Middle East and Washington Reform Each Other

by Rami G. Khouri

I was just starting a year's studies in the Boston area in September 2001, when a few hours after the Sept. 11 attacks an American friend asked me what I thought would be the consequences of that day's events. I said the attacks might spark a process by which the US would finally enter into modern world history. By that I meant the US might drop its self-perceived status as a special and blessed nation, geographically and ideologically apart from the world, divinely safeguarded, and destined single-handedly to change human civilization for the better. The US has essentially lived outside of world history for much of its life, treating most other nations mainly as markets or targets, i.e., engaging the world through trade and warfare, but not with the normal give-and-take of negotiated relationships that serve the needs of both sides.

The American response to Sept. 11 was primarily military: the US had to fight to preserve its way of life, and spread it to other countries - by force as necessary. So the US did not reenter modern world history right after Sept. 11, but it may be doing so now. Perhaps Washington has learned the negative consequences of treating the world's countries primarily as markets and targets. In recent months, the US has shown important signs of negotiating relationships with the rest of the world, instead of dictating to, attacking, and threatening others.

This may just be a short-term tactic to get the US out of Iraq, and get Bush re-elected in November. Yet we should not rule out the possibility that it could indicate a change in America's dealings with the world: with realism replacing romanticism, the possible replacing the ideal, and negotiated compromises replacing demands made at gunpoint.

The two best examples of this revised form of American engagement of the world are Iraq and the drive to reform the Arab and Islamic countries of the greater Middle East region. The United States went into Iraq 15 months ago with guns blazing to bring about regime change, and loudspeakers blaring about the promise of a new Iraqi democratic governance model that will spread throughout the entire region.

In recent months, Washington has shown admirable flexibility in how it deals with the internal transition in Iraq. It has quietly dropped or significantly changed most points of principle or policy that it had championed last year.

To mention only the most obvious: • dumping the ridiculous plan for transition to Iraqi sovereignty via a combination of local caucuses and appointed councils; • allowing the United Nations in, instead of keeping them out of, the transition process; • now bringing in, instead of banishing, former Iraqi Baathists, into the business of governance and security; and, • negotiating with rebellious Iraqis, instead of fighting them to the finish.

The two episodes of local Iraqi military resistance to the US occupation - in Fallujah in the north, and Najaf and other towns in the south - started with the US saying it would disarm the militias and capture or kill militant Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. Instead, and wisely, it has negotiated truces in both places, and learned to live in the real world. In these instances at least, Washington put away its cowboy doctrines and learned instead that sometimes the higher worth of stability and security for an entire society requires that you coexist and make deals with people you might prefer to fight, lock up, kill, or ignore.

The flexible American attitude to revising the UN Security Council draft resolution on transferring sovereignty to Iraq is another case in point of realism and compromise triumphing over idealism and bullying tactics. The US deals with the UN today in a very different manner than it did two years ago, and thank goodness and Ayatollah Ali Sistani for that.

The other fascinating example of how the US may be learning to live inside of modern world history, rather than angelically and prophetically hovering above it, is in the compromises it makes as it pushes for political, social, educational, and economic reforms throughout the Middle East. The US unilaterally launched this reform initiative some eight months ago as a means of "draining the swamp", or changing those distressed conditions in Middle Eastern societies that provided a fertile environment for terrorism. The original US reform initiative generally met with hostile reactions in the Middle East and Europe. These quickly sparked a series of consultations, and Arab and European counter-proposals.

This week, in the US state of Georgia, the G8 summit of industrialized powers is discussing the revised reform ideas with a handful of invited Arab leaders. This approach is much more likely to succeed than a unilateral plan blasted from the ideological loose cannons in Washington who want to change the world in order to make America safe.

The US has significantly changed, modified the scope and lowered the tone of its original Middle East reform initiative, making it much more acceptable to Arab and European countries. The Middle East reform initiative may not reform anything in the Middle East, but it already has done much good by reforming the way Washington does diplomatic business with Europe and the Middle East.

Let's hope we are witnessing the first signs of Washington absorbing the lessons of the inefficacy of the past two and a half years of its unilateral military response to the Sept. 11 attacks. If the Neocons' aggressive global military policies are losing ground in Washington, and the US is seeking a more effective way to engage in global affairs, the world should not miss these early signals of that change.

If the United States indeed decides it wants to enter into modern world history, it should be welcomed into the process, for its sake and the world's.


Rami G. Khouri is executive editor of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune.

Copyright © 2004 Rami G. Khouri

--------------- Released: 09 June 2004