The Middle East Quartet and (In)effective Multilateralism

Abstract

In 2002, what became known as the East came into being. A decade later, this article explores the performance of the and the EU's role in it. The conclusions are sobering, pointing to the fact that, while the EU has been the principal driver behind the Quartet, the latter has neither become a genuinely multilateral forum, nor has it been in pursuing the goal of a two-state solution in the East.In the past, mediation of the protracted Arab-Israeli conflict was exclusively unilateral in character, being dominated by the United States. With the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000, the time seemed to be ripe for a substantial reshuffle of East mediation. In 2002, what became known as the Middle East Quartet came into being, constituted by the European Union (EU), Russia, the United Nations, and the United States. In principle, this new format reflected the exigencies of mediation in a new global and regional context. Over the course of the 1990s, the European Union had emerged as a principle donor to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and the nascent Palestinian Authority (PA). Russia not only remained a major power and UN Security Council (UNSC) permanent member, but also enjoyed historically close ties to the Arab world and, more recently, an organic bond to the large Russian community in Israel. The United Nations brought with it international legitimacy. Few doubted that the US continued to be a vital player, the only one with the clout to substantially alter the parties' negotiating stances.A decade has passed since the establishment of the Quartet, making an assessment of its workings a timely undertaking. In this context, this article explores the as a case of crystallizing focusing on two questions. First, can the be regarded as a case of effective multilateralism? Has it been genuinely multilateral? Has it been effective? Second, the came into being around the same time that the EU proclaimed, for the first time, the goal of effective multilateralism in its 2003 Security Strategy.1 This was no coincidence.2 In view of this, has the EU contributed to the as a case of multilateralism?THE MIDDLE EAST QUARTET AS A CASE OF CRYSTALLIZING MULTILATERALISMThe East emerged from a foreign ministers' meeting in Madrid in April 2002. Present at the gathering were US secretary of state Colin Powell, EU high representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Javier Solana, Spanish minister of foreign affairs Ana Palacio, UN secretary-general (UNSG) KofiAnnan, and Russian minister of foreign affairs Sergei Lavrov.3The birth of the reflected the exigencies of the early 21st century. At the time, the second Palestinian intifada was at its height, featuring widespread Israeli military incursions into the OPT and repeated Palestinian suicide bombings. The peace process was in tatters. Following the collapse of negotiations at Camp David II in the summer of 2000 and Taba in January 2001, successive attempts to break out of the cycle of violence and restore dialogue between the parties came to no avail. The 2000 Mitchell Report recommendations and the 2001 Tenet Plan remained on paper.4 Violence raged on the ground. In those tragic months between 2000-2001, the EU special representative for the East peace process, the special representative of the UNSG, and the Russian ambassador to Israel frequently met in Tel Aviv to seek ways to respond jointly to the unfolding crisis.5 Albeit reluctant at first, the US ambassador to Israel ultimately came around, not only to seeing the urgency of re-sparking a political process, but also in doing so with the support of America's international partners in the region. The establishment of the one year later - in April 2002 - was then almost accidental. In Madrid, Secretary of State Powell met with his EU, UN, and Russian counterparts, who had already been meeting regularly at lower levels for one year on the ground. …