« Gospel of Mark - Part 1 | Main | Economic development »
December 01, 2006
The New Middle East
The lead article of Foreign Affairs November / December 2006 is "The New Middle East" by Richard N. Haass. Mr. Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations.
1st subsection, The End of an Era
The American Era in the Middle East is ending. In the coming era, countries outside the region will have modest impact, while forces within the region will have the upper hand. These emerging "local actors" are radical, and want to change the status quo.
Haass quickly gives an overview of Middle East history. The modern era began with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. He also mentions the end of the Ottoman Empire (which dominated the region until the end of WW 1), the era of imperialism when France and Britain administered parts of the Middle East (and its end), the Cold War period, and America's brief period of dominance after the Cold War.
2nd subsection, American Pastoral
Four factors have brought about the end of the period of high American influence.
The recent invasion of Iraq ended Sunni domination in Iraq and greatly increased the tensions between Sunni and Shiites. As a result of Iraq, in the region democaracy is associated with anarachy, Sunni loss, and Shiite ascendancy.
The second factor is the demise of any meaningful peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
The third factor is the popularity of Islamic radicals and the unpopularity of the traditional regimes.
Fourth is globalization, which facilitates the funding and propaganda of the radicals.
3d subheading, What Lies Ahead
Haass gives 12 predictions, none of which are surprising:
1. The US, with its influence much reduced, will still have more influence than other countries outside the region.
2. Nevertheless the US will be challenged by other outside countries. We already see Russia and China supporting Iran, and the EU active diplomatically in the region.
3. Iran will be one of the two powerful states in the region, "a classic imperial power" with its influence on Iraq Shiites, on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and elsewhere.
4. Israel will be the other powerful state, with nuclear weapons and a strong conventional army, but its position is deteriorating.
5. A viable peace process is unlikely.
6. Iraq will be a mess for years.
7. High prices for oil will continue.
8. Militias will grow in power in Iraq, Lebanon and possibly elsewhere.
9. Terrorism will continue.
10. Islam will increasingly be the basis of majority politics.
11. Arab regimes will be increasingly authoritarian, religiously intolerant, and anti-American. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are at risk.
12. Regional multi-national institutions will remain weak.
4th subheading, Mistakes and Opportunities
Avoid over-reliance on military force.
Don't count on the emergence of democracy.
Do intervene with non-military tools; training, regional forums, diplomacy...
The US must insulate itself, so far as possible, from the region's instability. Reduce dependence on foreign oil and strengthen defenses against terrorist attacks.
My comments on the article:
I don't have the expertise to say whether Haass is right or wrong on all his points, but he sure seems plausible. I think he is right about the end of the American era. Bush's Iraq policy has been a failure because Bush failed to adequately anticipate the Sunni - Shiite conflict and because building democracy is futile where loyalty to ethnic and religious groups is far stronger than to the nation, and where independent armed militias thrive.
For me personally, all this means I will not travel to the Middle East. I will keep some of my meager savings in shares of companies producing oil in North America. And I will support politicians who are serious about reducing dependence on foreign oil, and about steps to prevent terrorist attacks on the US.
For domestic US politics, I wish we could avoid the blame game. Unfortunately in US politics skill in blaming others for your mistakes is second only to looking good on TV as a key to success. Bush has blundered badly, but his error is no worse than Carter's disasterous loss of Iran. Both are probably less serious, in terms of cost and harm to the US, than our decades long de facto alliance with Israel, which has been supported by both parties.
For US policy in the region, we must adjust to reality. Forget about any Israel - Palestine peace process. Make it a long term objective to get US troops out of harm's way. No more projects to build democracy.
We should do what we can to mnimize the power of the radicals. This would include low key support for secular and non-radical regimes, and support for economic development. We should have a strong program of disseminating news and our views of events, including pointing out that radicals offer no real solution to people's problems. For example Iran today is a country of widespread poverty, inequality and corruption, with serious abuse of human rights. Also, without direct confrontation, we should work to reduce the power of Iran and Syria, taking advantage of their internal divisions and shortcomings.
Posted by rob at December 1, 2006 04:23 PM
Comments
Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 04:23 PM