VOL. XLVII
No 08
The Political Scene (23 February 2004)
The Americans are working on a plan to reshape the Middle East and North Africa politically, socially and economically which they hope to sell to the G8 meeting in June. UN Secretary-General has let the Americans off the hook in Iraq temporarily by concluding that it will not be possible to hold elections before 30 June.
US Plans Regional Makeover
It might be thought that the Americans are too busy nation building in Iraq to have the time or energy (or resources) to spare for what can be described as region building in the Middle East ‒ the political, economic and social makeover of the whole of the Middle East and North Africa (and then some) to remove what the Americans perceive to be the causes of extremism and terrorism. But that is apparently not the case, at least if a US working paper for the G8 meeting next June at Sea Island, Georgia, entitled G8 Greater Middle East Partnership is to be believed (see full text below). This commences with the dismal statistics enumerated in the 2002 and 2003 UN Arab Human Development Reports – such as the fact that only 1.6% of the population of the 22 Arab League states has access to the internet, a figure lower than any other region of the world – and asserts that “so long as the region’s pool of politically and economically disenfranchised individuals grows, we will witness an increase in extremism, terrorism, international crime and illegal immigration.” (One of the authors of these reports, Egyptian social scientist Nader Fergani, did not think much of the use to which they were being put. He wrote in the London daily al-Hayat on 19 February that the US initiative depended on the UN reports “like a drunkard leaning on a lamppost, to save himself from falling and not for enlightenment.”) It goes on to argue that “demographic changes…the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the emergence of democratic impulses across the region, together present the G8 with a historic opportunity. At Sea Island the G8 should forge a long-term partnership with the Greater Middle East’s reform leaders and launch a coordinated response to promote political, economic and social reform in the region.”
The paper lists the three priorities of these reforms as: promoting democracy and good governance; building a knowledge society; and expanding economic opportunities. The latter two priorities, while doubtless worthy and necessary, are to be realized by essentially technical means (ie literacy programs, financial facilities). But it is in the aim of bringing about the political transformation of the Greater Middle East (defined as the Arab states plus Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and Israel) that the US working paper is at its most ambitious and controversial (unrealistic is another adjective that springs to mind). “Democracy and good governance” are to be promoted by a free elections initiative, parliamentary exchanges and training, women’s leadership academies, grassroots legal aid, an independent media initiative, transparency and anti-corruption campaigns and the development of civil society organizations (such as human rights groups). All of this looks good on paper, but it begs the question of what role the existing Arab regimes are expected to play in what amounts to their own demise. It also pays only the most casual lip service to the idea that such a cultural transformation – which is what the Americans are in fact proposing – cannot be imposed from outside and can only come from within the societies concerned (as the Americans may eventually learn in Iraq). These are points that may well be raised by the other members of the G8.
The US working paper may be remarkable for the ambitions of its stated aims, but (as the other G8 members are also likely to point out) it is even more startling for the fact that it does not once mention the question of Palestine – and to explain the political evolution of the Arab world in the last fifty years without taking into account the Arab-Israeli conflict is like staging Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Arab League Secretary-General 'Amr Musa was only articulating the general Arab sentiment when he asked on 17 February “how can we talk about an initiative for the greater, smaller or medium-sized Middle East without dealing frankly with the Israeli occupation of Arab land in Palestine and Syria?,” adding: ”If there is a need for democracy and development, there is also a need to deal with the greater danger related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the blank cheque given to Israel to do what it likes with the Palestinians. The Arab world wants to see some honesty in dealing with the Palestinian issue so that it can believe that any initiatives proposed do not spring from blind bias towards Israel.” In other words, until there is some semblance of American even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli conflict (which may be another way of saying never), grandiose US plans to reshape the region are likely to be viewed with the deepest suspicion by the Arabs.
CPA Wins Breathing Space From Annan
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s 19 February announcement that he had concluded that it would not be possible to hold elections in Iraq before the Americans’ self-imposed 30 June deadline for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis has won the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) some valuable but not indefinite breathing space as it tries to cope with demands from Ayatollah 'Ali al-Sistani for elections as soon as possible. Mr Annan told a meeting at UN headquarters that there was an “emerging consensus or understanding that elections cannot be held before the end of June, that the June 30 date for handover of sovereignty must be respected, that we need to find a mechanism to create a caretaker government and then help to prepare the elections for later.” Mr Annan underlined that the UN has “absolutely no preferred option” as far as the selection of the caretaker government is concerned and that “we need to have the Iraqis discuss it. They must discuss it among themselves,” which sounds as if the proposal in the 15 November agreement between the CPA and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) to hold regional caucuses has been jettisoned. (This was more or less confirmed by US administrator Paul Bremer when he said on 15 February that “we will certainly be in conversations with the IGC, other Iraqi leaders and the UN to try to find a way that gives us a legitimate government on 30 June…It may be different from the caucus plan. It may be a modified caucus plan. It may be some form of partial elections. It may be some mechanism of a national conference. There are literally dozens of ideas around.”) But however the transitional government is chosen, Ayatollah Sistani has made it clear that it will be limited in both duration and powers. IGC member Ahmad Shakir al-Barrak emerged from a meeting with the ayatollah to announce on 19 February that “there is no problem for any transitional body to assume power and prepare for elections on condition that it will be held before 1 October 2004.” And the ayatollah himself told the weekly Der Spiegel in an interview published on the same day that “if the necessary preparations for free elections cannot be finished by the end of June due to delaying tactics by the occupiers, two things must happen. First, the preparations must be brought to an end within a short time and with a UN resolution. The resolution must contain clear guarantees that there will be no further delays to the election.” Secondly “responsibilities to be transferred initially to a non-elected transitional institution must be narrowly defined. The institution must not be allowed to make any important political decision which determines the future of our country. Such decisions are the preserve of a government that is freely elected.”
Charles Snow