by Dore Gold
Last Friday morning, on
Israel's popular morning radio station, Reshet Bet, broadcaster Aryeh
Golan interviewed Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin about the latest
demands by the European Union that its research and development grants
not be applied to territories beyond the 1967 lines.
Since mid-July, there
have been reports of new EU guidelines that are expected to go into
effect on Jan. 1, 2014, and are to apply to grants, prizes, and other
financial instruments to Israeli bodies. Reflecting some of the growing
rage in Israel at the latest EU initiative, Golan asked Elkin whether
Israel could find alternative economic partnerships in India and China.
Apparently, the idea of turning away from Europe to new Asian partners
was raised in certain governmental circles as well.
True, this was not a
proposal for a European boycott of Israel, though the headlines in the
Israeli press gave readers that impression. Part of the concern in
Israel is where this new policy will lead. For example, the EU
guidelines could become the basis for formulating a territorial clause
in future Israeli-EU agreements which would be used to force Israel to
accept that any territories beyond the pre-1967 line are not part of
Israel, including east Jerusalem and the Old City.
The EU went ahead and
issued this new policy just as Israel was making tough concessions,
including the release of convicted Palestinian prisoners, to set the
stage for new peace talks. Both the substance and the timing of what the
Europeans were doing drew bitter criticism across much of the Israeli
political spectrum, and the move is likely to have a long-term impact on
Israeli-European relations.
For specialists in
European trade policy, the new trend in Israeli-European relations is
particularly outrageous because it is built on the establishment of a
clear double standard. Take EU policy on Morocco. In 2005, the EU and
Morocco signed an international agreement allowing European fishermen to
operate in Moroccan waters. Did the agreement apply to the territorial
waters of Western Sahara, which was claimed by Morocco, but not
recognized as Moroccan territory by the international community,
including the states of the EU? In 1975, the International Court of
Justice in The Hague determined that Morocco did not have sovereignty
over Western Sahara.
Yet, in the EU-Moroccan
fishing agreement, there is a provision allowing European fishermen to
operate in the waters of Western Sahara. Fishing is a lucrative
business. Morocco stands to gain at least 40 million euros in annual
fishing fees. All funds derived from European fishermen have been going
to Morocco.
Hans Correll, the
former legal adviser to the U.N., attacked EU officials for allowing
such an agreement. What makes the Moroccan case glaring is the fact that
the latest EU guidelines on Israel explicitly state that "their aim is
to ensure respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with
international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel's
sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967."
But in the case of
Morocco, the EU is not applying this standard, but is going ahead with
an agreement, regardless of how it views the question of sovereignty in
Western Sahara. And while the EU strenuously objects to supporting any
Israeli presence in the West Bank, because of its legal status, it
nonetheless allows European citizens to purchase beachfront vacation
homes in the territory of Northern Cyprus that was occupied by Turkey in
1974. No punitive measures have been contemplated against Turkey,
because of the ongoing conflict over the future status of this disputed
territory. Europe supports a resolution of the Cyprus problem, without
using the same economic levers of power it is employing in the Israeli
case.
An analysis of the
European Union's negotiations with India over a Free Trade Agreement
also shows that there is no demand to say that it will only apply to
territories in which India's sovereignty is not disputed. The EU has
encouraged India and Pakistan to resolve their dispute over Kashmir. A
study by a Pakistani legal scholar of the EU-Indian trade negotiations
points out that previously concluded free trade agreements with other
countries "do not impose binding conditions in respect of particular
geopolitical disputes". True, the EU has employed economic sanctions
against rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But it does not use
economic leverage against friendly countries engaged in territorial
disputes.
Looking at how the EU
treats other territorial disputes, Israel has good reasons to be enraged
with EU policy. Nevertheless, it will have to use its creative energies
to bridge the gap with Europe and put its relations on a stronger
footing.
Israel does have
something to work with. A German adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel
told The Jerusalem Post last month that European cooperation with Israel
in research and development in the EU's Horizon 2020 program is a
European interest and not just an Israeli interest.
The background to the
EU's program with Israel is the need for Europe to improve its global
competitiveness and increase jobs and economic growth on the continent
after years of sluggish growth. The Horizon 2020 program is not a
European handout to Israel, but a joint initiative by which Israel puts
up funds by itself and receives 1.6 euros for joint research and
development for every euro it puts in.
Because of its
scientific prowess, Israel is the only non-European country to have been
invited to take part in this program. The Europeans knew what they were
doing by inviting Israel, which is no longer viewed as a country known
only for its Jaffa oranges, as it was in the 1950s. Clearly, both sides
benefit from this cooperation and both have much to lose by its
politicization by EU bureaucrats in Brussels.
So what were the
Europeans thinking when they got Israel involved in the first place?
Economists have long recognized that knowledge-based industries are the
fastest-growing portion of the global economy, and serve as engines for
economic growth. These are precisely the technological fields in which
Israel leads and which Europe needs.
In their book "Start-Up
Nation," Dan Senor and Saul Singer quote an American high-tech
executive who admits that for companies like Google, Microsoft, and
Intel, "the best-kept secret is that we all live and die by the work of
our Israeli teams."
Why should Europe
jeopardize its cooperation with Israel, which has served as such an
important partner for the U.S. companies? To go down the path of
limiting its scientific cooperation with Israel seems to be, ultimately,
a self-defeating policy for Europe itself.
Then there is the issue
of Israel's offshore gas fields. Europe presently imports most of its
gas from Russia and from North Africa. David Wurmser used to serve as a
Middle East expert for the U.S. vice president's office and later
advised Noble Energy, which is involved in Israeli gas exploration. He
points out in a paper for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that
there are today five existing or planned pipelines connecting Europe
with the gas of North Africa. Four of the pipelines come through
Algeria, which is facing growing threats from al-Qaida affiliates.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, as in Sinai, they have shown their
readiness to sabotage such pipelines. Having another source of gas from
Israel could be critical for Europe if some of its current energy
sources do not come available.
Wurmser concludes that
Israel make Asia its preferred export destination and not Europe. This
is a decision Israel will have to make as it influences how it builds
its energy infrastructure. If Europe begins to present itself as an
unreliable trading partner, then there will be many more Israeli voices
who adopt the idea of making Asia into Israel's preferred market for its
gas exports.
Israel and the EU need to get
past this problematic period in their relationship. A great deal is at
stake for both sides. It should not be overlooked that a revival of
bilateral ties between Europe and Israel will require rebuilding the
good will that has existed between both parties in the past, but has
been damaged by the recent tensions between them.
Dore Gold
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5377
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment