regards-citoyens

The Middle East nowadays seems at the epicentre of most international crises, so the question is how should this chaos be dealt with? Divided and paralysed, Europe appears to have given up on any involvement either in stabilising the region or in the peace process itself. Yet it was not ever thus. From 1980 to 2001, Europe played a leading role in the Middle East, particularly in asserting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and by convincing the PLO to abandon violence and so become a viable party to negotiations. The 1980 Venice Declaration that recognised the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination was a milestone, and Europe also made an important contribution to the peace process when Miguel Moratinos, now the Spanish Foreign Minister, was the European Union’s special envoy in the Middle East. He played an important personal part in putting together the compromise formula proposed at Taba early in 2000, only to be turned down by Israel’s Ariel Sharon.

Since then, of course, successive peace settlement attempts were impeded by the Bush Administration in Washington DC as well as by successive Israeli governments which, in spite of their stated good intentions, have constantly sought to distance Europe from any political negotiations in the region. Europe has instead had to play the passive part of “banker”, financing equipment and infrastructure that subsequently has been deliberately destroyed in Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank.

The new Obama Administration in the U.S. has already marked a clear break with its predecessor. President Obama’s powerful and significant gestures have included his speech at Cairo University in early June when he asserted the United States’ commitment to a two-state solution to the Palestinian question, while also giving priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan and confirming the acceleration of American troop withdrawals from Iraq, all the while expressing his own determination to change the United States’ image and re-establish its credibility. The arrogance that marked the Bush Administration has given way to a new ethic with Obama’s call for resumed talks with Iran and Syria as they must be included in future peace process negotiations. Now that it’s under new management, the White House has also signalled a U.S. willingness to consult with traditional allies, be they European or regional, as part of a much more pragmatic outlook. Having said all that, it is nevertheless clear that there will be no major shifts in American foreign policy. The fundamental principles that have underpinned it ever since early 1945 and the Quincy meeting between President Roosevelt and Ibn Saud will remain; in today’s terms that means a determination to assert U.S. influence in a zone which is strategic to American security, the strengthening of energy security, the fight against terrorist groups (even if the unfortunate expression “war on terror” is no longer used), a determination to contain Iranian influence and a firm commitment to Israel’s security.

Given that the United States is therefore fully committed to engaging with the problems of the Middle East, what are the possible future outcomes? The return to a Pax Americana as outlined by President Georges W. Bush in his January 2004 State of the Union address is clearly not an option. The Greater Middle East project, which was meant to “eradicate tyranny”, promote democracy and make the region prosperous through free trade is no longer viable. But the United States can regain credibility and influence if it engages in crisis resolution. President Obama’s approach therefore marks a very real turning point: He recognises that all the region’s problems are connected, and that there can be no stability in the Middle East without a solution to the Palestinian question. According to a member of his own administration, concrete policy is still in an “exploration phase”. Although Obama intends to implement an ambitious and pragmatic policy – and is committed to entering into talks with Iran – he is also conscious of the need to confront the hostility not only of U.S. opponents like Iran and others but also of friendly states such as the current Israeli government.

The summer’s Iranian election results are thus bad news. President Ahmadinejad’s initial speeches, his insistence on denouncing a conspiracy by external agents, particularly from the United States, make the initiation of new talks difficult. On the Israeli side, the Netanyahu government’s reaction to the Cairo speech, despite its seeming acceptance of the two-state solution, was a way of subtly rejecting President Obama’s demands on such issues as a halt to any new settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and a relaxation of the Gaza blockade.

Could the Middle East yet fall under Islamist rule, meaning one in which Islamist movements could enforce Sharia Law as the sole basis of law? It is undeniably a risk, as it is likely that if truly free and fair elections were organised throughout the region, they would in many cases lead to the establishment of governments with an Islamist majority, or at least with Islamists as the majority party in a coalition. Islamist movements, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, represent the only organised political opposition in most countries in the region. The latest election results in Iraq and Egypt in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood make substantial gains, and in Palestine in 2006 they saw the victory of Hamas. For all that, a number of other elements make a transition to Islamist rule rather less plausible. Votes in support of Islamists are more a reaction against the current regime than a real show of support for Islamist ideology. And in so many Arab countries the military, in particular the intelligence services remain faithful supporters of the current regime.

But the risk of outright chaos is real enough, with all that that implies for the region as a whole, as well as for its immediate neighbours and global security. There remains a greatly increased risk of terrorism, of large-scale population movements, and, of course, of heightened threats to energy supplies. A dark scenario based on current trends holds out the prospect of a nuclear Iran with increased influence, violent confrontation between an entrenched Israel and radicalised and better-armed Hamas and Hezbollah militias and more parts of the Middle East becoming lawless and falling out of state control. There are real risks if some flickers of hope cannot be kindled, and indeed a few windows of opportunity are appearing that we must not allow to be closed. The political change now being felt in the United States together with an EU whose foreign and security role is growing, whatever the future of the Lisbon treaty, can both play a stabilising role.

But a new Middle East cannot be built without some significant policy changes and these must be based on the following principles:

 - The principle of non-interference and respect for the sovereignty of states must remain the basis for international relations, in the Middle East as elsewhere. The failure of President Bush’s policy to "promote democracy" means the Obama Administration has understood that such an approach is counter-productive. Progress towards democracy and the rule-of-law can only be made through domestic changes, and they are already appearing in some countries in the region, including Iran. The development in the Arab world of what we in the West call civil society is an encouraging element and needs to be supported discreetly in the ways now being used by organisations like the Carnegie Foundation, the Arab Reform Initiative and German political foundations like the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Their efforts are greatly preferable to any clumsy interventions that put supporters of democracy in these countries at risk of appearing to be "foreign agents".

•  - Holding talks with all parties who appear to be key players, be states like Iran and Syria or movements such as Hamas or Hezbollah. These talks must include a commitment to refrain from aggressive rhetoric and concentrate on building confidence measures that emphasise a shared commitment peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. 
  
   - Asserting a strong political determination to resolve the Palestinian problem though the creation of a viable state. With the major question mark over whether there is still time to do so, this requires an immediate halt to the development of Israeli settlements and rules out any ambiguous agreement that would leave the door open to future settlements. The Palestinian question cannot be resolved without having first found a fully representative party to hold talks with, which could be a government which represented all Palestinian movements, including Hamas. 
  
   - Making an effective contribution to economic and human development in the region. The question is not so much the scale of available funds but how they are used. Aid policies in countries like Lebanon, the Palestinian territories or Afghanistan are open to question, and rightly so. The European Union and its members, by far the largest contributors to the region, have a special responsibility. In particular, solidarity between rich and poor countries in the region must be strengthened. 
  
   - Building a security system which allows powers outside the region, as well as Middle Eastern countries themselves, especially in the Gulf, to feel safe. The agreement between the European Union and members of the Gulf Security Council, which has been under negotiation for several years, could constitute a first step. But such a system is only conceivable if the problem of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East can be put on the table, as has been requested by most states in the region. 
  
   - The setting up of a strong cooperation system between the United States, the European countries, Russia and China to find common positions. The United States will be unable to implement a solution by itself, and the Obama Administration is well aware of this. Russia, which is now back in the Middle East, China, whose strategic interests are increasingly being asserted in the area, India, which is directly affected by what goes on in the region, and of course the European Union, must all contribute to the search for solutions to the Middle East’s crises.

There is a place for Europe in the Middle East, provided the EU is willing and able to use the means of influence available to it. If the political will of its member states is there, Europe should be able to play a decisive role in a Middle East stabilisation process that no one doubts will be long and arduous.

Denis Bauchard is a former President of the Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris, and was Frances ambassador to Jordan. He is now Senior Advisor for the Maghreb and the Middle East at the Institut Franais des Relations Internationales (IFRI).

Source :
 http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/articleview/ArticleID/21498/Default.aspx