2004

In the last 50 years, the U.S. foreign policy had few instances of success and many failures, and was tempted or compelled to use its armed forces in the Middle East ten times?i.e. a frightening average of once every 10 years. During that same period, Russia got involved once, France and Britain twice.

Every U.S. military involvement have grown bigger and more lethal than the one before?compare the 1958 landing of the Marines in Lebanon with the 2003 war in Iraq. This is all the reason why the u.s. must revise and overhaul its foreign policy in the Middle East. If it cannot stay away, it should find more peaceful and constructive ways of involvement in the Middle East. The U.S. has far more effective means at its disposal: aid, trade, and investments.

This memo is not a comprehensive treatment of politics in the region, or a blue print of what U.S. foreign policy should be. But rather a broad sketch, a perspective, and a select number of issues and hot spots in the Middle East today. Recognizing that the priority of a presidential candidate is to win the elections, the ideas and proposals in this memo opens new doors without entailing risks of losing the electoral support of any sizable constituency in the U.S. during the 2004 race.

Taken as a region (extending from Afghanistan to Morocco) the Middle east makes up only 7.0% of the World population, but has appropriated 35.0% of the World’s armed violence?i.e. five times its equitable share. Its strategic location at the Center of the old world, its oil wealth, weak state system, lack of democratic governance, and sluggish economic development are often cited to account for the preponderance of instability and armed violence in the region. Terrorism is but a symptom of that regional state of affairs.

The spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) among range states as well as access to it by non-state actors add to the urgency of an American flash and comprehensive approach to the region.

While the use of military force may be necessary at times, experiences have shown that such force is never enough to deal with protracted conflicts, especially in the Middle East. Terrorism is a dramatic case I point. It could not be overcome by force alone. It has to be dealt with in the hearts, minds, and cultures of Would-be “terrorists.”

A Platform of a U.S. Policy for the Middle East

1. The vital importance of the Middle East to the U.S. is reflected by the ominous fact that during the last 50 years, American armed forces were used in major operations: 1958 (Lebanon), 1979 (Iran), 1983 (Lebanon), 1986 (Libya) 1990-1991 (Kuwait), 1993 (Somalia), 1998 (Sudan), 2001 (Afghanistan), 2003 (Iraq).

2. The U.S. needs to develop a long range policy that spares American and Middle East blood once every five years. A partnership based on understanding, mutual respect, shared enlightened interest is both possible and desirable It establishes security for Israel and other U.S. friends. It creates stability and enhances development for all peoples of the region. It ensures the un-interrupted flow of oil at equitable and fair price for producers and consumers for eliminating the roots of hatred, prejudice, extremism, and terrorism.

3. For much of the first 200 years of American history, the u.S. had cordial relations with peoples and governments of the Middle East. In fact it was an Arab country, Morocco, that was the first to recognize the newly created nation of the United States of America (France was second). There is every reason to revive these cordial relations, as well as cultivate the growing constituency of Americans of Middle Eastern and Muslim origins-estimated at five millions.

On Iraq - Exit Without Panic

Much of the mess, suffering and blood-shed in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein would have been averted had the Bush administration planned for peace as our military planned so well for war. Not marshalling international support, disdaining the U.N. and ignoring many of the U.S. major European allies and Middle Eastern friends isolated America on the World scene. The arrogance of the Bush administration added to anti-American sentiments in Europe, Latin America, and Asia as shown by Public opinion polls. The good will and global sympathy towards the U.S. immediately after 9/11 has steadily eroded because of that occupation authority in Iraq. The Abu-Gharieb prison scandal has tainted American public image and undermined its moral leadership in world affairs.

The damage could still be controlled. The U.S. can still exit from Iraq without panic. The safe return of American troops and restoring law and order to Iraq could be accomplished through the following measures:

- Pulling U.S. forces from heavily populated urban centers to friendly areas in the North (Kurdistan) and the South (Kuwait) where they can be safe, but still rapidly deployable wherever and whenever needed or called upon by the UN and the Iraq authorities.
- Help the interim government recruit, train, and equip national guard units, ranging in size from 5,000 to 15,000 in each of Iraq’s 18 governorates to maintain law and order, and provide security. Being natives and tribally rooted in each locality enhances their ability to do the job, eases unemployment, identify, isolate and weed out outside intruders.
- Call on the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic conference (OIC) and the EU to provide peace-keeping troops, under UN flag. So long as the appeal is universal, transparent, with clear mandate and rules of engagement, it does not matter if not all of them respond. The U.S. must ward off the suspicion of imperial designee or greed. Americans must reclaim the high moral ground in the World of the 21st century.
- The triumph over terrorism is predicated on mobilizing global popular support. Winning hearts and minds could only be attained when words match deeds, and we adhere to one consistent set of standards. Yes, Iraq could have provided a golden opportunity to show the best that America stands for. Instead, the Bush administration showed Iraqis and the world the ugliest of American faces.

America is at its international best when it stands at healthy distance from conflicting parties?i.e. ready to mediate, help, offer economic aid, and peace keeping. Even if the U.S. pulled its troops today, Iraq will continue to need and ask for American support to rebuild itself.

On the Arab-Israeli Conflict

America has committed itself to the security of Israel since its establishment in 1948. Maintaining this commitment is best insured if peace and justice prevailed between Israel and its neighbors. This has been a worthy goal during former administrations. Instead of building on the constructive engagement of former U.S. Presidents Carter and Clinton since Camp David, this President wasted his energy and American good will in pursuit of elusive goals elsewhere in the Middle East. Not a single concrete gain has been accomplished by the Bush administration toward settling the Arab Israeli conflict.

During the Carter Administration, the Camp David Accords and an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty were signed. During the Clinton Administration the Oslo Accord and an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty were signed. But what does G.W.Bush have to show in this respect? His record is a big zero. As a result, more Israeli and Palestinian blood has been shed than during any other American administration in the last quarter century.

Bold peace initiatives by Israeli and Palestinian civil societies have gone unheeded by the Bush administration. The Geneva Peace Accord Initiative signed by pace activitsts, witnessed and blessed by more than 50 World Leaders, including three former U.S. Presidents in December 2003, has completely been ignored by the Bush administration. So was an Arab Summit Peace Initiative earlier in March of the same year.

The Israeli-Palestinian Geneva Peace Accord has been approved by clear majorities of both peoples. It contains the best arrangements for equitable and sustainable peaceful co-existence for the two peoples. It tackled the heard and chronicle issues of refugees, occupation, Jerusalem, borders and security. Had this Bush administration joined this internationally acclaimed efforts, thousands of Israeli and Palestinian lives would have been saved; and the entire Middle East might have been much better off.

It elected, the Kerry Administration would endorse the Geneva Peace Accord, and build on it for a comprehensive peace for all the peoples and States of the Middle East. Toward this objective, I pledge to engage all indigenous forces in every and all societies, be they governmental or nongovernmental. And when politicians fail or hesitate in making hard choices, we should request to hear from people directly through plebiscites and referenda. This tormented region should no longer be held hostage to rigid policy-makers or extremist hard-liners.

On the Sudan

Sudan is the biggest country in Africa. It bridges the Arab-Muslim Middle to the north and sub-Saharan Africa to the south. Like the rest of the Middle East and Africa, Sudan has been tormented by protracted civil wars for much of its 50 years history as our independent country.

While some concrete steps have been achieved recently, to settle the civil war between the south and the north, another vicious ethnic conflict has flared in the western Sudan province of Darfoure. One million Sudanese have been uprooted from their homes and thousands have been killed or (munained??) in the first six months of 2004. The UN and international humanitarian organizations have repeatedly appealed for help to contain this new massive tragedy. But the Bush administration was too busy elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan to care about this African calamity. It is only in July 2004 that Secretary of State Collin Powel paid a visit.

Sudan is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-linguistic country. In many ways it is like our own. We must encourage a pluralistic and federal arrangements in a democratic Sudan. We should pledge our moral and material support to heal and rebuild a stable prosperous Sudan.

On Democracy, Peace, and Development In the Middle East

Much of the failure of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is due to its piece-meal, unilateral, inconsistent, and short-winded approach. Needed is an approach that rectify most or all such shortcomings.

The new approach must stand on three pillars: Democracy, Peace, and Development. Together they insure that individuals, groups, peoples, and states of the Middle East are included in a regional project of the future. Having such a stake revives their hopes, reduces despair and the temptation for violence or self destruction.

Yes, Democracy not only insures a sense of inclusion and collective self-esteem, but also reduces violence as a modality for settling differences, disputes, and conflicts at home. And once established, the same collective mind-set helps do the same with neighboring countries. This is a reminder of Emanuel Kunti 200 years proposition about the disposition of democratic countries refraining from going to war with one another. In this sense, supporting democratization in the Middle East is the most effective way of helping the peaceful settlement of civil, inter-state, and regional conflicts.

The two pillars of democracy and peace are requisites of sustainable development. Investors, national and foreign, would not risk their capital in an unstable region, nor in a country in which transparency and rule of law are in absent or in short supply. Democratic governance insures sustainable development, provides jobs and other opportunities for younger generations. More importantly, it evade them from being easy targets for recruitment into extremist movements and sliding into terrorism, forced into illegal migration, or other equally illegal activities-organized crime, drugs and trafficking.

Countries of the Muslim World and the Middle East which accomplished by designe or defacto, some or all the above pillars?like Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Bahrain, Morocco, and Jordan?have in fact moved steadily and forcefully into the 21st Century global community. If any of them were it by terrorism recently, it was of the same kind incited by elements from the outside. It is there Muslin and Middle East countries that should be guiding role models for U.S. policy in the rest of the region. The U.S. need not impose democracy, peace agreements, or a specific formula for development. But simply make American aid, trade, investments, and technology conditional to concrete advances toward more open society, respect for human rights, fair and honest elections. These are the measures established through the Helsinki process in the mid-1970s; ultimately brought the cold war to an end and transformed the countries of the Eastern Block from totalitarianism to democratic governance.