The Saudi Initiative- A Genuine Opportunity

The famous Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once quipped that “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity [for peace].” With Israel’s refusal to-date to accept the recently re-tabled Saudi Peace initiative offering Israel peace with the entire Arab World, it seems that it may be Israel this time that is guilty of Abban’s charge. For years there has been no substantive progress concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Israeli position has been that there is no “viable” partner from the Palestinian side to negotiate with. It seems as though the tide has changed in dramatic fashion over the course of the past few months.

Much of this is due to the assertion of the Saudis as the regional diplomatic powerhouse. In February, Saudi King Abdullah helped facilitate the Mecca agreement between Fatah and Hamas that put an end to the internecine factional violence between the two parties. The Arab League summit, hosted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reinvigorated the previously inert Saudi Initiative.

This is a window of opportunity that Israel must seize; all 22 Arab countries are willing to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the Arab territories it occupied since 1967.
So what is the problem? Israel is not willing to negotiate with the new Palestinian Unity Government that includes Hamas because it has yet to meet the Quartet’s (composed of the E.U, U.N., U.S., and Russia) conditions (recognize Israel, renounce violence, respect all previous agreements). Furthermore, despite some positive pronouncements, Israel refuses to accept the Saudi Initiative because of clauses regarding the Palestinian refuges and borders.

This refusal is unwarranted because while the Initiative does call for a sovereign, independent Palestinian state with its capital in Arab East Jerusalem, it does so on the basis of the internationally recognized 1967 borders. In terms of the Palestinian refugees, it calls for a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the refugee problem. Equally critical, the Arab League Initiative has stated that as long as Israel accepts the Initiative “In Principle”, then everything is open for negotiations

Israel’s refusal to negotiate is contradictory to American economic interests and Israeli security interests. By achieving regional peace, Israel can finally be fully integrated into the Middle East. The Palestinians will have their state and the Israelis the security they have been unable to achieve since Israel’s establishment. One need only look at the Recent G.C.C. (the Gulf Cooperative Council) involvement in major economic outreach programs with Asian countries, such as India and China, to realize the economic potential of peace. Billions of dollars are flowing back and forth between the oil rich Gulf States and Asia.

Instead of exploiting the new opportunity for peace presented by the Saudi Initiative, for peace in the region and a new epoch of economic prosperity for all parties involved, Israel is sitting on its diplomatic hands waiting for the ever important “pre-conditions” to be met. The onus is often put on increasing weakness of the Olmert administration and its lack of political capital. Yet, a majority of Israel citizens desire a two-state solution. There is no other act that an Israeli Prime Minister could perform to galvanize more internal support.

For the U.S., a serious and meaningful role as an honest mediator in the peace process could repair its dwindled and demonized image in the Middle East and Muslim world, with all the attendant benefits of Arab cooperation on Iraq. King Abdullah is not calling for the Israelis to simply sign the Saudi Initiative. Negotiations are expected over the Palestinian refugees, East Jerusalem and final borders before a final agreement is reached.

Israel’s continuous claim that it wants peace stands tested by whether it accepts the Saudi Initiative in principle as the framework for a regional peace agreement. The U.S. stands at a fork in the Mid-East and the path it chooses will have serious ramifications on its national security and future economic opportunities in the region. Using our influence with our number one ally in the Middle East to reconsider the Saudi Initiative is our best hope today for securing both our interests and peace.

Written by Adam from TOFYH.

Related Readings

Israel’s Prime Minister Says He is Ready to Discuss Saudi Peace Plan

Jerusalem and Peace

Arab peace initiative: Hopes & concerns

Saudi peace fraud

Egypt And Jordan, White Knights

The EU and the Palestinians

The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy – The Score Card for 2007 by James Petras

Israel’s Peace with the Arabs by Mitchell Bard

Pragmatism Towards Turkey’s Military

In the past month, worries about foreign minister Abdullah Gul of the AK Party being nominated to the position of President came to a head with over a million marching in Istanbul for secularism preceded by a thinly veiled threat by the general staff of the Turkish army to intervene. The Western medias response was positive towards a Middle Eastern and predominately Muslim nation having large public shows of support for secularism but tempered by the possibility of another military coup to defend this position, leading the Economist to declare ‘If Turks have to choose, democracy is more important than secularism’. The majority of the reasoning led towards a questioning of the Turkish military’s role, a role that seems foreign to industrialized nations where the military is typically subordinate to civil governments.

While this speaks to an ideal of a coexistence of democracy and secularism, the reality is that there is popular support for the AK Party that outnumbers the secular opposition – if elections are to be held in July, they will most likely be dominated by the AK. While this shouldn’t be declared as an Islamist majority or secular minority, the ambitions of the AK Party are unclear in regards to their Islamist roots (to be fair, the majority of their rule has respected secularism and presided over a period of sustained economic development).

In this predicament, the military shouldn’t be discounted as the self-appointed defender of Ataturk’s secular legacy. The West’s difficulty with its position is obvious: in a global memory bereft of military juntas that turned countries into prisons, the capability of a military to interfere in politics in a positive, progressive manner seems negligible. But the reality is the military has acted as an institution maintaining Western values in a country that is a member of NATO and seeking future membership in the European Union.

While the Turkish system may not be the best of all worlds, in a region where Hamas in Palestine, Lieberman in Israel, and Ahmadinejad in Iran all attained power democratically, the short falls of an unchecked democracy should be apparent. More importantly, the Turkish military has acted as an arbiter of power and primarily maintained a stable political system while countries around it have welted into Islamic regimes and authoritarian police states. Given the climate of perpetual conflict and chaos in the Middle East, there needs to be a pragmatic approach towards the forces of secularism and modernization, including the Turkish military.

More Reading & Sources

Turkey’s army and the west’s hypocrisy by Rageh Omaar, http://www.newstatesman.com/200705140019

The battle for Turkey’s soul, The Economist, http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9116747

Secularism v democracy, The Economist, http://economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9116841

The Military and Democracy in Turkey, http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=1982

Turkey, http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/05/turkey.html

AYAAN HIRSI ALI COMMENTARY: Can Secular Turkey Survive Democracy?, http://bookerrising.blogspot.com/2007/05/ayaan-hirsi-ali-commentary-can-secular.html

A Moment of Opportunity: Darfur and the 2008 Olympics

China, on a domestic and international cleaning binge, is seeking to cleanse its status and reputation by the time it begins hosting the Olympics in 2008 to appear as a developed nation in a first-world prom dress. While this may appear as a farcical whitewash operation by a totalitarian regime, it presents an opportunity for the international community to take concrete steps in resolving the Darfur crisis.

While the Darfur conflict has been well-documented (Wiki on Darfur Conflict) and officially labeled a genocide by the American government, the nations that allowed the situation to continue have until recently seen relatively little outside pressure else than the editorial page. China, as the leader in Sudanese oil imports, is at the center of enabling the Sudanese government. As the BBC states of the rise of China as an energy importer:

“From zero 15 years ago, China last year became the world’s number two oil importer… China has, we are told, been running around the world signing oil deals with everyone from Iran, to Sudan to Angola. In the race to secure future oil resources China is prepared to deal with even the dodgiest regimes, and pay the highest prices.”

China’s economic relations with the Sudanese government provided it with significant leverage that it has chosen not to use until of late. With concerns about manners, proper English, and all things image savvy that will hopefully provide an ideal experience for the foreign traveler visiting China for the first time at the 2008 Olympics, China is similarly trying to improve its image abroad as well. Helen Cooper writes in the New York Times about the collision between the internal worries of public image in China and the relation with diplomacy:

China’s decision to pressure Sudan about violence in Darfur, after years of protecting that government, can be traced to campaign to boycott 2009 Olympic Games in Beijing; Mia Farrow, good-will ambassador for United Nations Children’s Fund, started campaign to label Games in Beijing ‘Genocide Olympics’ and called on corporate sponsors to publicly exhort China to do something about Darfur; she challenged Steven Spielberg, artistic advisor to China for Games, to add his voice, prompting Spielberg to send letter to Pres Hu Jintao of China asking him to use his influence to stop killings in Darfur; senior Chinese official, Zhai Jun, recently traveled to Sudan to push government there to accept UN peacekeeping force, and then visited Darfur refugee camps; turnaround in China’s policy serves as classic study of how pressure campaign, aimed to strike Beijing in vulnerable spot at vulnerable time, could accomplish what years of diplomacy could not…

If the United Nations and the West are serious about ending one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of the decade, it must utilize the chance given in this pre-Olympic window by China. With the first noticeable signs that China is willing to act, a formidable and unified multilateral consensus should take advantage of a diplomatically-sensitive China to leverage a more proactive role in solving the Darfur crisis.

Sources

Darfur Collides With Olympics, and China Yields, by Helen Cooper, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/washington/13diplo.html?ex=1177473600&en=6dbe3623040dd8d8&ei=5070

Responsible China, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501187.html

Sudan vows to cut red tape on UN to support African peace mission in Darfur
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_55224.shtml

Manners, Manners, http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2007/04/20/manners-manners/

Other Opinions

Black Gold: The Financer of Tyranny
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/international-relations/09/07/black-gold-the-financer-of-tyranny/

China and Sudan, Blood and Oil
http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2006/04/china-and-sudan-blood-and-oil.html

Beware hypocrisy on Darfur, China
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/04/beware_hypocrisy_on_darfur_chi.html

The Wrong Decision on Sudan
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/04/the_wrong_decision_on_sudan.php

Darfur Crisis: Towards An Ever Greater Tragedy by Amit Pyakurel
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=2688&cid=8

Filling the Void: Saudi Diplomacy in a Realigned Middle East

As the Bush administration moves towards disengagement in the Middle East from those regarded as extremist — including Syria, Iran, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon — the result has been a vacuum of power left from the absence of traditional diplomatic channels. In the post Cold War era, this meant typically working with, and in the least, involving the United States. But in recent months as American policy becomes more rigid and inflexible, Middle Eastern diplomatic channels have rerouted outside of Washington and back into the Middle East proper. In this capacity, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the new bridge where the forces of moderation can work within the framework of Middle East reality — a reality where extremists unfortunately are popular and united — and work on successful compromises.

The Saud’s have also acted as the defacto go between for Iran and the West as issues continue to flair revolving supposed Iranian involvement in the Iraqi civil war, the pursuit of nuclear technology, and of the funding and support for Shiite proxy groups. Stated by the Washington Post:

Saudi diplomats, including former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan, are also deeply engaged in talks with Iran. The contacts began with a visit to Saudi Arabia by Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s national security council. Prince Bandar subsequently visited Tehran and, according to a report in the New York Times, King Abdullah received leaders of Hezbollah. Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran back opposite sides in the escalating sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, but the talks show that both governments are interested in tamping them down. Though there have been no breakthroughs, the diplomacy seems to have succeeded, at least, in cooling the situation in Lebanon, where a Hezbollah campaign against the Saudi-supported, pro-Western government led to several days of violence last month.

The continuation of this was seen in early February in talks initially balked at by Condoleezza Rice but brokered by the Saud’s between the almost-at-civil-war Hamas and Fatah Palestinian political groups. Instead of direct mediation by the Bush administration, the middle ground is reinvented by the parties involved:

America is holding back from serious involvement while it sees what else Saudi Arabia can do. King Abdullah and his energetic security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former long-time Washington ambassador, may try to stick another feather in their caps at next month’s Arab League summit. They want to revive and perhaps refine the Arab League’s 2002 proposal for all Arab states to normalise relations with Israel if Israel withdraws from all the territories it occupied in 1967, both Palestinian and Syrian.

…So was the Fatah-Hamas deal in vain? And why did Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, fly all the way to Jerusalem to see Mr Abbas and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, and on to Jordan to see America’s other Arab allies, to tell them something she could have fitted into an SMS text message?

While it is important that America acts against those committed to reckless ideology, it is increasingly important in the context of prolonged American involvement in Iraq and NATO involvement in Afghanistan that hostility does not boil over to conflict before it has the chance for diplomatic resolution. The ramifications of a sectarian Middle East become more visceral, the role of Saudi Arabia will grow as the leading voice as both a moderate country and the largest Sunni country.

Sources

Saudi Arabia’s Diplomacy, Washington Post.

Banking on the Saudis, Economist.

Decisions Deferred in Mideast Talks, Council on Foreign Relations.

Arab states watch Iraq with dread, BBC News.

A holy but puzzling alliance, Economist.

Posted on PubliusPundit and Ablogistan.

Iranian Involvement in the Iraqi Civil War