Whether it is Iraq, Lebanon or the occupied Palestinian territories, the theater of hostilities presents the same depressing picture. The differences among the conflicting parties are huge; the loss in human lives is high. Nonetheless, political deadlock seems to override any measures of diplomacy or open dialogue. The turmoil in the region has reached its climax threatening irreversible consequences.
There are reasons for similarities among these regional conflicts. They are all discords instigated or influenced by external forces that turn into internal conflicts awaiting external interference.
Iraq was invaded and occupied by the United States in 2003. The US occupation was confronted with a national insurgency that then twisted into internal clashes between sectarian groups influenced by external forces. These internal clashes do not seem to come to a halt without external intervention.
The situation in Lebanon is very similar in essence. Lebanon was subject to the hegemony of the Syrian military forces that originally came to rein in feuding political and sectarian parties after a 15-year-long civil war. In the aftermath of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the consequent withdrawal of Syrian forces, Lebanon has again split on political and sectarian lines. The differences among them are great and they seem irreconcilable without external assistance.
As to the Palestinian occupied territories, they have been on a row of chaotic turmoil since the second intifada of 2000. The results of the last legislature elections brought to the surface the differences between Palestine’s two strong political fronts — Fatah and Hamas. This has led to internal clashes and a breakdown in security and internal stability. Palestinians too await the assistance of an external force to promote peace and security in the territories and resuscitate the peace process. In all this, the Americans seem to have the upper hand as they are directly involved in all the conflicts. They have occupied Iraq, pressured for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon and encouraged the Israeli suppression of the Palestinian intifada.
One result of all these developments has been the emergence of Iran as a major player on the regional scene. Iran reacted to these developments by assisting militarily the radical Shiite groups in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the occupied territories threatening stability in these countries while going ahead with its nuclear program. It has also joined in an alliance with Syria. This has raised the regional and international concerns as it affects the regional balance of power.
However, the events in these countries did not match with the US strategic plans. Without doubt, the US strategy under the Bush White House suffers from many pitfalls. That is why the Democratic Party won a majority in both houses of the Congress in the last congressional midterm elections. Following pressure from the Democrats, the Bush administration has indicated that it is reviewing its Middle East strategy and intends to approach the moderate regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan seeking assistance in resolving the gridlock that the US policies have caused in the region.
Within this context, questions are being asked whether the US really wants to pull out of Iraq or whether the regional countries can assist the United States in resolving the conflicts in the Middle East. Prior to the US midterm elections, Vice President Cheney assured the American people that the administration will “go full speed ahead” in sustaining the military presence there. Then, a few days ago, as he visited Saudi Arabia, Cheney sought Saudi assistance to restore stability in Iraq. President Bush’s visit to Jordan also suggests that the US is considering a new turn in policy.
This is not enough. The US needs to show its good intentions and prove it can act as an honest mediator to gain the confidence of all the factions in Iraq. They also need to refrain from threatening Iraq’s neighbors such as Iran and Syria.
If the Iraqis get full assurances that the occupation forces will leave their country according to a projected timetable, the moderate regional countries can convince the conflicting factions to initiate a national dialogue to resolve their differences and collaborate in building an independent fully sovereign Iraq. After all the Iraqi people with all their political, ethnic and sectarian differences have lived in one unitary state throughout their history. On the other hand, if the United States refuses to set a definite schedule for withdrawal, insurgency will continue and it would make it extremely difficult for any outside force to convince the Iraqis to lay down their arms.
On a different account, the US administration needs to assure the Lebanese factions that the International Tribunal that will rule on the Hariri assassination will be independent, neutral and impartial. Americans should also refrain from inciting some Lebanese factions against others.
As to the core of the Middle East problem, Hamas has issued a courageous statement accepting the Palestinian territories as they stood before June 4, 1967 as the areas constituting a future Palestinian state. The ball is now in the court of Israel and the United States. America can benefit tremendously from this gesture by working hard toward implementing a peace plan leading to a two-state solution. It will improve its tarnished image in the region. It will also prohibit Syria and Hezbollah from exploiting the Palestinian problem to fulfill their own ambitions in Lebanon.
As to Saudi Arabia, playing the role of the moderator whether it is in Iraq, Lebanon or the occupied Palestine territories is not enough. The Kingdom has always played the role of the equalizer and the honest broker in all regional conflicts at the request of the conflicting parties. It has helped these troubling areas politically and economically as the need arose. Historically, it has shown no signs of regional hegemony nor coveted others’ territories.
In view of this, Saudi Arabia must take the initiative to bring about all the regional countries to collaborate and cooperate more effectively with each other in solving their problems. Saudis must work on an initiative that would compel all the regional states to take their problems in their own hands and not leave it to any superpower to intervene and outplay conflicting parties to serve their own national interests. An initiative that would regulate all the political, economic, social and security problems of the region. Perhaps this initiative can be in the form of a regional council consisting of experts in all fields from all regional countries. Members may be elected or assigned; the council should meet regularly and in open sessions to promote cooperation and coordination for the development and growth of our region.
Saudi Arabia must have discussions with Iran on initiating such a regional council. APEC and EU have been successful in prohibiting any penetration that threatens their security and stability. Countries of this region have too much at stake and have been targeted for so long. It is time to get it right this time.
— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from Canberra University in Australia.
