Post by Salem6 on Feb 20, 2004 12:44:37 GMT
The United States aims at an ambitious bid to promote democracy in Middle East and will adopt a model used to press for freedom movements (Helsinki like) in ex- Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This proposal (though not in written form still) is named as “the greater Middle East initiative” patterned like Helsinki.
At Helsinki United States and other western countries had adopted certain strategies to pressurize Soviet Union and other eastern countries for reforms. The plan will be unveiled at G-8 summit hosted by Bush at sea island, Ga, in June this year. This is the third time that such hints for democratic reforms in Middle East have been given by the US administration. Bush in two speeches earlier at the National Endowment for Democracy and in London has called for democratic reforms in the troubled region.
The Iraq invasion had created serious fissures between United States and other western countries like France and Germany. In this new initiative the United States is trying to get the cooperation of western countries to stem the adverse effects created by Iraq invasion. The policy of unilateralism pursued by United States in the Iraq has failed and the perennial problem of Israel and Palestinian need fresh initiative taken in collaboration with all majors actors including the UN, EU. It seems that the dangers of unilateralism have been realized by the United States and therefore the emphasis is shifting from unilateralism to multilateralism. This may be welcoming development for EU states, and as recently as at the annual Munich security conference, German foreign Minister Fishcher said “in order to succeed, the EU and United States should pool their capabilities, assets and projects”. If agreed it means that United States and its western allies are coming together again to take a Helsinki like initiative this time for Middle East.
It is believed that Helsinki contributed to bringing Europe together and played a significant role tearing down Soviet Union. In the same way pressing for major political reforms in Middle East like on human rights particularly women empowerment and introduction of economic reforms would tear down the attractiveness of extremism. “As long as freedom doesn’t flourish, the Middle East will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export,” Rumsfeld said at the recently held Munich International Security Conference. NATO Secretary General Joap De Hoop Scheffer said in the same conference “We have no more time to waste …there are simply too many threats on the horizons…..terrorism, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”.
So far the Arab countries have been kept in dark about the Greater Middle East initiative. Arab government have read about the initiative from media or through public statements of U.S official, though U.S secretary of state did discuss them with crown prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad of Bahrain. However, the reaction of Arab capitals towards the proposal was negative and according to Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al Faisal, it would be hard to apply one set of standards in a region with many diverse countries. Another senior Arab official said the trouble with U.S policies is they ignore what he called “regional factors”. “Their compass is set on United States and Israeli interest”, he said.
This reaction from the Arab capitals was expected and this fact has been realized by U.S official as Secretary of State Colin Powell said that “important thing to keep in mind here, is, we are not looking for something to impose on the region, we are looking for things we can work with the region on”. So the proposal is a mix of carrot and sticks policy as U.S. to offer possible trade deals, political engagements and military support for countries that reform and will have to pressurize those who resist reforms.
Will this new set of proposal succeed or will it peter out and abandon for sake of expediency which had characterised the United States policies during the last century towards Middle East? The most crucial is the western support for the success of the proposal and especially countries of European Union. However, the European Union is also cautious because of its long standing dialogue with Arab nations on the Mediterranean, which has had some success in reforming education and health system though marginal impact on politics. Helsinki conference proposals succeeded because the United States had the active support of western countries at that time. Towards, the Middle East the attitude of United States and other western countries like France and Germany is different. Probably the resources of Middle East especially oil is major factor for lack of confidence in mustering their initiative jointly.
In the absence of trust and understanding between United States and EU the Arab kingdom would try their best to exploit it and perpetuate the status quo. The cooperation of EU states is doubtful as the United States, well entrenched in Middle East after the invasion of Iraq, would not consider the demands of EU over Iraq and Arab Israel conflict. The United States had to accommodate the interest of EU and other western countries for proposals like the ‘Greater Middle East initiative’ to succeed and in the present circumstances the United States have no such preferences.
The writer is Islamabad-based expert on the European and Middle Eastern affairs
Email: khalid_pir@yahoo.com
More Articles by Pir Khalid
www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=55343
At Helsinki United States and other western countries had adopted certain strategies to pressurize Soviet Union and other eastern countries for reforms. The plan will be unveiled at G-8 summit hosted by Bush at sea island, Ga, in June this year. This is the third time that such hints for democratic reforms in Middle East have been given by the US administration. Bush in two speeches earlier at the National Endowment for Democracy and in London has called for democratic reforms in the troubled region.
The Iraq invasion had created serious fissures between United States and other western countries like France and Germany. In this new initiative the United States is trying to get the cooperation of western countries to stem the adverse effects created by Iraq invasion. The policy of unilateralism pursued by United States in the Iraq has failed and the perennial problem of Israel and Palestinian need fresh initiative taken in collaboration with all majors actors including the UN, EU. It seems that the dangers of unilateralism have been realized by the United States and therefore the emphasis is shifting from unilateralism to multilateralism. This may be welcoming development for EU states, and as recently as at the annual Munich security conference, German foreign Minister Fishcher said “in order to succeed, the EU and United States should pool their capabilities, assets and projects”. If agreed it means that United States and its western allies are coming together again to take a Helsinki like initiative this time for Middle East.
It is believed that Helsinki contributed to bringing Europe together and played a significant role tearing down Soviet Union. In the same way pressing for major political reforms in Middle East like on human rights particularly women empowerment and introduction of economic reforms would tear down the attractiveness of extremism. “As long as freedom doesn’t flourish, the Middle East will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export,” Rumsfeld said at the recently held Munich International Security Conference. NATO Secretary General Joap De Hoop Scheffer said in the same conference “We have no more time to waste …there are simply too many threats on the horizons…..terrorism, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”.
So far the Arab countries have been kept in dark about the Greater Middle East initiative. Arab government have read about the initiative from media or through public statements of U.S official, though U.S secretary of state did discuss them with crown prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad of Bahrain. However, the reaction of Arab capitals towards the proposal was negative and according to Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al Faisal, it would be hard to apply one set of standards in a region with many diverse countries. Another senior Arab official said the trouble with U.S policies is they ignore what he called “regional factors”. “Their compass is set on United States and Israeli interest”, he said.
This reaction from the Arab capitals was expected and this fact has been realized by U.S official as Secretary of State Colin Powell said that “important thing to keep in mind here, is, we are not looking for something to impose on the region, we are looking for things we can work with the region on”. So the proposal is a mix of carrot and sticks policy as U.S. to offer possible trade deals, political engagements and military support for countries that reform and will have to pressurize those who resist reforms.
Will this new set of proposal succeed or will it peter out and abandon for sake of expediency which had characterised the United States policies during the last century towards Middle East? The most crucial is the western support for the success of the proposal and especially countries of European Union. However, the European Union is also cautious because of its long standing dialogue with Arab nations on the Mediterranean, which has had some success in reforming education and health system though marginal impact on politics. Helsinki conference proposals succeeded because the United States had the active support of western countries at that time. Towards, the Middle East the attitude of United States and other western countries like France and Germany is different. Probably the resources of Middle East especially oil is major factor for lack of confidence in mustering their initiative jointly.
In the absence of trust and understanding between United States and EU the Arab kingdom would try their best to exploit it and perpetuate the status quo. The cooperation of EU states is doubtful as the United States, well entrenched in Middle East after the invasion of Iraq, would not consider the demands of EU over Iraq and Arab Israel conflict. The United States had to accommodate the interest of EU and other western countries for proposals like the ‘Greater Middle East initiative’ to succeed and in the present circumstances the United States have no such preferences.
The writer is Islamabad-based expert on the European and Middle Eastern affairs
Email: khalid_pir@yahoo.com
More Articles by Pir Khalid
www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=55343