Middle East Priorities
By Geoffrey
Kemp
From the March 24, 2002 edition of Al-Ittihad
Which initiative should come first, an Arab-Israeli settlement or a military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein? Vice President Cheney’s recent trip to the Middle East has made it clear that the preference for the Arab countries is that the Palestinian crisis must be solved as a priority. The upcoming Arab League summit may be a decisive factor in determining if this preference holds.
The summit, scheduled to begin on March 28 in Beirut, could be the most important meeting for its members in their long and tortured history of efforts to reach a consensus on controversial issues that gets beyond the lowest common denominator. If the summit endorses the specific outlines of Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace proposal, which calls for normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state and Israel’s withdrawal to the approximate borders prior to the 1967 War, great progress will have been made. Arab leaders will be seen as active partners willing to embrace compromise and change and accept the reality of the state of Israel. This, in and of itself, would have great symbolic impact on public opinion in both Israel and the West and would provide the political cover both Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to make painful but necessary compromises for peace.
An Arab-Israeli settlement could usher in a new and much needed era of economic cooperation in the region. Proposals for such cooperation were discussed at the several Middle East economic conferences held annually for a few years following the 1991 Madrid Conference. While many of the projects outlined at the time were wildly unrealistic, no one doubts the economic benefits to the region if there were greater Arab-Israeli cooperation on issues such as water, energy production and distribution, and tourism. From an American perspective a breakthrough on the Arab-Israeli front could make the idea of confronting Saddam Hussein more acceptable to key Arab leaders. They are presently fearful of the divisive effects that an anti-Saddam military campaign and an unresolved Palestinian crisis would have on their own political constituencies.
If the Beirut Summit fails to reach a consensus on the Abdullah plan and, instead, votes for a watered down version of the plan that excludes the term "normalization," and includes the inevitable condemnation of Israel, not only will a great opportunity be lost, but another vision for change in the Middle East will surely gain greater acceptance, especially in the United States. It is a vision being increasingly expressed by a number of key supporters of the Bush administration who believe the key to ending Middle East conflict and stagnation is to remove the regime in Baghdad as the first priority. The argument goes along the following lines. Iraq is a key Arab state; it is rich, its population is well educated and secular. Whoever controls Baghdad exerts great power and influence in the Arab world. The Baathist regime has been a disaster for the region and catastrophic for the Iraqis. A new, more humane regime with more democratic institutions would have far reaching consequences for the neighborhood. If the new regime implemented all outstanding UN Security Council resolutions, the fear of weapons proliferation and regional conflict would be diminished. A reformist Iraq would put great pressure on Iran and many Arab regimes to support more democratic institutions. If a new Iraqi government adopted a less confrontational posture towards Israel it would make it easier to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These, it is argued, are good reasons to pursue a regime change strategy towards Iraq, irrespective of its direct or indirect complicity in September 11th and its WMD programs. In other words a momentum is building which suggests that the regional benefits of getting rid of Saddam Hussein could be so far reaching that they themselves become good reasons for pursuing the strategy.
Which brings us back to the Arab summit. A rejectionist summit that is seen by the outside world as a failure would strengthen the arguments of those in the United States who favor regime replacement in Iraq a priority. A successful summit that offered Israel what no other Arab summit has before would provide a counterweight to the current mood among some of Bush’s key advisers. We will soon know which approach to resolving the Middle East crisis carries the day.
