The Age | By Stephen Kinzer | 15.01.2011
ONE of the immutable patterns of history is the rise and fall of great powers. Nations and empires that survive over many centuries are those that adapt as the world changes. The United States and other Western powers now face the challenge of evolving to keep pace with a rapidly evolving world. Nowhere is this more urgent than in the Middle East. Yet the West remains trapped in a straitjacket of old ideas, approaches and paradigms.
Since the Cold War ended 20 years ago the security environment in the Middle East has changed enormously. Terrifying new threats are emerging from that region - but there are also tantalising new opportunities. Frozen into immobility, the West has so far proven unable to take advantage of them.
In a new age, the West needs new partners in the Muslim Middle East. It should search for countries that fit two criteria. First, they should be countries whose societies share at least some version of the values Westerners prize. Second, they should be countries whose long-term strategic goals are parallel to Western goals.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two of the West's key allies, do not qualify. Their societies are largely hostile to the ideals of openness and tolerance, and their strategic goals include propagating a radical form of Islam promoting hatred of the West.
They help the US fight its enemies while at the same time helping those enemies fight the US. These countries need to find their own way in the world, and do not make good long-term partners for the West.
Which countries do? One obvious answer is Turkey, which is both the world's most democratic Muslim country and a bastion of free-market capitalism. Anything the West can do to help Turkey promote its model in the Islamic world is good for everyone except fundamentalists and other extremists.
Another, less obvious country also making an intriguing possible ally for the West is Iran. The radical rhetoric of Iranian leaders obscures the fact that Iranian society, unlike that of almost any other country in the Middle East, is profoundly democratic. Iranians have had a constitution for more than a century, and their experience of living under undemocratic leaders has intensified their admiration of freedom. Iran's long-term strategic goals are remarkably congruent with those of the US and its allies. Iran is the bitter enemy of radical Sunni groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And it has a unique ability to help stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan. Through its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah, it could also help calm the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The US is focused on punishing, isolating and sanctioning Iran. That is the approach other countries take towards Israel. In this sense, Iran and Israel are in parallel situations. Many detest the governments of one or the other of those countries - or both - and want to hurt them.
Doing so may redeem emotions, but it does not promote the cause of peace. A wiser policy would be to try drawing Iran and Israel out of their isolation, and ultimately make them feel safe enough so they can make the security concessions the world needs them to make.
The US insists Iran negotiate on a single issue, its nuclear program, and agrees to limit that program in ways the US would find acceptable - in other words, to accept what Iranians would consider surrender. This is not a promising strategy. Instead, the US should offer to broaden the negotiating agenda to include issues that concern Iran, rather than only the one that concerns Washington. That would provide a framework under which Iran might be willing to make concessions.
The US-Iran relationship is the most dysfunctional in today's world. No two countries have been at each other's throats so intensely for so long. Both harbour a deep sense of grievance. If the US could break away from the prison of emotion and instead consider its own interest, it would seek a breakthrough with Iran. Even if that proves impossible now, this should be a long-term American goal, and the US should do nothing that will make it more difficult to achieve in the future.
Re-examining alliance patterns, as President Nixon did with China in the 1970s, should be an integral part of strategic planning. Washington, however, remains frozen in a 20th-century view of the world.
American leaders should ask themselves what kind of Middle East they would like to see 50 or 100 years from now - and which partnerships are most likely to stabilise the world's most turbulent region.
Stephen Kizner is the author of Reset: Middle East, $24.95, published by I.B. Tauris.
No comments:
Post a Comment