still in favor of and seeking peace.

Mr. Baker continued: Had it not been for Syria’s approval and the positive position adopted by President Assad, the peace process would not have been launched. When Syria approved the initiative, it deprived Israel of any pretext to refuse participation in the process. The real problem currently is not between Arabs and Israelis, but between extremists from both sides. Because of this, the peace process can either progress or regress, confronting the region with a choice between peace and violence.

Mr. Baker said that to achieve progress requires a strong position by the United States that will provide moral support to the parties concerned and assure them that it will protect implementation of the peace process and that commitments agreed upon by both sides will be honored. If Israel is a real democratic state, which it is indeed, then it should respect the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab countries. Mr. Baker underscored the dangers represented by Netanyahu’s presence at the head of the Israeli government said that the peace process had witnessed serious deterioration ever since the Likud party took over the reins of power in Israel, especially with respect the halt in negotiations on both the Lebanese and Syrian tracks.