The best way to view the current situation is by recognizing that there are actually six wars going on simultaneously: 1) the Israeli-Palestinian war; 2) the war against terror; 3) the war against Saddam Husayn and the axis of evil; 4) the war within the Arab world between rulers and ruled; 5) the war among Israelis to determine Israel's future and a long-term strategy; and 6) the war for the heart and soul of the Bush administration's Middle East policy. These wars overlap, intersect, and converge, but they are not the same. One affects the other, usually in negative ways.
On February 17, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia was quoted by New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman as saying that he had drafted a speech ready for delivery before next month's Arab summit, offering the "idea" of "full normalization of relations" with Israel in exchange for "full withdrawal from all the occupied territory, in accordance with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem." As Friedman's column was headlined, this was an "intriguing signal" from the Saudi heir. Is it an important one, too?
Revelations of Iranian-Palestinian collusion to smuggle fifty tons of weapons into the hands of Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) through the offices of Hizballah have profound strategic implications for the Middle East. For the Bush administration, responding appropriately to the Karine-A episode may have unpleasant repercussions for relations with key Arab states. However, failing to deal forthrightly with the shift in the region's tectonic plates represented by the smuggling affair is a self-defeating exercise in delusion.
U.S. policy on promoting democracy in Muslim-majority countries took two steps forward and one step back last week with Secretary of State Colin Powell's major address unveiling the new Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). On the positive side was the simple fact that democratization merited such cabinet-level focus, along with the details of MEPI itself – a promising set of small-scale, big-bang-for-the-buck, incubator-style projects targeted at critical groups (women, youths, educators) that deserve attention and support. On the negative side were a series of political messages within the speech – both explicit and implicit – suggesting that the active promotion of democratic change in Muslim countries, especially U.S. allies in the Arab world, may not be such a priority after all.
In a thoughtful and measured address on December 4, State Department Policy Planning Director Richard Haass enunciated a new Bush administration policy on building "greater democracy" in the "Muslim world." Though it skirted several of the toughest policy issues (e.g., whether and how to promote democracy in inhospitable terrain like Saudi Arabia), this important speech nonetheless broke substantial new ground. Especially welcome was the healthy mix of realism and idealism, with arguments for pursuing democratization in Muslim countries leavened with the recognition that "we must above all obey the Hippocratic oath and first do no harm."
The appearance of senior U.S. officials on the Qatari-based al-Jazeera satellite news channel is the first sign that Washington is taking seriously the need for enhanced "public diplomacy" as a vital component in the war against terrorism. In this arena, however, urgency needs to be tempered with realism. Rushing to enhance public diplomacy efforts without a clear understanding of objectives, constraints, sequence, and the different means at the government's disposal risks not only a dispersal of effort and wasted resources but, in the worst case, actually ceding important ground in the "hearts-and-minds" campaign. In devising public diplomacy toward the Middle East, the key to success will be to marry the principles of "make haste, slowly" and "do no harm."
Topic:
Security, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Religion, and Terrorism
The internal Bush administration debate over the "broad coalition/narrow target versus narrow coalition/broad target" in the war against terrorism will be put to a test Monday, when the United Nations General Assembly is scheduled to vote in secret ballot on the nomination of Syria as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. Despite being a charter member of the U.S. government list of state sponsors of terrorism, Syria's candidacy has not yet elicited U.S. opposition.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Religion, and Terrorism
On September 13, 2001, Robert Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute, and Dennis Ross, counselor and distinguished fellow at the Institute, held a special briefing on the September 11 terrorist attacks. The following is a rapporteur's summary of Dr. Satloff's remarks; the report of Ambassador Ross's remarks will be distributed tomorrow.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Religion, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
America, Washington, Middle East, and Arab Countries