MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Maria Appakova) - The world should applaud the results of the U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland.
The success of the conference was assured by the U.S. administration jointly with the international community, in particular Russia and the Arab countries.
The core element of the Joint Understanding of the Annapolis Mideast Peace Conference is an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis "to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and [their commitment to] make every effort to conclude a [peace] agreement before the end of 2008."
For the first time in 15 years, the two sides have agreed to start tackling all the key issues without delay. Effectively, that means resolving the problem of Palestinian refugees, settling the status of Jerusalem, and delineating the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state, even though they were not mentioned in the joint understanding issued on the eve of the conference.
The signing of the understanding is a major success, but there is much hard work ahead.
Another achievement of the Annapolis conference is the sides' commitment "to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 - this is called the road map - and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map."
Officially, "the United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map," which seemingly reduces the role of the other members of the Quartet and Arab countries.
U.S. President George W. Bush first advanced the idea of a Middle Eastern conference, or "meeting" as Russian diplomats prefer to call it, in July 2007. The goal is to restart talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, frozen seven years ago, in order to settle the conflict and create a Palestinian state.
Both the agenda and attendance of the Annapolis conference remained vague until the very last moment. Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Syria, openly wondered if they should go at all. Yet it would have been useless talking about peace in the Middle East without them.
As it transpired, several days before the planned conference the Arab countries announced that they would act jointly in support of Washington's attempts to restore peace in the region. Moreover, Saudi Arabia agreed to send its foreign minister, and Syria a deputy foreign minister, which ensured success at the conference.
The Arab countries certainly did not go to Annapolis to support Bush, who has called restoring peace in the Middle East by the end of his presidential term "a matter of honor." But by attending they ensured their involvement in the peace process and made sure that the region's future would not be decided without them.
Their logic is simple - better support the talks and get a chance to adjust the related processes in favor of their own interests, rather than criticize their participants without actually having a say.
This decision also deserves to be applauded, as opting for pragmatism takes courage. The Middle Eastern leaders will now face the unenviable task of changing the popular Arab view of Israel as an enemy - a view they themselves did much to propagate.
The Saudi foreign minister applauding the speech of the Israeli prime minister, even though he had refused to shake hands with him, is an attempt to create a new Middle Eastern reality. It is also a challenge to the regional extremists, notably Hamas and Iran, who reject talks and say that those who attend them betray Arab and Islamic interests. Saudi Arabia will now have to prove that there are other methods to uphold one's interests.
Saudi Arabia attended the Annapolis conference in order to maintain its role as a regional leader. It initiated the Arab plan for settling problems with Israel and has done much to mend the divide between Palestinian groups. But recently it has been pushed to the background. The Palestinian agreements signed in Mecca folded, giving the United States and Iran a more active role in the Middle East. This did not suit Riyadh.
Syria's decision to send a delegation to Maryland surprised even its closest ally, Iran. Previously Syria and Iran have coordinated their policies in the Middle East - a strategy that has helped them to resist American pressure. The United States routinely criticizes them for supporting extremist forces in the region.
In fact, it was thanks to Russian diplomats that Syria was invited to the conference at all.
They did their best to ensure that Syria received an invitation and came to Annapolis to support the Palestinians and Israel. It was also Russian diplomats who ensured that the conference discussed not only Palestinian-Israeli problems, but also the possibility of signing a peace agreement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian journalists after the conference that Moscow had had a positive influence on its agenda by adding Lebanese and Syrian issues to it. He said it was a crucial element that ensured nearly all the Arab states were represented in Annapolis and added legitimacy to the conference.
The four intermediaries are equally happy with the success of the conference, and they also share responsibility for further developments. Moscow has said more than once that only the concerted efforts of all the countries wishing to restore peace in the Middle East can ensure success.
Annapolis has shown that this is possible; but the next stage will be much more difficult - to complete the talks and implement decisions. The fight for peace has only just begun.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
