Thursday, September 22, 2011

The New Middle East


So much has happened in the last two months it’s hard to know where to start. Egypt, the People, Mubarak, the Middle East conflict and how that changes in the light of Egypt and LIbya
I read an interesting article claiming that there was a cold war in the Middle East (excluding Israel) and this was between Tyrannical Despots and Muslim regimes. Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt did little to redress the balance, as the “People’s Revolution” has only managed to install military juntas in both countries. The puppets (albeit powerful puppets) have gone and the military remains the ruling body.

Egypt could be the exception to the rule.  It has defied all expectations and this has been reflected in the changing responses coming from world leaders. While Tunisia was pro-western, it was not a major player in US policy or EU policy. Egypt was and possibly still will be. 

Mubarak was a major player and certainly a lynchpin in the “Peace Process”. He maintained a peace treaty with Israel against the tide of popular opinion in the area and even his own country (although it was supported in a national referendum in 1979). He was a middle-man for both Israelis and Palestinians in dealing with day to day issues without having to meet face to face.

Will this peace treaty stay in place now that Mubarak has gone? This is now a real test of American Foreign Policy and its influence. American influence has dwindled since the end of the Cold War and of course to argue that the US controls the world now flies in the face of all the facts.

The Cold War was a numbers game where the end justified the means. So both the Americans and the Soviets supported regimes that were ideologically repulsive to them, just so long as they remained within their sphere of influence. The legacy for America was that it found itself supporting many a tyrannical despot whose claim for support was their strategic importance. Only two US presidents have made an issue of Human Rights with these despots, Jimmy Carter and interestingly enough, George W Bush (in his second term). Several despots remained important to the Americans and especially in the Middle East, where an ideological ally (Israel) was under constant threat of war and Muslim hegemony in the area that Muslim’s believe is theirs exclusively (once again a view that flies in the face of historical facts).

Over the last 10 years the “Arab/Israeli conflict” has been transformed by the western media and western world into the “Israeli/Palestinian conflict”.  There is a vast difference between the two and it is fundamental to how you approach Middle East politics. Certainly it has proven to be so in the west, where the average citizen is starting to adopt this approach to the area.

For some perspective, Israel is a country that fits into Tasmania 3 and half times. It has a population of 7 million of which 5.8 million are Jewish. It is surrounded by 22 Arab and Muslim countries that covers 66000 the land mass of Israel and has a population 100 times larger.  Of those 22 countries only 2 have signed a peace treaty with Israel, and 3 others have de-facto relations with Israel. Most are still officially at war with Israel. Only 2 recognise Israel’s right to exist and one is calling for the total obliteration of Israel.

As to where Palestine fits into this equation for Israel, it is an interesting question and no less interesting as to where Palestine fits into the equation for other Arab countries. Interestingly enough there was no Palestinian problem before the state of Israel. Palestine was not an Arab state and never had been. Israeli rule to Roman rule, to Turkish rule to British rule, Palestine (so named by the Romans) was a land which had always had both Arab and Jews living there.
Despite historical revisionism, it is generally recognised that the local Arab population in Palestine were told to vacate their houses until Arab armies had crushed the new Jewish state. The number of Palestinian refugees is equal to the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries over the ensuing ten years.
Ephraim Karsh suggests that the goal of the Arab armies was to destroy Israel, but then to divide up the area between the Egyptian in the south, Jordanians in the east, Syrians in the north east and Lebanon immediately north, with no intention of creating a Palestinian state
With this in mind it is impossible for Israel to view its own situation in the narrow format of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but must necessarily view it as part of the larger regional conflict which is Arab/ Israeli conflict.

The events of the last two months only goes to emphasise the regional issues in the Middle East have little to do with what is happening between the Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinians, as per usual, have no united approach to what is happening in the Middle-East, but both sides of the Palestinian camp are worried about protests and mass movements.
One event in the last 2 months that did not receive as much publicity as it might have, had the Middle East been quieter, is the UN Security Council vote calling all settlement in the West Bank illegal and a hindrance to peace. This was the only time in the last 2 months that the US has remained consistent with past policy and also supported an ally. American allies have been hard hit in the Middle East and the US finds itself with a diminishing sphere of influence.

The Americans had always said that the Security Council was not the place to decide how a peace should be negotiated. To that extent it was not a surprise to anyone, but the vote was interesting for the fact that it carried with it the weight of 130 signature countries. It was a vote made to embarrass the US internationally, to make her a pariah. However timing makes all the difference and this news got swallowed up in the rest of the Middle East news.

Why did America “stick phat” with Israel? Had they voted with everyone else there would have been enormous pressure on Israel to halt all building in anything considered a settlement. Why is that bad? Wouldn’t that lead to peace?
The Americans had not been doing so well by their allies in the Middle East, with Mubarak gone in Egypt, Tunisia also. Allies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan would have been sweating profusely at the lack of support shown by the US. Standing by Israel helped alleviate those fears.

While Bahrain had threatened to blow out of control, it, like most of the regimes in the area, its government is regaining a semblance of control. Libya has provided quite a different scenario.
Libya and Gaddafi were often held up by the intellectual left as a model society. Gadaffi’s Libya sat on the UNHRC inner sanctum that felt its duty to constantly lambast Israel. Gadaffi was the darling of the left and courted by the Europeans despite his direct and known connections to terrorism (especially the Lockerbie bombing). And yet no one was really surprised that this madman threatened to let the streets run with the blood of the rebels.
The response from western countries was encouraging. They took the threat seriously, unlike the threats against the Jews by Hitler in World War 2. The need to protect the innocent from slaughter was backed by NATO, the UN and a “coalition of the willing” for want of a better phrase. Most importantly it was backed by the Arab League.

 I believe had the Arab League not been prepared to back this call, the US would not have taken an active part. Obama is concerned about how the US in viewed in the Arab world and I would venture to say he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in this area. Despite the hatred for George W Bush, there was no doubt in anybody’s mind that the US had its agenda and worked according to that. Today US policy is the Middle East is on hold and rudderless. Every move is a reaction to events. But Obama is also worried about how this plays out at home, committing even more soldiers to action.

It is for this reason that NATO is in charge of the mission. The British, but more specifically the French have taken a pro active role in the whole escapade. The mandate given these forces allows them to do all to prevent the slaughter of civilians. There is of course a reticence to send in foreign troops and so this is talk of the alternative was arming the rebels. I believe that this was not covered legally by the mandate, which did not call for regime change. NATO certainly wanted regime change.

The Arab league initially called for intervention, but the chairman (not chairperson in this case) who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, suddenly got cold feet when Gaddafi started showing film of civilian dead in Tripoli. However they got back on the horse and decided to back the intervention. My personal belief is that if there is to be a military presence introduced, then the soldiers should be that of a combined Arab League force. The west doesn’t need to be called colonialists or oil-interested sharks for carrying out what is ultimately a humanitarian mission.
One area of concern is who the rebels actually are. The Europeans have already moved quickly in accepting the legitimacy of a leadership that is largely unknown. They even invited a representative to a military debriefing and policy session in Paris.

Despite Gadaffi's ravings about the rebels being Al Quaieda, there is some basis for this. The initial Al Quaieda fighters, fighting the Americans in Iraq were from Benghazi. It is an Al Quaieda stronghold. This by no means that they control the rebels, but it means that caution is required.

On February 11 Ahmedinajad said that as result of changes in the Middle East, Israel would soon cease to exist.  Could he be right? I don’t think so and certainly not because of the changes taking place in the Middle East at the moment.
I would love to believe, like most westerners that the “social revolution” or “jasmine revolution” were powered by the youth craving democracy and freedom; and that these people would go onto form government. Unfortunately I remain cynical about the ability of the youth to translate the momentum to political acumen and the ability to govern. I’m sure they never planned that far ahead and for that reason, the traditional opponents of the regime, whether they had been a legal or oppressed opposition, will form the basis of any new government. Because the regimes that have fallen and/ or are about to fall, have largely been friendly to the west, it is therefore safe to assume that the new regimes will definitely be less so. The US has no colonial guilt, but the Europeans do. For some reason they think they can fix things now. The Arabs still blame colonialism for everything. In an interview of President Assad of Syria-:
“Mr. President, why is it so difficult for this region since hundreds and hundreds of years to find peace?
Very simply, in one word, because of the occupation. We have been living in very difficult circumstances during the centuries; but if you look at the social fabric, it is always peaceful; you do not have civil wars, except for Lebanon for the last three decades. Look at Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and this entire region
where we did not have any internal conflict. All the conflicts were because of the occupations: the British, the French and now the Israeli. That is why we do not have peace. We see desperation that leads to extremism. That is why we do not have the peace.” 

Syria is going to be the test ground for how much of a revolution is really happening in the Middle East. Both Syria and Iran slaughter innocent civilians in much the same way that Gaddafi said he would. They both have proven track records in this area, but the west feels no compunction to intervene. This may change as things develop, but I am not hopeful. Assad feels protected, knowing that China and Russia will prevent any major condemnation of Syria getting through the Security Council.

In Lebanon Hizbullah, still recognised by most western countries as a terrorist organisation as ascended to government and rule in Lebanon, allowing them to completely squash the UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which pointed the finger directly at Hizbullah. Where the south of Lebanon was once a Christian stronghold, it is now firmly in the hands of Hizbullah and they sit on the border with Israel with Iranian supplied rockets. It is worthwhile noting that the Lebanese Army works separately from Hizbullah forces, yet Hizbullah now have theoretical control of both.

Turkey has interestingly decided to opt out of Europe and align with their Muslim brothers. The Turks are Muslims, but not Arabs. They were last in the Middle East as colonial masters. I imagine that they see themselves playing a significant role and as a counterbalance to Iran, another non-Arab country. They remain part of NATO and are therefore involved in several conflicts in the region as well. Turkey still has diplomatic ties with Israel, at least officially. Until very recently they had military ties as well. They remain an unknown commodity as a player in the region, but I believe they will take a populist view of things and move further and further away from Israel.

Lastly I would like to address how all of this impacts on Israel. As I said above, Israel sees itself as part of the Middle East and the conflict it faces is an Arab/ Israeli conflict. Its decisions must be based on the realities of the day. With a change in leadership in Egypt and despite the ruling generals saying the peace treaty with Israel would remain intact and effective, Egypt Air has already cancelled all flights to Israel, which now no longer appears on their map of the Middle East. There have been attacks on the Israeli/ Egyptian gas line and more worrisome is the apparent renewal of tunnel activity from Gaza into the Sinai, smuggling in weapons (specifically rockets) and all sorts of military hardware from Iran.

As I write this, the Palestinians are declaring themselves a sovereign state via the good offices of the UN and while it is not expected to pass the Security Council, it will overwhelmingly pass through the General Assembly. This will certainly change the dynamics and mindset, while not necessarily providing changes in real terms.  Israel has a conflict with the Palestinians that it wants to resolve. The majority of Israelis still believe that there is no choice other than a two state solution, but how does that happen. The Palestinians have two states, both ruled by people whose term in government has expired. Both have legitimacy issues and can’t hold elections until there is a peace between Fatah and Hamas (an increasingly unlikely prospect). There is also the western supported Fatah as opposed to the Iranian supported Hamas, making this an issue of consequence in terms of Middle East balance. Hamas does not recognise Israel’s right to exist, so the only alternative is to negotiate with a “western puppet” government that has no street credibility and the same amount of legitimacy.

Israel is told that by resolving the Palestinian equation they would solve the whole mess in the Middle East. The last few months have made a mockery of that and of the notion that the main conflict in the area is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. We live in interesting times.

So with the Middle East ablaze in revolution and conflict where the Palestinians were not the centre of attention. To make sure that they remain at the centre of world attention they are pushing for statehood at the UN. This brazen step doomed to failure in legal sense as it will be vetoed in the Security Council by the United States and possibly some of the European powers. It will however receive an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly and this will at least provide the Palestinians with a moral victory.

Interestingly enough the 2 parties that form the leadership of the Palestinians hate each other as much as they despise the Israelis. Hamas and Fatah need to stick together for there to be any real progress made from this step at the UN, but it is unlikely they will succeed.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that the government of Bibi has not done much to improve things in the region. At best it was trying to maintain the status quo which is like living in vacuum in today's Middle East. At worst they have tried to sabotage any progress, with ill timed statements and what seemed to be contempt of the Obama administration.

Israel however will have been handed a fait accompli and be expected by the rest of the word to now negotiate with the government of Palestine, half of which does not believe in Israel's right to exist. The Middle East today is less stable than it was! The influence of the United States is now minimal and their allies have been let down by lack of support. The western world is embracing green energy and the power of oil will continue to shrink. This will be a continual frustration to Arab nations that have built their whole economy on oil.

I think we are going to see a very interesting year and a half in the Middle East and hopefully the focus will be elections rather than war. 

No comments: