Share

--

--

A Middle East in crisis is not likely to give the Bush administration the time it deserves to do a much needed review of policy in the region. Months of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians have clearly demonstrated just how important a policy review is if the United States is going to be able to protect its considerable interests in the region and continue to conduct its business there–diplomatic, strategic, and commercial. The terrorist attack on the USS Cole and other threats have forced the US to close its Embassies in the Middle East several times in the last few months. Virulent anti-Americanism throughout the region poses a formidable foreign policy challenge to US interests despite broad US engagement in the Middle East including security guarantees provided by US military forces for the Gulf states, a wide array of military assistance such as grants, pre-positioning, joint exercises, economic aid, commercial and diplomatic assistance and a willingness to be the only mediator the parties turn to in seeking peace.

So then why is the region so enraged by American policy? While the Middle East has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War when many Arab countries enjoyed the patronage of the Soviet Union, US policy has not always reflected those critical changes. American policy has appropriately continued to strengthen the all-important special relationship with Israel and sought to establish bilateral security/military arrangements with Arab countries willing to be seen as American allies. Progress over the decade in the Arab-Israeli peace process accompanied by a changed attitude toward Israel in the Arab world have not been factors in policy making. A vastly different set of threats since the end of the Cold War have not resulted in a US regional policy that takes into consideration the realities of Arab societies or even Israel’s new found strategic and economic strength.

A demographic explosion in the region means that 70% of the Arab population is under the age of 25. A lack of democratization and economic reform by Arab governments have deprived this vast population of a standard of education, jobs, housing, freedom of expression, political participation and access to information technology. The youth throughout the region who are demonstrating against the United States are all too aware of strong American support for change in Yugoslavia most recently and throughout Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. By contrast, democratization, respect for civil and human rights, freedom of expression and political participation are simply not on the strategic agenda of an American policy which concentrates on bilateral relations with Israel and the Arab countries. In this case, the United States is justifiably accused of a double standard. The ever-widening gap between Arab regimes determined to maintain stability - almost at any price - with the encouragement of the United States and the aspirations of Arab populations has been ignored by American policy makers.

The Bush administration would be well served to recognize realities in the Middle East early and to address them even before a policy review is concluded. Some early steps the Bush administration could take:

• Talk about a vision of the Middle East at peace - the establishment of a Palestinian state, normal relations between Israel and the Arab countries, a process of economic reform and development to provide opportunities for the region’s youth, freedom of expression. religious tolerance and political participation. The US President is entitled to express a vision of this region which may, at times, be at odds with some regimes in the area. It may even serve as a much-needed signal to those regimes to become more responsive to the aspirations of their own people.

• Senior US policy makers need to consult regularly with leaders in the region to set an agenda for cooperation that goes well beyond the boundaries of military/security arrangements and the Arab-Israeli peace process. It does not serve US interests for regional players to learn about US policy after–the-fact without having had any opportunity for consultation.

• The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are so close that they need to be continued until an agreement is reached. In this last chapter of the conflict, Israel needs to be told that the US cannot fulfill its role as a mediator in the peace process if any kind of settlement activity continues. Settlement activity is viewed everywhere as a clear expression of Israel’s intentions in the peace process. The issue of continuing settlement activity can no longer be ignored or avoided by US policy makers. Territorial compromise remains the key to the success of the peace process. Palestinians need to be told that their public and private rhetoric as well as their actions on the ground must be consistent with the negotiations if the US is going to play its role as mediator.

• American diplomats serving in the region ought to be part of the policy making process

• Unilateral sanctions toward Iran are not protecting US geopolitical and strategic interests and should be partially lifted to allow US energy and other related companies to do business in Iran, even in the absence of diplomatic relations.

• Demonizing Saddam Hussein is not a policy. As difficult as it will be, the US has to decide if, after l0 years, we can live with the Iraqi regime. If the answer is no, the US will need to develop a policy to act unilaterally. If the answer is yes, then we need to consult candidly the UN Security Council to evaluate sanctions policy.

• Coping with terrorist threats is always difficult for democracies. Terrorism is a crime and should be treated as a crime, however, it is also important from a perspective of US interests and anti-terrorism policy to recognize the social and economic reasons that push alienated youth to engage in political violence. Poverty and deprivation are fertile ground for recruiting would-be radicals, a fact that US policy makers must consider in setting an agenda for a regional Middle East policy.

• US consultation with the Europeans and the United Nations Security Council and Secretary General is vital early on because no one, not even the United States, has an exclusive on the Middle East. While the US does have a primary role to play in the region, both the Europeans and the United Nations can make a contribution to and participate in policies that promote positive change. Besides, it’s good for the US to be able to share the blame as well as what little credit there may be.

The conventional wars are over between the Arabs and the Israelis, but the non-military threats which can further destabilize the region are growing rapidly. There is no quick fix. Neither the special relationship with Israel, nor bilateral military/security relations with the Arabs begin to address those threats. It is a fact of life that the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most important destabilizing factor in the region today and it is time it is resolved on its own merits. Yet, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflict will not bring stability to the region or solve the demographic, economic, political and security problems rampant through the Middle East. US policy makers in the Bush administration would be wise to undertake a new approach for what promises to be a long and difficult engagement in the area.

Judith Kipper is the Director of the Middle East Forum, Council on Foreign Relations and Director, Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.