Having previously served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross played a pivotal role in negotiating many Middle Eastern treaties, including the landmark 1993 Oslo Accords, the first direct agreement between Palestine and Israel. Although Ross currently has no official position in the Obama administration, he had many ideas to share about how it can finally bring about peace in the Middle East.
Opening the lecture, named “Prospects for Peace,” with light-hearted jokes, Ross quickly dove into the U.S. situation in Iraq — a state of affairs that Ross said has greatly improved to become the least, though still serious, of the U.S.’ many complex problems in the region.
“You know you’re in trouble when your best story is Iraq,” said Ross with a slight laugh. “The only relatively good story today in the Middle East from an American standpoint is Iraq. I say relatively good because it’s better than it was. I know that the military surge dramatically improved the security situation. Today, instead of 24 incidents of violence per day in Baghdad, we have four. But there can still be 28 people killed in bombings, as we saw yesterday.”
After acknowledging the progress the U.S. has made, Ross detailed the steps that still need to be taken.
“The logic of the surge was to create a secure enough environment that the leaders of the sectarian groups would feel safe enough to forge a new national compact, which would provide a basis on which to sustain a new Iraq without the presence of large numbers of American forces,” Ross said. “What we have is a relatively secure environment but what we don’t have is a new national compact. The part that’s achieved was the means; it wasn’t the ends. The military surge was always supposed to be a means to an end. What [Obama] called for was a diplomatic surge to match the military surge.”
Still, work in Iraq alone will not solve any of America’s problems. Identifying the United States’ main opponent in the region as Iran, Ross criticized George W. Bush and his officials for worsening the problem by unequivocally refusing to negotiate with the Iranian government unless they met U.S. preconditions.
“The Bush administration wasn’t willing to talk directly with Iran unless Iran would freeze its uranium enrichment,” Ross added. “The problem is that the Iranians have continued to enrich and we’ve continued to stick to our condition. If we stay on this path, they’ll be a nuclear nation. [This way], either we’re going to face the reality of living with Iran with nuclear weapons or we have to use force against them.”
To resolve this problem, Ross believes the U.S. must take advantage of its leverage and Iran’s vulnerabilities, including Iran’s fragile economy and massive unemployment rate. With high inflation, over 30 percent unemployment and insufficient infrastructure to take advantage of their plentiful resources, Ross thinks that Iranians would willingly trade their nuclear ambitions for economic stability.
“Use negotiations to show the Iranians that there’s a way out,” Ross argued. “The essence of it is to put the Iranians in a position where they see what they have to lose and show them what they stand to gain. It’s important to do it because if we come up with a successful way, it’ll have an influence on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.”
With a joking nod to his own smooth transition, Ross began discussing the most contentious issue of the night: Israeli-Palestinian peace. After years of failed negotiations and violence, Ross believes that both peoples have lost faith in peace, the first level of five that the U.S. must rectify.
“The first level is psychological,” said Ross. “It’s not going to be easy for the following reason: the two publics have completely lost faith in peacemaking. For leaders to take these issues on, they [must have] some reason to believe the public will follow. Get each side to do what they can do and have what they do be noticed by the other side.”
Such steps would include more intensive public condemnations of terrorist acts by the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, Ross advises the Israelis to find ways to facilitate Palestinian mobility through the many checkpoints. For example, the Israelis could create a set of criteria for Palestinian factories and companies to follow in order to receive a pass through the checkpoints.
Ross’ next two levels were reducing Palestinian unemployment and ensuring security for both sides, two issues he felt were interrelated. Next, Ross addressed the Israeli-Syrian relationship, one that he feels is essential to Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, the current administration has refused to address the issue, with only a Turkey- brokered negotiation ongoing.
“You can wean Syria away from Iran and if you can do that you change the strategic geography,” Ross said. “Hezbollah won’t be getting arms. The leadership of Hamas is in Damascus. If you can do a deal with Syria, you can change the strategic realities of the region. The only way to find out is test it, probe it. We weren’t willing. We’ve sat on the sidelines everywhere in the Middle East except Iraq.”
The last level was actual Palestinian-Israeli negotiation, a process Ross acknowledges is difficult, but one he feels is integral. The two sides may not come to an agreement right away, but the very act of facing the problems and negotiating creates a precedent and an atmosphere for brokering peace.
“When you engage in this kind of a process, you have to build a foundation for it,” Ross said. “We face daunting problems throughout the region, but none of them are hopeless. They’re daunting. They’re complex. They’ll take enormous effort to deal with, but if we actually approach them and come up with strategies and look for where they are openings, we’re going to see in all these issues, no matter how they are, there’s also possibilities.
While Ross’s lecture was well received by the majority of the audience, judging from the applause that followed the lecture, some voiced their disapproval with Ross’ and the United States’ unwavering support of Israel through pointed questions.
Afterwards, Amal Ahmad ’12, a student from Palestine, said she felt Ross did not adequately address the Palestinian side of the issue, a trend she says is characteristic of the American media.
“[Ross] basically undermined the Palestinian struggle,” Ahmad said. “If you take off checkpoints, we will be happy. No, we too want security. We get bombed and murdered too. If you don’t say things like that happen, how can you denounce them? And if you don’t denounce them, how can the world know about them? People live in America and expect to be living in a democracy but I don’t think [they] should just hear things from one side. I think the American people should be upset more than anyone because they’re being impoverished of information.”
Conversely, Michael Neff ’09 was impressed by Ross’s speech. “Ambassador Ross’s explanation of the diplomatic issues in the Middle East was multi-layered, logical and easy to understand,” he said. “I was most interested by the degree to which the various challenges in the region are interconnected. Looking ahead, I hope the new administration heeds Ross’s advice to play a more active role in negotiating in the Middle East.”
Nevertheless, Ross ended the lecture on an optimistic note by reminding the audience of the Obama administration and with it, the hope for a lasting Middle Eastern peace that takes into account the issues of both sides.
“Just look at what the international reaction to the election has been,” Ross said. “What it reminds you of is that the United States has been a beacon of hope. What happened in the last eight years is that people lost that. Now I think we have a context that is dramatically improved to do business. “