[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXPANDING THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND
CENTRAL ASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-383 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
KEN BUCK, Colorado AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN, American SARA JACOBS, California
Samoa KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TOM KEAN, JR., New Jersey JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MIKE LAWLER, New York JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas
Brenden Shields, Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND CENTRAL ASIA
JOE WILSON, Chair
BRIAN MAST, Florida DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota, Ranking
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee Member
RONNY JACKSON, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
MIKE LAWLER, New York DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Greenway, The Honorable Robert, President and Executive Director,
Abraham Accords Peace Institute................................ 8
Votel, General Joseph L., Distinguished Fellow, Middle East
Institute...................................................... 15
Shapiro, The Honorable Daniel B., Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic
Council........................................................ 22
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 54
Hearing Attendance............................................... 55
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 56
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............ 57
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record.................. 59
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Additional statement submitted for the record from Mr. Lankford.. 66
Additional statement submitted for the record.................... 68
EXPANDING THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS
Thursday, March 9, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
Africa and Central Asia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, the Subcommittee on
Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to identify opportunities to
strengthen and expand the extraordinarily successful Abraham
Accords.
And at this time, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Brad Schneider, be
allowed to sit on the dais and participate following all other
members in today's hearing. No objection. I am not going to
recognize you. And so, without objection, so ordered. OK. And 1
day we will recognize people from Rhode Island. But it is going
to be June, if you do not mind, after you are gone.
I now recognize myself an opening statement.
And good afternoon and welcome. And this is really
meaningful to me, the first hearing of the Middle East, North
Africa, and Central Asia Subcommittee in the 118th Congress.
And I am really grateful to ultimately be serving again with
Congressman David Cicilline, who has been the prior chairman,
and prior to that, Ted Deutch. And so it has been a bipartisan
experience with Dean Phillips I am confident will continue. And
then Kathy Manning from the Republic of North Carolina is going
to be sitting in today. One day it is going to be a State.
And I want to thank our members for being part of the
subcommittee. And I want to thank the expert witnesses for
being here today to provide insight into how we can most
successfully expand the groundbreaking Abraham and historic
Accords.
I regret that the ranking member, Dean Phillips, is unable
to be here today. But, indeed, we are very fortunate to have
Representative Kathy Manning from North Carolina.
I look forward to a compelling conversation today of very
talented people and in many more important hearings during this
Congress as we promote the United States as the country that it
is, so important in maintaining world stability.
The historic Abraham Accords are one of the most
consequential diplomatic achievements of my lifetime and a
success of the Donald Trump Administration. I was grateful to
be present at the signing at the White House. The signing of
these accords by the leaders of Bahrain, Israel, and the United
Arab Emirates represented the single most significant step
toward a stable and positive Arab-Israeli relations since Egypt
and Jordan normalized relations in 1979 and 1974 respectively.
We have already seen positive results with Morocco formally
joining and Sudan pledging to join the Accords in 2021 and
additional memorandums of understanding being signed to address
issues of mutual concern.
These agreements are a win for the region and a win for the
United States. For decades, we have known that our friends in
the Middle East all have shared interests for mutual benefit.
Now at long last, we can work together collaboratively to
protect our countries' shared technology and information and
grow our economies, address creating jobs, addressing the
threat emanating from the kleptocratic Iranian regime. It is an
issue of foremost concern.
Both Israel and our Arab allies live under constant threat
of Iranian-backed terrorism. And Iran continues the enrichment
of uranium while testing satellite-launched vehicles in
proliferating drones to its proxies, as well as to war criminal
Putin to kill innocent Ukrainians.
Sadly, the Biden Administration still seems to believe that
diplomacy via a nuclear deal is possible. You cannot negotiate
with those acting in bad faith, as we have seen time and time
again. Working with our partners to deter these threats is
critical to maintaining peace and stability through strength.
The Abraham Accords coincided with Israel being moved into
the responsibility of the U.S. Central Command from European
Command. Now our Middle East partners can work together
directly with U.S. military on issues of shared concern, like
Iran and the integrated air and missile defenses.
After three major countries joining the Accords in quick
succession, UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, we hope to see more
countries join the Abraham Accords during the Biden
Administration. Changing minds is hard. Diplomatic
breakthroughs are hard. It is not easy to change longstanding
policies or public opinions.
With all the momentum built up during the Trump
Administration, there have been at times questions regarding
whether the Biden Administration is sufficiently prioritizing
the Accords. I am pleased the Administration has now embraced
the name Abraham Accords and has also worked to convene Israel
and the Arab partners through the Negev Forum.
This forum is important for helping to deepen the
relationships between Israel, UAE, Egypt, Morocco, and Bahrain,
and the United States. It shows other countries in the region
the positive benefits that can come from a relationship with
Israel.
In addition to security cooperation, the Abraham Accords
have ushered in unprecedented economic cooperation. We are
witnessing significant increase in bilateral trade between the
signatories, as well as joint projects in technology, energy
and infrastructure, health care, and tourism. These efforts
will undoubtedly yield positive person-to-person results and
increased prosperity for all involved.
Still, there is more to be done. I hope our witnesses today
can speak to the types of initiatives that will be required to
bring important countries, such as Saudi Arabia, into the
Abraham Accords. We look forward to hearing from them about
more details of how the Accords came to be, how we can
strengthen relationships between countries that are parts of
the Accords, and how we can bring new countries into these
incredible agreements.
I want to thank the witnesses for their time and expertise.
And I yield to the stand-in ranking member, Congresswoman
Manning, for her remarks.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
important hearing. And on behalf of Ranking Member Dean
Phillips, who asked me to fill in for him today,
congratulations on holding your first hearing as subcommittee
chair. We are all looking forward to working together with you
in this Congress. And I want to thank our distinguished panel
of witnesses for joining us today to share your expertise.
In 1967, the League of Arab States put forward what is
often referred to as the three no's: no peace with Israel, no
recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Despite
these overtures, Egypt was the first country to break ranks and
make peace with Israel in 1979, a decision that cost President
Sadat his life. Jordan then followed suit in 1994.
And since then there had been no significant progress on
regional peace agreements until the Abraham Accords, in which
Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan agreed to
normalize relationships with Israel. This historic agreement
changed the region practically overnight, leading to incredible
opportunities for regional coordination and cooperation.
With U.S. support, these countries chose to form a forward-
looking group of nations in the Middle East focused on building
a better and brighter future for their people and a more
integrated and secure region. These countries also recognized a
common interest in cooperating to counter the threats posed by
Iran, the principal source of instability in the region. Iran's
advancing nuclear weapons program, expanding ballistic missile
NUAV programs, and support for armed proxy groups, including
but not limited to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the
Houthis in Yemen all pose deep challenges to security and
stability across the Middle East.
Our partners and allies are clear-eyed about this threat
and are working side by side in coordination with the United
States to advance their shared security. Israel's integration
into CENTCOM marked a huge step toward creating a more secure
and prosperous region. And its role in the recent international
maritime exercise, along with increased intelligence sharing,
communication, and training have demonstrated significant
progress toward a more integrated regional security
architecture.
I am eager to hear from our witnesses today about
opportunities for expanded security cooperation, the prospect
of a more integrated regional security framework, and how
shared security concerns can promote further expansion of
normalization between Israel and its neighbors. Security
cooperation is important. But it cannot be the only leg on
which relations between Israel and the Abraham Accords'
countries stand.
The Biden Administration has sought to deepen and expand
Israel's engagement with its neighbors by establishing the
Negev Forum, a new vehicle for implementing the Abraham Accords
on a multilateral scale. The forum established six working
groups on regional security, food and water security, tourism,
trade, health, and education and tolerance, areas that
highlight shared regional challenges and create opportunities
for tangible benefits to the citizens of each country.
These buckets have provided a framework to weave together
the fabric of the Middle East. For example, the signing of the
Israel-UAE free trade agreement aims to bolster economic
cooperation between the two countries, bringing trade volume
from around one billion to ten billion within 5 years.
Increased trade and tourism, investment in technology and
health, cooperation on cyber security and green energy, the
opportunities are seemingly endless.
I look forward to hearing from our guests today about how
to advance Israeli-Arab engagement, promote greater regional
cooperation, and engage the private sector and civil society in
this effort.
As we celebrate the Abraham Accords, the milestone for
regional security and stability that it represents and look
ahead toward opportunities to expand the Accords, we must also
try to find ways to include Palestinians in regional
cooperative initiatives and continue working toward a
comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace. Key additional
regional players have indicated their interest in normalizing
relations with Israel, but not without significant steps toward
peace.
As we look for ways to strengthen and expand the Abraham
Accords, I am interested in hearing about how these efforts can
be used to help both Israelis and Palestinians make progress
toward the long-term goal of a negotiated peace. And as we hold
this hearing just weeks away from the convergence of Ramadan
and Passover, I would further ask how the U.S. and our regional
partners can support steps to de-escalate tensions.
Since the Abraham Accords were announced by President Trump
in 2020, there has been bipartisan support in Congress and
across Administrations for the Abraham Accords and ongoing
efforts to support peace between Israel and its neighbors. The
Middle East today is not the same region it was even a few
years ago. And efforts to continue to enhance and expand the
Abraham Accords are integral to building robust security and
economic relationships, establishing people-to-people ties, and
contributing to a more tolerant, peaceful region.
So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
panel. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, temporary ranking member.
I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator Jim
Lankford of Oklahoma and a statement of Representative Ann
Wagner of Missouri be entered into the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
before us today on this important topic.
The Honorable Rob Greenway, a graduate of the Virginia
Military Institute, is President and Executive Director of the
Abraham Accords Peace Institute. He previously served as Deputy
Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Middle East
and North Africa at the National Security Council under the
Trump Administration.
Also, General Joseph Votel is a Distinguished Fellow at the
Middle East Institute. He served as Commander of U.S. Central
Command in 2016 to 2019. And I know of his great service
because I had the opportunity to visit with him and to great
success. Thank you.
Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro is a Distinguished Fellow at
the Atlantic Council. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to
Israel from 2011 to 2017. I think you must have set a record, 6
years.
I want to thank you all for being here today. Your full
statements will be made part of the record. And I will ask each
of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes in order to
allow members for questions. And they, too, will be strictly
maintained, including me, of 5 minutes.
I will now recognize President Greenway for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT GREENWAY, PRESIDENT AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ABRAHAM ACCORDS PEACE INSTITUTE
Mr. Greenway. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Manning,
members of the subcommittee, thank you all for the opportunity
to testify on the development of the historic Abraham Accords
peace agreements and the ways in which the United States can
help ensure they reach their true potential. It is an honor to
join Ambassador Shapiro and General Votel today.
The Abraham Accords Peace Institute, where I serve as
President and Executive Director, is a non-partisan, non-profit
U.S. organization dedicated to supporting the implementation
and expansion of the Accords, the primary platform for
disseminating Accord progress. And we work with a broad range
of actors abroad as appropriate to develop new opportunities in
the fields of trade, investment, tourism, and people-to-people
relationships.
The Abraham Accords constitute the beginning of a
transformation of a region that will continue to be a vital
battleground astride security and economic interests of world
powers. American leadership was a necessary but insufficient
condition for the emergence of these agreements. And American
leadership will remain essential to its growth and evolution.
The alignment of our regional partners and allies in
economic and security domains will ensure that the agreements
endure. It will also be incentivizing to others to join,
pooling critical capacities to advance and defend mutual
interests.
This transformation serves to constrain the malign
influence of Iran and Russia and predatory practices of China.
These countries will continue to manufacture and exploit
fissures among the U.S. and its regional partners if we fail to
take advantage of the favorable shift in the region's security
and economic architecture.
On the other hand, appropriate support will allow the
Abraham Accords to advance and secure America's interests with
the use of significantly fewer resources and with more capable
partners integrated as never before.
To give just a brief sense of the impact the Accords have
had in just less than 3 years, in 2022 trade between Israel and
regional peace partners as a whole reached $3.47 billion, up
from $593 million in 2019. 470,700 Israelis have traveled to
Abraham Accords countries in 2022, up from 39,300 in 2019.
Seventeen new flight routes have been established to
accommodate this growth. Cooperation has flourished in the
fields ranging from water and food security, renewable energy,
technology and innovation, health care, sports, trade, and
investment.
I would suggest five ways the U.S. can encourage and
support these historic agreements.
The first would be for the U.S. to the support the
establishment of an Abraham Accords free trade area, ensuring
progress toward members' aspirations, preserve the integrity
and stability of global markets, provide a tangible alternative
to China's Belt and Road Initiative. We could begin by
leveraging the matrix of free trade agreements and other
bilateral agreements already in place between the U.S. and
Accord members and between the Accords' members themselves.
According to RAND analysis, the benefits of a multilateral
free trade area encompassing current signatories would create
more than 150,000 new jobs and new economic activity exceeding
$75 billion. A multilateral free trade area among the expanded
number of potential Accord signatories could create as many as
four million new jobs and one trillion dollars in new economic
activity.
A second avenue would be to ensure that resources dedicated
to regional peace encompass the Accords and work with Accords'
members to reestablish the Abraham Fund, providing financial
and technical support necessary to reduce poverty, expand
infrastructure, and help improve health and education,
reinforcing the Accords.
A third way would be to connect Accords' members and other
partners to establish new overland trade routes, connecting its
members from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Such routes would
revolutionize East-West trade, decrease associated transit
times, costs, and risks, and strengthen resilience and
prosperity.
The fourth would be to support and resource a new enduring
regional security architecture in the Middle East, the Abraham
Accords as a foundation, while accelerating protected security
systems to Accord member countries. Only by making our partners
and allies more capable will we mitigate the spectrum of risk
to our vital national interests in the global economy. This
would also reduce, but not eliminate, the requirement for a
robust U.S. presence.
A fifth way would be to leverage Abraham Accords to offset
the loss of European energy following the Russian invasion of
Ukraine and strategically realign our partners and allies by
breaking the dependency on adversary resources.
Without U.S. leadership, the historic agreements would not
have been concluded. Absent sustained investment, they will
fail to achieve their potential. Such a setback would constrain
the region's economic recovery from the pandemic, erode support
for counterterrorism cooperation, open a door to malign
influence by Russia and China, compromise regional stability,
disrupt global markets, discourage essential cooperation, and
provide an opportunity for resurgence of both ISIS and Al
Qaeda.
But if we seize the opportunity this historic agreement
offers, the inverse holds. We would buildupon it to enhance
regional stability, security, and trade. We could also seize
the opportunity for a U.S. regional security architecture built
to safeguard an economic foundation that can endure, while
reducing our costs and constraining our adversaries.
The Abraham Accords, and the Institute which bears its
name, hold the potential to serve as the foundation for an
enduring peace in the Middle East by demonstrating the tangible
benefits of interpersonal ties, trade, commerce, and mutual
cooperation. It is vital we seize this historic opportunity,
unleash the potential of our partners and allies in the Middle
East and North Africa, keep America safe, and help the region
turn the page on a generation of conflict and instability.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenway follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, President Greenway.
And we now recognize General Votel for his opening
statement. And, General, I want to congratulate you, 2016 to
1919, the achievement of you and your personnel. There was no
terrorist attack against American people. And that to me is
such an achievement. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. VOTEL, DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST
INSTITUTE
Mr. Votel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
you and to Representative Manning and to the distinguished
members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to join my fellow panelists, Ambassador Dan
Shapiro and Mr. Rob Greenway, in this hearing on expanding the
Abraham Accords. I am testifying today in my capacity as a
former Commander of U.S. Central Command and as well as a
Distinguished Fellow with the Middle East Institute right here
in Washington, DC.
The Abraham Accords were signed after my retirement and
departure from Command, as was the decision to include Israel
in the U.S. Central Command's designated area of
responsibilities. It was my view at the time and it remains so
today that these Accords and the decision regarding Israel were
timely and essential steps in promoting stability and security
across the region. In both cases, these actions represented the
maturing of the political and security situations across the
area.
As noted in a recent report by the Jewish Institute for
National Security of America, JINSA, the United States has a
fundamental interest in strengthening the Accords and helping
ensure they achieve their full political, economic, and
security potential.
Less than 36 hours ago, I returned from my most recent
travel to the Middle East. These trips have left me with three
impressions that are germane to the issue we are discussing
today.
The first impression is that U.S. leadership in the region
remains critical. While our force posture has changed due to
policy decisions, focusing our attention and resources toward
the pace and challenge presented by China, the U.S. remains an
indispensable partner across the Middle East. The region looks
to us for our leadership, for our world-class capabilities, and
our values-based approaches. Initiatives like expanding the
Abraham Accords are clear examples of things we can and must do
to promote stability in a critically important region where we
retain enduring interests.
My second impression is the importance of continuous
dialog. The Middle East is an area with deep underlying
tensions which left unattended will work against the better
interests of those who live in the region and those who retain
vital national security interests there, including the United
States.
It is an area prone to misperceptions and failed
expectations. And the only way through this is by effective
communication and relationship building. We must have open
dialog and a framework to interact and operate that minimizes
miscommunication, while at the same time promoting better
interaction in areas of common interest. Therefore, we must
promote better relationships and more substantial cooperation
and collaboration among our regional friends. The Abraham
Accords are doing this today.
My third impression is the need for a sense of urgency to
move forward in the region. Change is coming quick to the
Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a good example. There is profound
and palpable change due to its 2030 vision and strategy, change
that can be seen and heard. It is accelerating on a day-to-day
basis. We should be encouraging this.
Our adversaries and strategic competitors are operating
with a sense of urgency as well. Iran continues its pursuit of
nuclear capability and is doubling down on its malign influence
activities across the region. Chinese influence is apparent
across the region. And they continue to maneuver effectively
into the spaces left behind by the U.S. to promote their
economic and political objectives. These activities and others
like them can undermine critical interests of the United States
and our partners.
In an era of Great Power competition, the United States
must play its role. Today, that role is unlikely to be
manifested by large U.S. military formations and long-term
deployment across regional military bases. It is, instead, more
likely to be pursued through improved security cooperation
efforts, partnership, shared awareness and responsibility, and
greater resilience among our friends and partners in the
region.
The best tool against these factors is not just better
equipment and more U.S. troops on the ground. It is, in fact,
strong relationships, effective communications, and trust. As a
former boss reminded me often, you cannot surge trust in times
of crisis. It must be nurtured and developed beforehand.
The Abraham Accords are an essential hedge platform to
promote better understanding, shared interests and
responsibilities, and common expectations that lead to better
trust. We must seize the opportunity it presents.
There will be obstacles to expanding the Abraham Accords
and pursuing meaningful progress under its rubric. Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapon and continued efforts to sew
instability and chaos across the region will continue to
frustrate our efforts and pose real challenges, threats against
our interests. Resolving the Palestinian situation remains
essential for many in the region. This important issue will
continue to resonate strongly in and out of the area.
And, of course, geopolitics will play a role as well. Our
efforts and those of our allies to support Ukraine against
unprovoked invasion by Russia, as well as China's posturing
against Taiwan, will have impacts in the region that will
challenge our goals and objectives.
The United States has a critical role in overcoming these
and other obstacles. We must be willing to lead and use our
inherent attributes to bring parties together to expand and
truly operationalize the Accords in a way that allows for real
change and progress. We can do this by being a good convener,
bringing others together and helping work through the issues
with candid communications and trustful dialog. And we must do
this by recognizing the importance of acting now to strengthen
and solidify emerging alignments and seize near-term
opportunities.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with the
subcommittee today. I look forward to joining my panel
colleagues in answering your questions and bringing more
attention and understanding to what I believe is one of the
most significant opportunities to promote stability in this
region, a region where we have made extraordinary sacrifices
and expended significant national treasure and where we have
and will continue to have enduring interests that are important
to our security and prosperity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Votel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General Votel.
And now we are very grateful to have Ambassador Daniel
Shapiro for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL B. SHAPIRO, DISTINGUISHED
FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL
Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chairman, Representative Manning, thank
you and my thanks to Ranking Member Phillips for the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on expanding the
Abraham Accords. Like my colleagues on the panel, Rob Greenway,
who was involved in negotiating the Accords, and General Votel,
who has done so much for regional security, it is a subject I
am passionate about.
I direct the N7 Initiative, a partnership between the
Atlantic Council and the Jeffrey M. Talpins Foundation, that
convenes conferences of Israeli and Arab experts to generate
multilateral policy and program ideas to bring the benefits of
normalized relations to the citizens of those countries.
The past year has seen a great deal of progress in building
on the Abraham Accords. Thanks in no small part to the
commitment of the Biden Administration. I will not detail them
all, but the Negev Summit, the Negev Forum, opening of air
space, free trade, and expanded trade between the parties,
cyber security cooperation are all ongoing examples.
And a number of challenges remain as well. The Negev Forum
is a consensus organization. A consensus is sometimes hard to
achieve. Jordan has not yet joined the group. There appears to
be low and by some polling results declining public support for
normalized relations with Israel, even in the UAE and Bahrain,
and spiking Israeli-Palestinian tensions may weaken the
popularity of the Abraham Accords.
But none of those challenges diminish the progress that has
been made. And with the remainder of my time, I will outline a
number of steps the United States should pursue to expand that
progress that has been made to date.
First, our strategy should be to combine U.S.-led security
coordination with regionally led, U.S.-supported integration in
civilian fields. When it comes to building an integrated
regional security architecture, there is no substitute for the
United States, as the convener, sponsor, and enabler. Our
unique capabilities, our enduring presence in the region, and
the way each U.S. partner looks to us to shape the security
environment and coordinate responses to key threats makes the
U.S. role essential.
The Biden Administration and CENTCOM leadership have
embraced this responsibility, sponsoring joint exercises that
improve interoperability, facilitating high-level strategic
discussions on addressing the full range of threats posed by
Iran and its proxies, and initiating the gradual process of
integrating air defenses across these U.S. partners. It is not
likely to become a Middle East NATO. But it does not need to be
NATO to be meaningfully beneficial for the security of all who
participate. But what it does need like NATO is the energetic
leadership of the United States.
Alongside the U.S.-led security architecture, we should
support a regionally led web of non-defense integration. In
parallel with the Negev Forum, there must be room for the
emergence of a truly regional organization, like the European
Union or ASEAN, that weaves together multilateral cooperation
at every level, in every area of governance, collaboration and
integration of resources and capabilities, a regional free
trade zone, and reinforcing linkages between private sectors,
universities, professional organizations, religious
communities, and other elements of civil society.
Let's call this hypothetical organization AMENA, A-M-E-N-A,
the Association of the Middle East and North Africa. AMENA has
the advantage that it means trustworthy or reliable in both
Hebrew and Arabic. And it will signal with trilingual clarity
that it represents a community of trust, reliability, common
interests, and the common benefits of security and prosperity.
And as the participating countries benefit from this
association and as they forge a common regional identity, it
will create incentives for other States to join, just as the EU
and ASEAN expanded well beyond their original membership in
their respective regions.
Second, we should draw on all resources and expertise of
the U.S. Government and beyond to advance the U.S. interest in
deep regional integration. At the Negev Summit working group
meetings in January, over 40 U.S. Government personnel from
some 9 government agencies took part. That is an excellent
showing and something to build on.
While the State Department, Defense Department, military,
U.S. military, USAID under the guidance of the National
Security Council will always have the lead, nearly every
cabinet department and Federal agency has an international
affairs department, and most have resources and programs
available to promote international cooperation that serves U.S.
interests. The House and Senate Abraham Accords Caucuses are
critical partners in this effort, able to use their diverse
expertise and committees of jurisdiction to motivate and fund
the work of the cabinet departments they oversee.
In this context, I want to take note of H.R. 1268, a
thoughtful bill introduced by Representatives Torres and
Lawler, to create a special envoy for the Abraham Accords. If
Congress creates such a position, one of that official's most
important duties might indeed be to serve as the traffic cop
for an expansive and diverse set of U.S. Government and non-
government programs that support integration in various fields.
Third, we must give special focus and priority to achieving
Israeli-Saudi normalization, while recognizing that it will
take time and may advance in phases. Clearly such an agreement
would have many transformational effects, given Saudi Arabia's
centrality and influence as a leading nation in the Arab and
Islamic worlds. In some respects, we see it happening
gradually. But I would caution against the narrative that Saudi
Arabia is ready to normalize relations with Israel tomorrow as
long as the United States provides the right quantities of
weapons, security guarantees, or civil nuclear technology.
Saudi-Israeli normalization is certainly in the United
States' interests. And we should be prepared to contribute as
the United States has done in nearly all previous Arab-Israeli
agreements. But it cannot be divorced from the U.S.-Saudi
relationship, nor from other U.S. interests that we must
protect.
If, in fact, the United States would be expected to provide
a range of benefits to Saudi Arabia at the time normalization
occurs, there will also be things the United States needs from
the Saudis, such as their commitment to stable oil markets and
not to act in ways that run counter to core U.S. interests
regarding Russia and China.
A Saudi-Israeli deal is also unlikely to require nothing of
Israel, especially in periods of heightened tensions with the
Palestinians. And the U.S.-Israel dynamic will also be
complicated. Israel may seek additional security assistance,
which the United States has always provided, and the United
States may seek from Israel steps to keep the two-State
solution alive. Such an agreement would be a carefully balanced
triangle. And it is worth pursuing with significant diplomatic
resources. But it is far from automatic.
Finally, I will just endorse Congresswoman Manning's point
that it is imperative and there is an opportunity to draw
positive energy from the Abraham Accords into the deeply
deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian arena. In short, no other
regional development holds better prospects of breaking down
Palestinian resistance to normalization with Israel or Israeli
resistance to including Palestinians in the promise of a better
region.
And Arab States as partners to both are uniquely positioned
to positively influence the decisions and actions of both sides
in ways that can improve conditions on the ground and keep a
two-State solution alive for a future attempt to reach it
through negotiations. The United States can play an important
role in reinforcing these positive messages.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And I
look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ambassador. And, indeed,
each of you are so important for the American people to promote
the developments and stability in the Middle East by your
input.
And additionally, again, one of the highlights in my
service was to be present at the White House in September 2020
when the president signed the agreements, the Abraham Accords.
And it was just such a positive experience and a dream come
true to see stability so beneficial to all the countries
involved in the Middle East.
And with that, President Greenway, stability and shared
security interests in the historically volatile region is just
one of the many ways the Abraham Accords has benefited our
partners in the region and by extension the United States. The
Abraham Accords' countries have made significant commitments in
trade, tourism, energy, and infrastructure investments.
With U.S. leadership, expansion of the Accords would mean
our allies working together in the interests of their countries
to the detriment of the predatory Chinese Communist Party and
Putin presence in the region. The Chinese Communist Party and
Putin engaged in debt trapping and expansionism disguised as
diplomatic investment and posed a serious threat to the
sovereignty and security of the countries that enter into the
agreements.
With that, President Greenway, what is your view of the
strategic impact the United States and our allies under the
Abraham Accords working together to facilitate investment and
trade rather than the Chinese Communist Party and Putin?
Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, an excellent
question, perhaps among the most vital.
As I alluded to in my opening remarks, there is an
opportunity to take advantage of this constellation of U.S.
aligned partners and allies. And it is, in fact, at the expense
of inroads that China is actively building within the region.
And so it is to a certain extent a binary question.
I would also I think remind all of us that the benefit
derived from the Middle East has always been principally
economic, whereas the evolution of the Carter Doctrine in 1979
made the region important because of the necessity of U.S.
imports of oil and gas from the region. Now I would argue it is
the criticality of those resources to support the global
economy, not necessarily the United States. In either case, it
is in our best interests to do so.
Second, it is China's devoted interest to ensure they have
adequate access to energy to sustain their economy and
hypothetically would sustain any military excursion or
operations. They are now dependent upon the Middle East for oil
and gas. And that dependency creates a strategic imperative for
them to maintain relationships. And so they have prioritized
that. And most recently, President Xi managed to convene and
hold quite an assemblage of regional heads of State in Riyadh
during his recent visit.
I would argue that if we do not prioritize our engagement
we would cede natural partners and allies and a critical
strategic objective of our own and allow the Chinese to benefit
greatly from it. The inverse I think is also true in that we do
require stability of the global energy markets. Our partners
and allies are well situated to help us do that.
Second, important to look at the region as a transit point
for all goods and services moving between Europe and Asia and a
good bit of it moving elsewhere. And that includes information
and the global information network which also transits the
region.
And so it is critical I think for us to safeguard both and
to build on the partners and allies of which many are Abraham
Accords' member countries in order to safeguard our own
interests, advance our own economic prosperity, and at the same
time create constraints for China's advance in the region.
It is an unnatural place for the Chinese to operate. We
have been there for decades, generations to build, as General
Votel referenced, the trust required to do business and to gain
I think progress in the region. The Chinese do not have that
advantage. And so I think it is our advantage certainly, and I
think it is in our best interests to do so. The Chinese
recognize it.
Most importantly, our partners and allies in the region
eagerly want the United States to play this role as we once
had. And so I think they would welcome our efforts on their
behalf to integrate the region more effectively. And it would
serve our interests and theirs.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And, General Votel, in
November 2021 the U.S. faithfully coordinated the first joint
military exercise between Bahrain, UAE, and Israel in the Red
Sea. And President Greenway is actually correct. The United
States has had such an association, an affection for the people
of the Persian Gulf, actually with the Kingdom of Bahrain,
developing the first schools and hospitals there in 1895 and
then in 1948, the location of the U.S. naval base, which was
critical in the victory in the cold war by having such a
presence in Bahrain.
And then flash forward, in South Carolina tomorrow, even
Congresswoman Manning will be surprised, we are celebrating the
delivery of F-16 Block 70's to the Kingdom of Bahrain by
Lockheed Martin in Greenville, South Carolina, not the other
one. And so we are--and how important that is to see this
relationship and how it can come together within the next 24
hours.
With that, what shared security concerns in the Red Sea,
General, help drive the cooperation between Israel and, hey,
our longtime and treasured ally of Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Votel. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an
excellent question.
And my response to you would be the proliferation of
autonomous systems is a particular concern of our partners in
the region. As many of you will recall, there was a very
devastating attack on Abqaiq, you know, the Saudi Aramco
facility here a number of months ago. And that was devastating
to the economic prowess of this. And that attack continues to
resonate, not just in Saudi Arabia, really across the region.
So it is effectively addressing the proliferation of
autonomous systems in the Gulf that is I think of primary
concern, not just to the United States but certainly to our
partners. And addressing this I think would be a good way to
bring, to build trust in the relationship, while also
effectively addressing what is a rapidly growing and changing
threat to not just Saudi Arabia but others.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And I regret my time is
up. But, Ambassador, I would love to get your input later in
regard to expanding Abraham Accords.
Now we proceed to Congresswoman Kathy Manning of North
Carolina.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, indeed, both of
our Greenvilles are lovely places.
Thank you to our witnesses for your work and for sharing
your expertise.
General Votel, I want to thank you for sharing the
impressions arising from your recent trip to the region. I am
sure, as former Commander of CENTCOM, you have particular
insights into the region and the changes taking place. And I
appreciate your emphasis on the urgency of moving forward to
build on these transformative Accords. I wonder if you could
give us your thoughts about the most significant barriers to
moving these Accords forward and expanding on the work that is
already being done.
Mr. Votel. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think, as I mentioned in my comments, I think there is
really three that stand out. And then there are several others.
Certainly, Iran and our policy toward Iran or our approach
toward Iran continues to be a topic that resonates with our
partners in the region. They are looking for a clear
articulation of what it is that we are trying to do with Iran
and how we are going to bring them to a position where they are
not a threat to their partners in the region. So I think Iran
is a big one.
I do think the Palestinian situation still does resonate in
many of these countries, as you are well aware. This is a
particular challenge in Saudi Arabia I believe because of their
role as the custodian of the holy sites. And so this is more
delicate for them. And as a result, it will take more time and
more effort to work through that particular issue with the
Saudis. And I think that that will be a big piece.
I also think areas that, just in my most recent visit
there, areas where we could move forward and which I think
present some current obstacles right now, particular with Saudi
Arabia, is in investments, particularly investments in
renewable energies and some of the other technologies that they
are attempting to develop under kind of their diversification
plan here. They are looking for the U.S. and other Western
partners to come in and invest in these areas. And I do not
think that that has manifested itself in the way that they had
hoped that it would at this particular time.
So my point is that I think anything we can do to promote
investments in the business community through our capital
markets and other things I think is important to demonstrate
resolve there.
Ms. Manning. Thank you. So, with regard to Iran, is it fair
to say that you think those countries are looking to us, to the
U.S., for our long-term strategy on dealing with Iran?
Mr. Votel. I think they are. I think they are looking for
that. They are looking for the long-term strategy of how the
United States continues to pursue its interests more broadly
across the Middle East. And it is really important to do that.
The narrative that many of them repeat back to me is they hear
about our shift to the Pacific and our focus on China. But what
they do not hear as well is what we are doing to continue to
preserve the interests that we retain in this region.
So, again, in this matter, articulation, clear articulation
of our policies, of our approaches, of things we are going to
do and things we probably will not do are really important for
our partners in the region.
Ms. Manning. And with regard to your second point about the
Israeli-Palestinian issues, is there a way that you think we
can use the positive energy of these Accords to encourage the
Abraham Accord countries to have a positive impact on improving
relationships between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
Mr. Votel. Well, I absolutely believe that to be true. I
think doing--progress in one area I think gives way to progress
in other areas. And I think it is important for people in the
region to see the definitive progress and improvements that are
being made as a result of the Abraham Accord process and the
arrangements that are in place, because they give indications
of areas where we can do this, where we can make progress in
other areas.
I do not know that it can directly address that issue. But
the important part of the Abraham Accords is the fact that it
provides a platform for dialog. It provides a platform for
interaction. It provides a way for these countries of the Gulf
and Israel to have candid discussions and to move forward in
critical areas that are of mutual interest.
Ms. Manning. Thank you so much. I have about 12 more
questions. But in fairness, I will yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kathy
Manning.
And, indeed, we are so fortunate with scheduling on the
first person who came to the Middle East Subcommittee meeting
for 2023 was Congressman Brian Mast. He was here first. And so,
he gets all that credit, except for one thing, we are all
balancing different meetings, so he had to go to another
meeting, too. But he should be remembered as No. 1 to be here.
And so, but then that shifts all the weight from Florida to
Indiana, of all things, Congressman Jim Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would just say that most of my questions have been
answered, one of which was the Palestinian-Israeli
relationship. And I think you have discussed that.
So, I will pass, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Baird.
And we now proceed immediately to Congressman Brad Sherman
of California.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. As to an opening comment, I do not
think any of us trust the Iranian regime, but I do think we
have to negotiate with them just as Roosevelt negotiated with
Stalin, and Nixon negotiated with Mao.
We are embracing the Abrahamic Accords, but we should
remember that as to real diplomatic relations it remains
somewhat stalled, both as a result as regards Sudan and
Morocco.
It looks like the Saudis and Ambassador are pushing for
U.S. cooperation with their supposedly peaceful nuclear
program. As I have pointed out to some friends of Israel, just
because the Saudis are not Shi'ites does not mean that they are
Zionists.
And I saw a close relationship the United States had with
the Shah, and every weapon the Shah had was then in the hands
of the ayatollahs. So, we do not want to see Saudi, we do not
particularly want to see a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia.
The UAE entered the gold standard level of assurance that
they wouldn't be using their peaceful program for military
purposes. The Saudis seem very reluctant to do that. And, of
course, bin Salman has, you know, hinted, well, if the Iranians
have a nuclear weapon then we ought to have a nuclear weapon.
Does Saudi Arabia want cooperation with a peaceful program
with all the safeguards, or do they just want to be able to
respond to the Iranian nuclear weapons program?
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman. I think the Saudis,
obviously, have made clear in every forum that they view Iran
as their most significant threat. It is not only the nuclear
program of Iran; it is also the proxies in Yemen and elsewhere
who have attacked Saudi Arabia. General Votel mentioned the
attack on Abqaiq. And so, they are rightfully concerned, and
rightfully seek the kind of assurances from the United States,
as their key security partner, that would help themselves.
Mr. Sherman. Why are they reluctant to sign the safeguards
their close neighbor has signed?
Mr. Shapiro. First of all, there is some rivalry between
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. I think that is
actually increasing over time. And it may--there may be a
factor of what the UAE wants, the Saudis want, and plus a
little bit more.
But it is also, I think, what one would expect almost at
the beginning of any negotiation. The gold standard 123
Agreement achieved with the United Arab Emirates took many
years to negotiate. And so, if the Saudis are serious about
wanting U.S. civil nuclear technology cooperation as a part of
a settlement, they would need to come to a serious negotiation
about that.
Mr. Sherman. I would just say that diplomatic relations and
niceties can be reversed, governments can be overthrown, but
nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology stays where it
is. And, thank God, while we did a lot to the military of the
Shah, none of it was in the nuclear area.
The Ambassador of the UAE has Stated the truth of the
Abraham Accords was about preventing annexation. The reason it
happened, the way it happened, at the time it happened was all
to prevent annexation. To what extent does some of the comments
made more recently by the Netanyahu regime--government about
annexing parts of the West Bank conflict with either the letter
or the spirit of the Abrahamic Accords?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, it is true that at the time that the
Abraham Accords were signed the Emirates did make clear that
they expected the what was then being discussed as Israel,
which was a partial annexation of the West Bank, to be shelved.
And there was such a commitment by Israel.
So, to have some Israeli, members of the Israeli Government
speak about de facto annexation, or to take actions that might
be consistent with de facto annexation, even if it is called
something else, obviously raises question about whether that is
upheld.
But I think more concerning is whether, of course, it also
could mean the death of any possibility of the two-State
solution. But how that development would influence and impact
the possibility of future expansion of the Abraham Accords.
The Saudis may not prioritize the Palestinian issue as
their No. 1 priority in this, nor may other Arab States looking
at this and, yet, the polling we have seen about the relatively
low popularity of the Accords suggest the Palestinian issue is
at least part of the reason for that.
And if we see two-States receding over the cliff and
annexation pushing it there, I think that will make it harder
to achieve the goal we are all here to discuss.
Mr. Sherman. And, finally, I will just point out that in
addition to the Abrahamic Accords, the Biden Administration's
brokerage of an agreement with Lebanon on maritime and
exploitation of the natural gas resources, and their
negotiation with regard to Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Israel
over the islets of the Gulf, mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, they
may not be Abrahamic but they are important.
Thanks.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Sherman.
And I am happy you brought up about the Biden
Administration's success for the drilling in the Mediterranean,
how important that is going to be for the economy of Lebanon,
how beneficial it is for Israel, and to show how things
connect. And that is that he did not brag about it enough.
The oil that is achieved by Israel is sent to Egypt, of all
things, to be refined, to be sent to Italy to reduce any
dependency on Putin. And so that was a tremendous achievement
of offshore drilling in the Mediterranean.
With that in mind, indeed, the very first person to be here
for the very first Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia
Subcommittee is here, Congressman Brian Mast.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it.
I want to start with just giving my own personal analysis
on the last comments that you made about two-State. You
mentioned it briefly, so I am just going to mention my opinions
on it.
I think two-State should be left dead. In my opinion it
makes no sense to me that the United States of America work to
make a State out of an entity that would have to immediately be
labeled as a terrorist State, and a State that we would
immediately in Congress begin coming up with sanctions for.
So, personally, that is my analysis of the situation.
My question goes to you, General, and it is about what was
spoken about, the communication that is taking place, and the
diplomacy that is taking place, and stability that can take
place between different entities. But I want to ask if the
Abraham Accords are leading to communication in another place?
We have the Abraham Accords taking place. We have a de
facto separation between Gaza and the West Bank for two
decades, let's say. It is well-assumed by many that if there
were to be a real election held, that Hamas would win a popular
election across those, those two de facto areas.
Are the Abraham Accords resulting in an increased
communication between Gaza and the West Bank to one way or
another change that relationship from de facto separation to
officially separated, or somehow united under the PA, or united
under Hamas, or in some other ways has it resulted in that over
there?
Mr. Votel. Congressman, to be very truthful, I am not sure
I can make a conclusion one way or the other on that. Some of
the other panelists may be in a better position to comment on
that.
I think, tangentially, it could have some influence,
frankly, in terms of, in terms of, you know, uniting some folks
in those, in those particular areas around, around certain
issues. So, I think there may be some tangential issues. But in
terms of something more substantive and influencing, I am not
sure. I haven't seen that. And I may not be the best person to
conclude that.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, General. And I do not know that we
would necessarily see it, or that it would be evident to us.
But I would certainly welcome the opinions from both of you as
well about if you are seeing that. That is something I am just
particularly curious about because I think it is whatever,
wherever people stand on wanting to see two-State or not two-
State, or however they see peace, long lasting peace and
stability in that region taking place, that is something that
has to be addressed is that separation of those two entities.
And I do not see it being looked at a lot, so I would be
curious to know you all's analysis as well.
Mr. Greenway. Thanks, Congressman.
I would say that the direct answer to your question is I do
not think that is the case now.
I think the perspective of the Accords members before and
after the agreement was that they could better contribute to
setting conditions for an eventual brokered settlement,
whatever that might be, by being a member of the Accords and
having normalized diplomatic relations with Israel. And they
point to both Egypt and Jordan as examples of this, where their
influence over Israel, positive and negative, would contribute
to an ultimate resolution, one that they would frankly admit is
not currently within sight.
And I think there is merit to that argument.
Second is I think there is a material way for them to
contribute to the conversation and to set conditions. And I
think that that has probably not been exploited to the degree
to which it could. And one of the ways which I mentioned up
front in my opening remarks, and one of the ways we established
early on with the Accords was a fund to allow Accord member
countries to contribute to infrastructure investment within the
territories. That was both acceptable to Israel and to the
Palestinians, and to the benefit of both.
And I think there is ample opportunity for that to continue
to occur while we are waiting for the resolution of a more
difficult political question.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shapiro. Congressman, I think the attitude of the
Palestinian Authority to the Abraham Accords was very
disappointing. They, of course, have called it a betrayal and
essentially boycotted it. Of course, Hamas, Gaza's terrorist
organization that rejects Israel's existence, are obviously not
going to be a party.
I do think there are different views among the Palestinian
people, the younger generation, businesspeople, people who are
open to the idea, that Palestinians could benefit and
contribute if they were participating in these dialogs.
What I hope is that we will see--we try to do this in our
programs--but I think the Arab States that have normalized with
Israel--the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, in particular are well
positioned to be convenors in forums where both Israelis and
Palestinians participate, look for ways to cooperate, develop
some personal relationships, lower suspicion.
That may not get us to the resolution that I would like to
see, the two-State solution, or any resolution of the conflict,
but it would certainly lower the barriers to an eventual
resumption of negotiations and some kind of resolution by
developing this.
I think these Arab States have more influence in that arena
than they may realize they do, and that we should encourage
them to use it.
Mr. Mast. I appreciate you all taking the time to testify
today. And I yield no time back because I have no time left.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Brian Mast.
And we now proceed to former chairman David Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate you
on your first hearing as chair, chairman of this important
committee. And thank the witnesses for being with us today and
for your testimony.
I think we all recognize that the Abraham Accords is really
an important and historic breakthrough on building and
maintaining peace in the Middle East through new and extended
regional cooperation. And as we acknowledge the successes of
these agreements I am optimistic about the opportunity that
lies ahead to build on these historic achievements.
Additional engagement and partnerships will allow for
cooperation on key issues, which you have discussed. And I, you
know, of course am looking forward to ways in which Congress
can help support efforts to deepen and broaden the Abraham
Accords in a better future for all in the region.
As you mentioned, Ambassador Shapiro, one of the main
impedimenta to expanding the Abraham Accords has been the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. And Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and
Oman have all indicated, to various extents, their interest in
stabilizing relations with Israel, but not without significant
steps toward peace.
And so what I am wondering is if you have recommendations
on the kinds of things that we might be suggesting to our State
Department in these conversations that would provide some
engagement to Palestinians, some benefits so they would see the
Abraham Accords is not only bringing more peace and stability
to the region but actual benefits to them?
Mr. Shapiro. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
The kinds of projects that have already been announced, for
example the Prosperity Green and Prosperity Blue solar energy
for desalinated water exchange between Jordan and Israel,
financed by the United Arab Emirates, is a very good example of
a project that could have and should, I think, include the
Palestinians. They are, obviously, in the same geographic area.
They have similar needs for energy and water. They could be a
contributor but also a beneficiary of that and ten other joint
projects like it.
I discussed the idea that the UAE can be a convenor of the
kinds of exchanges where Israelis and Palestinians outside
their own immediate environment can actually meet with their
mutual Arab partners to do business deals, to do development
projects, do education initiatives. And just by doing that, it
shows that there is something to be gained by Palestinians by
contributing.
It is not going to answer all of their immediate needs. It
is not going to start a negotiation tomorrow. And, certainly,
the lack of trust, almost total lack of trust between Israeli
and Palestinian leaders is a big barrier. We are not going to
overcome that tomorrow.
But I do think those parties, with U.S. sponsorship and
organization, can draw Palestinians into these dialogs with
Israelis and with their other Arab partners and change that
dynamic rather than dramatically.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
And, you know, I think we all recognize this past year has
been one of the deadliest periods of violence in the West Bank
in nearly two decades. And I am wondering whether you, General,
or you Mr. or President Greenway, have thoughts on whether or
not the parties to the Abraham Accords have been helpful and
can they be helpful in terms of assisting and responding to
some of the violence and brokering some kinds of agreements
because of their new positions as members of the Abraham
Accords?
Has that proved useful or has that not really spilled over
into some of these issues with respect to settlement expansion?
Mr. Shapiro. OK. You know, the UAE is struggling with this.
They are a member of the U.N. Security Council. They have
several times in the last 2 or 3 months brought complaints on
behalf of other Arab countries to the U.N. Security Council
about statements or actions by Israel in the West Bank.
I do not think they have been as consistently critical as I
think they should be of Palestinian terrorist attacks that take
the lives of Israelis or, indeed, of Palestinian Authority
salaries paid to terrorists.
But, again, it is a demonstration that they are, they are
positioned to play a role as both a supporter of both. They are
now friends with Israel, and nobody would want them to withhold
any of that, but also friends and partners to the Palestinians.
They can be supporters. They can be coaches. They can put some
positive pressure on each side to avoid the things that make it
harder, or keep the situation on the ground very tense, or make
it harder to resume negotiations.
I would like to see them step more into that role.
Obviously, that should be done in coordination with the United
States.
Mr. Votel. Congressman, I completely agree with the
Ambassador. I think that, I think the key point here is that
the maturing of the Abraham Accords relationships will really
give the opportunity for trustful communication between the
partners in the arrangement. That does take time, frankly. I
think we are seeing some of that. People are treading lightly,
but over time continuing investments I think does provide a
good platform of addressing really sensitive issues like, like
you raised.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Cicilline.
We now proceed to Congressman Rich McCormick of Georgia.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to make
this quick because each one of you brings such a wealth of
knowledge, I am really excited about this.
I am going to start with the general, if you do not mind.
I2U2, are you familiar with I2U2?
Mr. Votel. I am not sure that I am.
Mr. McCormick. With India, Israel, United States, and UAE,
the partnership they have, sharing information, sharing
economy, and just kind of thinking outside the box with what we
have with the Abraham, and thinking outside even the regional
benefit of the Abraham.
As we tie in other places you have a big country like
Indonesia, which is primarily Muslim, and who also has a
potential to come in and be a part of this greater peace
process. What do you think about expanding this outside of the
direct region?
Mr. Votel. I think it is extraordinarily important, in my
view. Again, I think the benefit of these types of accords,
these types of arrangements, is they promote dialog and they
promote communication between partners. And I think whenever
you are doing that you are reducing risk for things happening.
So, I am very, very supportive.
I understand Indonesia is one of the countries that has
been most engaged to date in some of the expansion. So, I think
that is a, I think that is a positive, positive thing.
That said, the priority needs to remain in the Middle East.
Mr. McCormick. Absolutely.
Mr. Votel. That is where the original problem really
exists.
Mr. McCormick. Perfect. And I agree with you, power in
numbers, especially with such a large population of the Muslim
community coming on board in that peace process.
Honorable Mr. Greenway--by the way, thank you for both of
your services, too, by the way, as fellow military brothers in
arms. When we talk about the second largest Shi'a population in
the world, next to Iran, being in Azerbaijan, and having Russia
distracted with a war where they have basically withdrawn from
the Armenian region, provides a real needed opportunity, I
think, to kind of go in there and establish this presence. What
are the holdups, or what are the pros and cons do you think to
including Azerbaijan? And how can we get them pulled in quickly
while Russia is distracted?
Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Congressman. Excellent question.
And your preceding one was I think as well.
I think that, well, first, Azerbaijan already has a strong
relationship with Israel. And so membership in the Accords
would be more formal and symbolic than substantive because of
the relationship they already enjoy.
To your broader point on whether there is room for us to
pull Azerbaijan out of the other Central Asian States more
closely within the fold, at the expense of Russia and China,
which I think would be their strong preference, I think there
is in fact an opportunity for us to do exactly that. And I
think the time is certainly right for it.
And we would, I think, increase our flexibility, and also
economic prosperity for ourselves, and also for the region. The
benefit of looking outside the Middle East, particularly, the
Middle East, North Africa, to Asia and to the Central Asian
States is the economic benefit that ties them together,
increases the bond, the bond that endures.
So, I think any effort we can make along those lines would
be beneficial.
Mr. McCormick. That's perfect. And I always stress that
economic tie, which kind of goes to I2U2, and with the other,
especially you mentioned Azerbaijan's strong economic ties to
Israel, especially with energy, so that is what I am looking
for.
Ambassador, I am going to shift back to more local
concerns. You mentioned in your opening remarks the
deteriorating relationship between Israel and Palestine. I have
been in the military for over 30 years, or around the military
for over 30 years, it always seemed bad to me. I do not see how
we can deteriorate from bad to bad. I am just curious what you
mean by that.
I mean, it always seems like we kind of vacillate but we
never really get good. So, I do not understand what you mean by
deteriorating. What specifically do you mean?
I mean, is there a path forward? It seems like there is a
vested interest since a certain guy came along to divide us,
people actually make a profit off of dividing us. And I do not
know how we overcome that other than to tie them in somehow
economically. At one time it seemed like they were kind of blue
color workers, they had a pretty good relationship, pretty
economically sound model for those particular, that particular
demographic to succeed. And now that has kind of gone by the
wayside.
Mr. Shapiro. Congressman, it is obviously a situation that
does go through ups and downs and various cycles. I do not
think anyone would dispute that the recent months has seen a
spike in violence and number of terrorist, deadly terrorist
attacks by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli citizens. A
number of operations the Israeli military has undertaken to go
after those who are responsible for those attacks. And
sometimes civilians are wounded in those or killed in those
operations.
Mr. McCormick. I get your point.
I am sorry, I am almost out of time.
Just what do you think, if we, once again I think Iran is,
if you take away the big brother, the person who is kind of
supplying the motivation, the arms behind it, is there a way to
divide them from that and cutoff that supply that would benefit
this process?
Mr. Shapiro. I think the best opportunity, and I am not
saying anybody can promise that this is a guarantee of success,
but to get Palestinians who have been drawn toward violent
extremism, drawn toward the sponsors who are the providers of
that kind of weaponry--and I do not mean Hamas, who are
ideologically committed to Israel's destruction--I mean other
Palestinians who have in the past at least considered what
would it look like to live alongside Israel in the two-State
solution, would be to, first of all, show some improved
conditions on the ground via economic and security upgrades
and, second of all, to show that there is a horizon, a path, a
diplomatic pathway that could get back to that outcome if they
are willing and, obviously, if Israel is also willing to engage
in that diplomatic process.
As long as it looks absolutely hopeless from the
Palestinian perspective that there will ever be any end, then I
suspect it will be harder for us to steer more Palestinians
away from that path as we absolutely should be trying to do.
Mr. McCormick. Apologize for going over time.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Rich
Burchett. We now proceed to Congressman--Excuse me, to Rich
McCormick.
We now have Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Shapiro, you know, we are quick to be critical
of anti-Semitism overseas. And we should; we have got it here.
But, of course, overseas it has been thousands of years before
we were even a country. I am wondering what can the Abraham
Accords do to help put a stop to some of it?
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman. It is an excellent
question, and something I am quite excited about.
In December, our N7 Initiative hosted a conference in
Morocco on education and coexistence. And we brought together
from eight countries, Israel and seven Arab countries,
educators of NGO's involved in coexistence, interfaith work,
including a number of Arab activists in Morocco, and in the
UAE, and in Bahrain who are working to educate their own
populations against anti-Semitic narratives that have been
present in their societies or their education systems for far
too long, for understanding the common roots of Judaism and
Islam, and the times during history when Jews and Muslims have
lived peacefully alongside each other.
There is a lot of pride in that, particularly in Morocco
where the Jewish community has been a major part of Moroccan
society of centuries.
And so, I think there are initiatives underway. There is
Holocaust education now being brought into their school
systems, at least the UAE and Morocco, for the first time. So
there is significant progress. And all of this is made possible
by the dialogs and the cross-pollination discussions that were
only really started after the Abraham Accords came into being.
Mr. Burchett. Would you say that leadership sometimes I
find that they want to stay in power? And that seems to be the
key. And as long as Jews, and Muslims, and Christians are all
fighting it keeps the same old bunch of dirtbags in power? And
would you say that is a safe assumption?
Mr. Shapiro. I think there are many examples of that
dynamic throughout history.
Mr. Burchett. ``Dirtbags'' is probably not in you
diplomatic dossier, but it is in mine, so.
Mr. Shapiro. I think, Congressman, you can find many
examples of that dynamic throughout history.
Mr. Burchett. All right. I will take that as a yes.
Mr. Greenway, Saudi Arabia's interest to engage publicly
with Israel affects other countries. And I would be interested
in do you feel like they are interested in normalizing those
relations?
Mr. Greenway. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
We had a number of conversations with our Saudi partners
while we were negotiating the Abraham Accords, before and
since. I would say, first, that public discussions about
negotiations tend to increase negotiating leverage of one or
more parties. Usually it become detrimental.
It is why the Accords themselves were never disclosed or
announced before they were concluded. So, I think any public
discussion usually has a less-than-productive impact on it.
My private and conversations, and what has been, I think,
disclosed publicly generally comports with the conclusion that
this is really about the Riyadh-Washington relationship and has
very--has a lot less to do with the relationship with Israel.
And on sound footing I think there is room to proceed.
I think, ultimately, it is in our interests, the United
States' best interests. I think it is certainly within Israel's
best interests. I think it is also within the Kingdom's best
interests. But I do think that we would have to repair the
relationship and build on a sounder footing in order to
proceed.
Ultimately, I do think it is about integrating our partners
and allies in the region, which I think they desperately want.
And I do think that there is certainly room to address
legitimate security concerns.
And the previous comments about the Saudi discussion and
potential requirement to pursue civil deeper cooperation, I
think the general point there is they do not want to see a
standard upheld by the United States that is one way for Tehran
and another way for partners and allies in the region. And I
think they would be comfortable with the gold standard 123
Agreement that saw the construction of Barakah and the UAE
ultimately, provided that the United States did not enable a
wholesale civil and military nuclear program in Tehran.
Mr. Burchett. Do you think there is any additional measures
that need to be taken to support peace besides those that you
mentioned?
Mr. Greenway. Well, I think there certainly are. And,
again, I think providing for our security and stability in the
region, and our partners' and allies', would demonstrate
exactly that level of commitment.
I think the right approach on Tehran, as the shared-upon
and the agreed-upon principal threat to peace and stability in
the region, would go a long way toward doing that. So, I think
if we make movement in that direction, I think we will find
partners moving with us.
Mr. Burchett. What do you think America sees by expanding
these Accords, what benefits? Quickly.
Mr. Greenway. The first is to constrain China's ambitions
globally.
The second is to secure global markets upon which we are
dependent and the principal beneficiary.
And the third would be to see stability in the region that
all too often has required a huge expenditure for the United
States to redress.
Mr. Burchett. Those are three good things.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remaining 8 seconds.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Tim Burchett. And we
appreciate your very accurate terminology, whatever you use.
So, this is correct.
With this, we are very fortunate to have Congressman
Michael Lawler from New York.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
of you for testifying today.
Ambassador Shapiro, you made note in your remarks of the
legislation that Congressman Torres and I have introduced to
create a special envoy specifically for the Abraham Accords.
Why do you believe that would be an effective tool, if you
will, to help ensure the stability and long-term success of the
Abraham Accords?
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman.
I think when Administrations elevate their focus on
particular areas and appointments of that nature, special
envoy, they can have other titles, can help do that, it
demonstrates a very significant commitment that gets the
attention of our foreign partners, obviously those in the
region, those who have already made their decision to normalize
with Israel, and the additional steps that we seek to have them
deepen those conversations. Those States that have not yet
normalized relations, and there is a focal point for
discussions with those countries. And even for external
partners.
Mr. McCormick mentioned the I2U2 Initiative that India has
constructively contributed to, while we have a lot of other
U.S. partners in Europe, in Asia, that also could be
contributors. But somebody needs to sort of corral that.
Somebody needs to organize that. Somebody needs to be the focal
point.
And then within our own Government, I mentioned it is not
just the State Department, it is not just the Defense
Department that has to do this. There are numerous other
cabinet departments that have something to contribute.
But, again, having a focal point for organizing all of that
effort, and even the effort of external non-government entities
that want to contribute, I think is made easier when you have
that sort of focal point.
Mr. Lawler. So, obviously in 2020 the Abraham Accords were
entered into with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco. They have
somewhat, I do not want to say stalled, but obviously I think,
you know, there was obviously a change in Administration here,
and there are other, other events that have happened in the
world, obviously the Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of
them. It is your belief that whether it is a special envoy or
some sort of heightened position, that would help maybe
continue to push this forward toward success?
I mean, we are seeing, you know, other countries allowing
Israeli airlines to operate and come into their airspace which,
certainly, I think is a positive step toward more normalized
relations. But you agree that ultimately having this type of
position, or something similar, would help advance the ball
here?
Mr. Shapiro. I do.
I want to give full credit to the Biden Administration. I
think they have invested in this. I think the Negev Summit and
the resulting Negev Forum and the working groups that have met,
as you've mentioned, the opening of airspace first in Saudi
Arabia, now in Oman, that facilitates much shorter flights
between Israel and the Far East, some of the other visits, and
the I2U2, and some of the other engagements that the United
States has helped sponsor, all result from good work, good
diplomatic work.
But, again, you can do even more when you have a high level
focal point without our own Government and dealing with foreign
governments.
Mr. Lawler. What additional countries would you, and just
if you could name them, just in the interests of time, but what
additional countries would you like to see ideally enter into
the Abraham Accords?
Mr. Shapiro. Of course Saudi Arabia is the biggest prize
but probably one of the most difficult. I think Oman,
Mauritania, Qatar, and Kuwait are all possibilities. Next,
outside of the region, Indonesia, Somalia, Niger, and Malaysia
are also legitimate candidates.
Mr. Lawler. OK. Last, and you are somewhat uniquely
positioned on this, given both your role as former Ambassador
to Israel, but also your work as a consultant with respect to
Iran, how do you think the Administration's approach toward
Iran, and their efforts as recently as last year to restart the
Iran Nuclear Deal, impacts the Abraham Accords and the
potential of other countries, like Saudi Arabia, to really
engage with Israel?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, you know, one thing Israel and a number
of these Arab partners, those that have normalized this, have
not agreed on is that they disagree with the United States.
They disagreed at the time the JCPOA was signed, and they
disagree with the Biden Administration's approach. But I think
that--to try to reenter it.
But I think that ship has largely sailed. I do not see an
opportunity to go back into that deal. Things that were
possible or necessary in order to do it I do not think are
possible anymore in light of Iran's oppression of its own
people, and the protests, and arming of Russia in the war in
Ukraine. So, I think we are in a new phase.
Mr. Lawler. Just so I am clear, is it your position that
the United States should not try to restart?
Mr. Shapiro. I do not think it is even an option at this
point.
Mr. Lawler. OK.
Mr. Shapiro. I think we are in a new phase where
deterrence, and that is something that the United States,
Israel, and a lot of these Arab partners can agree on is going
to be a central portion, a central component of a new Iran
policy, obviously drawing certain lines about things that Iran
might do, hopefully will not do, but if they would do would
draw a response of one kind or another from one or a coalition
of these partners.
So, I think there is actually a new opportunity, mostly
because of Iran's behavior and Iran's refusal to try to return
to that agreement, and then do all of these other destabilizing
things, to coalesce a more unified U.S. and regional policy to
deal with Iran.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the additional time.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Michael
Lawler.
And, also, I am really grateful that we have the co-
chairman of the Bulgaria Caucus here, Congressman Brad
Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
personally thank you for allowing me to join the committee
hearing this morning.
I want to thank our witnesses first and foremost for your
service to our Nation, all three of you in different ways. We
are grateful to you as a country, and for your time here, and
for your commitment to the Abraham Accords.
I have the privilege of being one of the co-founders and
co-chairs of the bipartisan, bicameral Abraham Accords Caucus.
And I think that is a reflection of what we do, what you do in
this fundamental belief that the Abraham Accords Caucus are one
of the most bright things we see coming out of the Middle East.
It is something that we, as a Nation, should be extraordinarily
proud of, being the facilitator of this accords a couple of
years ago, and something that we need to be completely
committed to.
As you have touched on, we need to make sure that we are
deepening the roots of the Accords in the countries that have
signed the Accords today, while at the same time I would argue
working to help it branch out, branch out in two ways that you
have touched on:
One, bring more countries in. Saudi Arabia obviously would
be very welcome. But, Ambassador Shapiro, as you touched on,
reaching out to Europe, building relationships with Asia, and
making sure that this becomes a centerpiece of diplomacy and
opportunity.
In that vein, I think one of the challenges we face is
demonstrating the value of the Abraham Accords, first to the
decisionmakers in the region and around but, also, critically,
to the people living in these countries, that they see the
benefits of the Accords, and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to
the region, and through that commitment to the Accords.
So, I will start with you, Ambassador Shapiro.
How do we work to make sure that the people living in the
region see the value of the Accords, and that they see the U.S.
commitment to the region and to the Abraham Accords itself?
Mr. Shapiro. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
The Negev Forum, obviously, is one effort to try to come up
with projects and proposals that will go beyond the leadership
level, but show benefit to the public in the different sectors,
energy, health, water, and food, et cetera.
The problem is the Negev Forum is a consensus organization
and moves very slowly. It takes time for the ministers to meet
again and ratify the work done at the working level. And so,
there are a lot of proposals but very little has actually been
implemented.
Those things that have been implemented haven't been
region-wide, they have been sort of between individual
countries: the UAE-Israel Food Trade Agreement; I mentioned the
Prosperity Green and Blue; Israel-Jordan-UAE Agreement.
We are, as I said, at the Atlantic Council trying the N7
Initiative to bring together a Track 2 or Track 1.5 component
to run parallel to the Negev Forum so that a broader community
of experts can build a network, develop ideas for projects that
really are focused precisely on that. How does a citizen of one
of these countries feel that they have a new educational
opportunity, new better health care, better access to water and
food security than they did before, and because of these
agreements?
So, there is a number of ways. It requires a lot of
investment by expertise. It requires money, of course, some
from governments, some from private or foundation or
philanthropic entities. But that really needs to be the focus
going forward.
Mr. Schneider. General Votel, let me turn to you. And just
to refresh, sir, we actually spoke about a year-and-a-half ago
with a mutual friend Al Goldstein. So, it is good to see you
here. But I would love to have your thoughts on this as well.
Mr. Votel. Absolutely.
So, just to build a little bit on that, I think one of the
most important things that could take place is the promotion of
people-to-people exchanges in contact between countries.
Obviously, tourism provides an opportunity for this, but so
does exchanges for education purposes, for business purposes,
for health care, for technology exchanges. I think these are
extraordinarily important. And people in each of the countries
who are parties to the agreement will begin to see this. And
so, I think this idea of promoting people-to-people exchanges.
Certainly there is a series of exercises and other things
that are taking place in the Gulf, and in the air over the
Gulf, and in a variety of areas. A demonstration of, you know,
an effective defense against the threat certainly will, I
think, is something that needs to be emphasized in the region.
And, again, people will begin to see that.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
And, Mr. Greenway, give you the last word.
Mr. Greenway. I appreciate it, Congressman. Excellent
question.
I think we spend a lot of our time on implementation. There
have been over 260 agreements between the Accord member
countries. And we spend most of our time connecting ministries,
departments, agencies, public and private institutions, to
execute these:
Academic exchanges, including scholars and fellows
programs; athletic events which will encompass some of the
first international Abraham Accords-based international
athletic events this year; an agriculture initiative between
the Accord member countries actually putting shovels in the
ground in Sudan this year; expanding cross-border trade by
expanding infrastructure; and, as you mentioned earlier,
bringing external support to this.
We have worked hard to build caucuses in the U.K., in
France, in Germany, in Brussels, in Hungary just this past
week, and soon we hope in other countries as well, and in Asia
in order to leverage that support.
So, implementation and follow-through on agreements that
have already been achieved I think will go a long way toward
cementing the ties, demonstrating the benefit to people, and
encouraging others to join.
Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you.
And let me just emphasize, I agree with everything you
said.
General Votel, you have talked about people-to-people. We
have had the chance here with the caucus to meet with the
Ambassadors of the Abraham Accords countries, Israel, UAE,
Bahrain, Morocco. It is very important.
And if I can, Mr. Chairman, we are working to try to get a
trip to the Abraham Accords countries, and would love to try to
work with you on that as well.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Chairman, co-chair of the
Abraham Accords Caucus, for your--you have had so many
chairmanships it is hard to keep them straight. But I just want
to say that is terrific. In fact, you are doing so good we are
going to have a second round. And when we have such
distinguished individuals here. And so we would like to
proceed, including Chairman Schneider.
So, at this time, Ambassador Shapiro, the normalization of
relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan
have been an historic accomplishment during the Trump
Administration, benefiting all of the Abraham Accords countries
and the United States. At this point, what roadblocks might be
stopping more Arab countries from joining the Abraham Accords?
And if you could review again the benefits that signatories
have made since normalizing relations?
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The benefits, I think, are flowing on a regular basis.
There are already people-to-people exchanges, as General Votel
mentioned, although room for vast expansion of those. There are
the beginnings of educational exchanges, Israeli students
studying at Arab universities and vice versa. There is room to
dramatically expand that as well.
There is a free trade agreement between the UAE and Israel,
and a dramatic increase in bilateral trade between them, and
negotiations on an Israel-Bahrain agreement.
And then, of course, there are the various things that
those governments sought from the United States, again
something that the United States has always done in Arab-
Israeli peacemaking, which is make a contribution. The UAE
sought a particular weapons system. It hasn't actually followed
through on that, but that was part of that agreement.
And Morocco got the recognition of Western Sahara.
So, they of course seek something in their own interests in
addition to what they get out of the relationship with Israel.
I think other countries, of course, look at some of those
negotiations and they look for the right moment. They look for
the question of whether they, too, would be in a bargaining
situation with the United States. I think we need to expect
that with any country that comes forward.
They also, I think, look for the moment when they would
find this to be something they could most easily absorb in
their own political systems. That is where the tensions between
Israelis and Palestinians that have increased have also, I
think, been a--have the potential to slow additional countries
from coming into the fold.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And indeed, President Greenway, it has just been awesome to
see the agreement between Lebanon and Israel. I just I cannot
even visualize how important that is for the offshore drilling
of oil and natural gas, environmentally sound. How important it
is to back up a country that should be great, but it is not, as
Lebanon. It has been great in terms of economic opportunity and
achievement. But the economic stability that can be achieved by
the sale of oil and gas.
And then how extraordinary to put together the benefit to
Israel and then the thought that this would tie directly to
Egypt for the refining, and then tie to Italy for the export.
And also to have an impact on war criminal Putin.
And so, again, the offshore drilling I was hoping to get
more attention what an achievement that is, because what you
have Lebanon wins, Israel wins, Egypt wins, Italy wins, war
criminal Putin loses.
Are there any other initiatives that you see that--I think
it would be hard to replicate that--but are there any other
economic achievements that could be achieved between the
countries of the Middle East?
Mr. Greenway. Well, you bring up, I think, one of the most
important areas, Chairman, and that is energy cooperation. And
I think we haven't yet seen the full potential of this.
And so, while cooperation between parties we have already
mentioned, chiefly Israel and Egypt in this case, but others
within the Mediterranean can, I think, offset and replace the
loss of Russian gas. Some 43 percent of Europe's energy
requirements were met previously by Russia. That loss has not
been replaced.
There isn't yet infrastructure plans in place to offset it
completely. The United States, Norway, and others I think have
taken steps, but there is not yet a mid-to long-term plan in
place. This is where we judge the Abraham Accords countries,
including Israel, Egypt, and other partners could, in fact,
offset, if not replace the loss of Russian gas to Europe. And I
think the U.S. can play a critical role in doing it.
The plans previously existed but the business model to
require the infrastructure investment did not until Russia
invaded Ukraine. And at that point it then becomes perfectly
reasonable. But it will take time, effort to do. It will be an
enormous revenue generator for the participant countries. It
will also, again, strategically align our partners to one
another and not dependent upon an adversary.
So, we cannot emphasize the enormous potential of this too
much, but there is a lot of work to be done.
Mr. Wilson. Well, it is just exciting to see the offshore
drilling, the consequence. That could be expanded to pipelines
to Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, to the Western Balkans, all to
provide the energy independence for that region of Southeastern
Europe.
And so, I yield back.
And now we have Congresswoman Kathy Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again to our witnesses for sharing your time
and your expertise.
So, there are two other countries in the immediate region
that we have barely mentioned. And Mr. Chairman just mentioned
Lebanon which, sadly, is on the verge of becoming a failed
State. We haven't even talked about Syria, which is the source
of countless problems in the region.
So, I am wondering is there any way that the Abraham
Accords countries working together could have any positive
impact on either of those countries?
I saw a smile on Ambassador Shapiro's face. I do not know
if that meant you were hoping someone else would answer the
question or you would like to take it on?
Mr. Votel. Well, I think it is an excellent question,
Congresswoman.
I think the defense, security and defense cooperation
between Israel and other countries in the region, particularly
those that are involved in this, I think does increase the
opportunity to emplace measures that can have an impact on
Iran's ability to move their lethal resources closer to Israel.
That is very indirect right now. But I think when we, when
we look at some of the initiatives that are being undertaken
right now by U.S. Central Command with a very excellent
commander trying to, you know, create a series of sensors, and
drones, and all backed by artificial intelligence, to really
understand what is happening in the Gulf, that gives us the
opportunity to better control the maritime movement of lethal,
lethal aid.
The same thing could apply to the air. These things, I
think are, they are indirect at this point, but they could have
the opportunity to have an impact on that.
I think, you know, what is most important I think what I am
trying to emphasize to you is that showing a united front and
then demonstrating coherent approaches to security and defense
in the region can have a--can address that situation and
particularly with respect to some of the Iranian malign
influence that plays out in Syria, and affects Israel, and
others in the region as well.
Ms. Manning. Thank you.
So, let me ask this question: what can we be doing in
Congress to support and foster the expansion of the Abraham
Accords? You have talked about so many ways these Accords and
the interaction of these countries is transformative and can be
even more transformative for the region, what can we in
Congress be doing to be supportive?
And I would actually ask each of you to answer that.
Ambassador Shapiro, would you mind starting?
Mr. Shapiro. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think, first of all, the establishment of the Abraham
Accords Caucuses in and of itself demonstrates that this is a
cause that deserves bipartisan sustained investment and support
rather than being the province of one party or one
Administration. And I think that is very, very important.
The visits that a number of members have already made, and
Congressman Schneider referenced additional visits that will
come, are an opportunity to go and talk directly to those
leaders and people, and explain why it is that the United
States sees its own interests and the interests of its partners
served by doing this.
And then as I also indicated, there are, there is more than
just the negotiations that the State Department sponsors, more
than just the security cooperation that the Defense Department
and the military lead on. Almost every department of the U.S.
Government has an international affairs program, has something
to bring to it: things as diverse as USTR's expertise on trade
negotiations; the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's ability to
bring curriculum on Holocaust education; the U.S., the Center
for Disease Control's ability to share, provide information,
and networks for sharing about future pandemics. These are just
a few examples.
But every Member of Congress sits on a committee and has
oversight over, has jurisdiction over a department that could
be encouraged, and maybe even more than encouraged and
impounded to participate in this. And kind of this whole
government approach I think would be the right way to think
about how the Congress can make its biggest contribution.
Ms. Manning. Wonderful. Mr. Schneider, you have your
charge.
And, Mr. Greenway, would you add to that?
Mr. Greenway. Yes, Congresswoman, happy to.
It already mentioned energy cooperation in the free trade
area and, like Ambassador Shapiro, would allow the formation of
a caucus in both House and Senate. I would say that we, the
United States, allocates a fair amount of money toward Middle
East peace more broadly, and has for many decades.
And I would say no need to look at additional preparations,
but perhaps ensuring those that currently exist could encompass
the Abraham Accords. So, we spend a lot of money on supporting
programs that nominally support peace between Israel and
Palestine, and Israel and its neighbors, but we do not allocate
resources toward it. So, perhaps looking at existing
legislation, modifying it to encompass the Accords so that we
could encourage and support the actual piece that is manifested
in front of us
Second is, I think, providing capabilities to our partners.
It enables them, one, to defend themselves more appropriately,
and reduces the burden on us. So, ultimately, I think we need
to get to a point where we are more comfortable with
accelerating the provision of capabilities to our partners. And
it will send exactly the right message to them.
But I would emphasize that trade, and energy, and the
economic argument does provide for a strong rationale. If we
want them to get along, they are going to have to trade with
each other to the point where they will defend that trade
relationship.
Ms. Manning. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Manning.
And I want to thank you for raising, indeed, there are so
many countries that need to be addressed, and Lebanon, Syria.
As we are thinking of the tremendous success, the Kingdom of
Jordan. And then our hopes for the people of Iran, our
appreciation of the women of Iran. And then West Balkans, when
you think of countries that have come to life: Albania, North
Macedonia. And then you go to Serbia, what a great opportunity
for civility in a region that was unimaginable.
And so, with that I want to proceed. And our last
questioner will be, of course, someone extremely important
because he is the Abraham Accords Co-Chairman Brad Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General Votel, let me go back to what you put in your
opening remarks about the importance of U.S. leadership, and
the question I asked earlier, the demonstration of U.S.
commitment to the region. I can start with you, but I will ask
the whole panel what should we be doing to demonstrate our
commitment and leadership in the region?
And I will give one leading aspect to it, the idea of
coordinated defense, sharing of information, collaboration
across systems.
Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Congressman, or Mr. Chairman.
These are areas in which we have extraordinary expertise
within our military and across, across all services. And so, I
know in helping our partners develop better shared awareness
systems, you know, to share information among themselves as we
have been able to do very effectively, I think is one of the
ways that we can, we can help, help our partners become more
resilient and more self-reliant in looking after their own
defense.
So, you know, sharing our lessons learned, sharing our
practices, putting our leaders into a place where they can
advocate for these types of approaches I think are really, are
really important.
I also think an area where we could provide some additional
help is in the area of security cooperation. Candid discussions
with our partners about the capabilities that they need and
should be acquiring I think are extraordinarily important. And
this, I think, has been a longtime challenge in the region. And
so, this is an area where we can actually demonstrate some
leadership.
And then, finally, just the ability for us to bring people
together, to be a convenor. We do not have to drive the whole
conversation, but the fact of the matter is in the Middle East
when the United States speaks it carries weight. And our
leaders, like the CENTCOM commander, or our various
Ambassadors, or others, really do have that level of
credibility that they can bring people together to talk about,
talk about the difficult challenges.
So, this idea of a convenor I think is a really important
way for us to demonstrate our leadership.
Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Greenway?
Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Congressman.
I would say first, it has come up before, that if we do
not, I think, have some common agreement on how to approach the
threat from Iran, it is going to be difficult to make progress
across a number of other fronts, including security
cooperation.
We have talked about a number of issues today. But I cannot
overemphasize the fact that this is the most pressing threat to
all of them. What happens in the Israel-Palestine conflict
matters to them, but not nearly to the point in which the
immediate threat to their very survival coming from Tehran
today is, and the desperate need for U.S. leadership in the
response to that threat. That is a huge opportunity.
And I agree with Ambassador Shapiro that it seems the ship
has sailed. It is an opportunity, then, for us, I think, to
stake a claim in partnership with our allies in the region. And
that would allow us to convene from a position of strength,
which I think they all and we want.
Second, I would say our support for Israel is critically
important during this time. The rest of the region watches us
incredibly closely. They cannot be more pro-Israel than we are.
That does not mean unequivocal or without conditions. It does
mean if there is daylight between the capitals, there will be
huge daylight between their capitals.
Second, I would say that building support abroad, which we
have talked about actually matters a great deal, and adds
additional leverage and other partners in this expanding and
supporting the Accords.
And, last, I would say they always ask this question. We
ask them to commit resources toward each other and toward the
region. They ask us what have we committed to the Abraham
Accords? And the answer to that question is we really haven't
at all.
And I think that there is room for us to do it. And I'm not
saying that we need to find resources. I am saying we could
look at existing resources and apply them more effectively to
support the Accords. And that to date has not yet occurred.
Mr. Schneider. OK, thank you.
I will give you the last word, Ambassador Shapiro. Before I
give it to you I do want to go back to a conversation earlier
where you were asked about two States. And I do not think
anyone is talking about a two-State solution on the horizon. It
is not going to be a second State where it is a terrorist
State. That is a non-starter.
And as you said, Mr. Greenway, the greatest threat, the
existential threat is a nuclear Iran. And I agree that the ship
has sailed on past agreement. We need to make sure that Iran
understands that we are looking forward and will never allow
Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But we are also looking at a
place where we are pursuing peace in the region.
So Ambassador Shapiro, I give you the last word.
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman.
I think the narrative that sometimes pervades in the region
of a U.S. withdrawal, or a U.S. absence, or the U.S. pivoting
to other regions is rather exaggerated. It is true, of course,
that three consecutive presidents of very different characters
and Administrations have all demonstrated different ways. The
American people are not looking for new major military
entanglements in the region, but we are still there. CENTCOM is
still the main convenor and still the main partner for all
these countries as we are now involved in it.
I think President Biden made a very courageous decision and
the right decision to travel to the region last summer, knowing
he would get some criticism for going and meeting with the
Saudis, but as a way of indicating to all of these countries
that we may have had some disagreements, and we may have, at
times, different views about what the right approach is on a
given problem, but the United States is committed to that
partnership, is committed to ensuring that the partners have
the ability to defend themselves but, also, that we are there
as an ultimate backstop.
But then, of course, we also have expectations that they
will act in ways that are consistent with core U.S. interests
when it comes to China, when it comes to Russia, when it comes
to oil markets.
So, being a good, faithful partner that expects the flow of
that partnership to go in both directions I think is critically
important.
And, finally, I would just add that I do think that when
you get to moments like the current one where there is a
deterioration between Israelis and Palestinians, that can be
destabilizing for Jordan, that can be difficult to Egypt, that
can be a source of tension between Israel and new partners, and
prevent progress between Israel and partners that haven't yet
joined with them.
And there, too, showing that the United States is invested
in that, cares, tries to improve the situation long before it
is possible to actually negotiate it toward a solution so that
Israelis and Palestinians, but also everyone in that circle,
broader circle that is affected by those events, sees some U.S.
commitment and investment trying to improve the situation also
adds to our leadership capability in the region.
Mr. Wilson. And, again, thank you, Congressman Brad
Schneider, for your vision to create the bipartisan Abraham
Accords Caucus.
And another point that you just made is so important, and
that is that it is bipartisan, that there be every effort, any
effort, every effort that could possibly be made for Iran not
to achieve nuclear weapons. What a threat that would be to
world stability. And, so, it is bipartisan truly here in
support of every effort to block the ability of Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
With that, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the members for their questions. The members of
the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses. And we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
And with this, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]