[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          TIME IS RIPE FOR A MIDDLE EASTERN SECURITY FRAMEWORK

  Mr. DeConcini. Mr. President, since 1990, the cochairman of the 
Helsinki Commission, Steny Hoyer, and I have advocated creation of a 
CSCE-like process in the Middle East. The historic agreement between 
Israel and the PLO last September has made the possibility of such a 
scheme more real than ever before. And while there are no guarantees a 
CSCME process could resolve all complex and explosive issues in the 
region, we now stand at an historic juncture where long-absent 
political will may suddenly exist, and for the first time, nations in 
the region appear at least willing to engage in dialog. In this 
climate, a regional negotiating framework could foster additional 
confidence-building measures. And it is these little initial steps, Mr. 
President, which I surely believe are necessary to inspire the trust 
and contacts between people needed to progress on tougher issues in the 
future.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize the need to aggressively pursue 
all avenues which will promote peace and stability in the Middle East. 
The opportunity we are confronted with is rare and should not be 
squandered. And we are all too well aware of the extremist forces 
working to sabotage the peace process at every turn.
  Mr. President, I would like to share a recent op-ed by Cochairman 
Hoyer on the CSCME process published in the Washington Times. The piece 
offers some persuasive arguments for our Government's involvement in 
promoting CSCME, and I hope that this body will support such efforts. 
For surely, as a CSCME is in the best interests of all regional 
participants, it will also safeguard our own best interests.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, June 21, 1994]

            A New Framework for Progress in the Middle East

                          (By Steny H. Hoyer)

       The mutual recognition agreement last September between 
     Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization marked a 
     historic step forward toward peace in the Middle East.
       Since then, Palestinians and Israelis working together to 
     meet the critical initial needs of coexistence have 
     fundamentally altered the politics of the Middle East. The 
     possibility of a broader security framework has finally 
     become a reality. An opportunity exists for the states of the 
     Middle East to engage in a process in which old hatreds and 
     passions can be rechanneled into constructive dialogues 
     between states and peoples; by which barriers to trade, 
     travel and communication can be discussed and removed; and 
     within which regional stability can be established.
       Since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, I, along 
     with Senator Dennis DeConcini, have suggested that a 
     Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East 
     (CSCME), modeled on the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), could make a significant and 
     constructive contribution to that end. Today, the leaders of 
     Israel, Turkey, and other Middle Eastern nations and our own 
     administration have also determined that the time is right 
     for a CSCME.
       The CSCE--also known as the Helsinki process--was born with 
     the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on Aug. 1, 1975, which 
     set forth principles by which states would deal with each 
     other and with their citizens. Despite its name, the Final 
     Act marked the beginning of a remarkable political dialogue 
     in a bitterly divided, postwar Europe. By providing for 
     periodic follow-up meetings, the CSCE brought hostile states 
     to the table over and over again to address the issues which 
     separated them in the areas of military security, human 
     rights and trade. The issues were divisive, the discussions 
     contentious at times, but each state felt it had a stake in 
     the process. Though some viewed the Final Act as a 
     legitimation of the territorial and political arrangement of 
     postwar Europe, others saw it as a means to overcome those 
     very divisions.
       For decades now the Middle East has been a region dominated 
     by violence, its politics largely determined by the Israeli-
     Palestinian question. Few channels exist through which Middle 
     Eastern states and their peoples can address region-wide 
     issues. A Middle East security framework could encourage 
     regional security through arms control, verification, 
     confidence-building, and respect for human rights. The 
     presence of a multilateral forum for discussion would provide 
     an outlet for grievances and a framework for conflict 
     resolution. States would need only be assured that 
     participation would not prejudice their individual interests 
     and that each state's security would be enhanced through 
     participation in region-wide talks. For the United States and 
     its allies, including Russia, CSCME could serve an important 
     role in promoting democratic institutions, containing radical 
     Islamic fundamentalism, stemming terrorism, curbing arms 
     proliferation and securing peace and security in the region.
       Of course, there are no guarantees that a CSCME could solve 
     the complex and explosive problems confronting the Middle 
     East. Meetings and documents can change nothing by themselves 
     if the political will of the participating states is in 
     question. But we are now at a historic juncture where long-
     absent political will may suddenly exist. We now have an 
     agreement that has made the conditions for a long-term peace 
     better than they have ever been before.
       The Israeli-PLO accord sets the stage for launching a 
     security framework, much like the agreement with respect to 
     the two Germanies and their boundaries did for CSCE in the 
     early 1970s. In such a climate, a CSCE-type process can bring 
     strength in its persistence, in its determination to foster 
     continued political will among its participating states and, 
     just as important, among their citizens. These aspects of the 
     CSCE--political dialogue and public participation--are 
     critical in the Middle East.
       Once implacable enemies, the PLO and Israel are attempting 
     to live side by side in peace. At the White House signing 
     last year, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sadly noted that for 
     many the ``ceremony has come too late.'' But weary of the 
     hate and revenge that have claimed so many lives, Israel and 
     the PLO have, despite horrific violent acts by extremists, 
     taken brave steps toward creating a new order in the Middle 
     East.
       The United States must remain engaged in the process and 
     work with its allies to sustain these new efforts toward 
     stability. The establishment of a Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in the Middle East would provide an opportunity 
     to bring healing and reconciliation to a region badly in need 
     of both.

                          ____________________