Work to Do on West-Middle East Relations

HAMBURG, Germany -- I had the pleasure in Hamburg this week of sharing a panel discussion with two impressive people -- Iranian lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, and former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer. The gathering, sponsored by the Korber Foundation to discuss "The Future of the Middle East,",confirmed that we have much work to do on the issue of when, and whether, powerful Western countries have the responsibility and/or the right to intervene in the internal affairs of Third World countries.

Our three differing perspectives analyzed the tensions between the West and the Middle East/South Asia, especially in Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran and Afghanistan. Fischer broadly articulated a common Western view that:
a) much of the problem in the Middle East is due to power-hungry local leaders who sometimes prefer confrontation and conflict to stability, democracy and development;
b) if Arabs and Iranians embraced Israel the region would be less violent; and,
c) the most dangerous threat to regional and global security today is Iran's nuclear industry, which must be checked before it develops nuclear weapons.

A different, Middle Eastern, perspective that Ebadi and I proposed holds that the authoritarianism, instability and violence of our region reflect:
a) home-grown autocrats who are often supported by Western powers, leaving the masses of citizens disempowered, disenchanted and susceptible to demagoguery;
b) flagrant Western double standards in implementing basic human rights standards and UN resolutions, causing mass skepticism in fostering or respecting the rule of law; and,
c) a continuing tradition of Western armies that enter our region and try to re-order it in their image or to suit their strategic needs, but end up making it more unstable and violent.

Yet we agreed that double standards are not helpful, whoever practices them. The West should not discriminate between, say, Israel and the Arab states in implementing UN resolutions, or Israel and Iran in terms of nuclear technology. Similarly, Arab and Iranian autocrats who deny their own people the rule of law cannot credibly demand that the West observe international law. Much better, we agreed, to find that middle ground -- a single standard of law and morality -- where Western and Arab-Islamic actors behave according to common rules, thus generating the equal treatment and mutual enjoyment of rights that are the key to resolving conflicts and coexisting in peace and security. Unable to do this, we all persist in using threats, sanctions, attacks, resistance, revenge, terror and all sorts of pre-emptive political violence.

Still, the core dilemma remains unresolved: When should it be permissible for Western countries to intervene in or invade states in our region? Iraq and Afghanistan are two live examples of this, with clear but debatable consequences. Those armies that invaded Iraq are now apparently on their way out, but more NATO troops may be on their way into Afghanistan. A military strike or more severe sanctions against Iran are possible in the months ahead. Others are on a stand-by list for possible NATO and Israeli intervention.

If aggressive or military actions by Western powers are deemed by a majority of citizens in the Arab-Asian region to reflect double standards, they will be met with greater and greater local resistance and political defiance. The circle of violence will expand -- as it has been since September 11, 2001.

If the United States, Israel and others view Iran only through the prism of its potential threat as a nuclear armed state, they are likely to hasten that nuclear capability, rather than deter it. More economic sanctions will probably hurt the Iranian people, without significantly bothering the ruling elite.

A better approach, Ebadi suggested, is to maintain dialogue with Iran on the full range of issues that matter to the leaders and people of both sides -- nuclear capabilities, human rights, security, economic growth, democracy and others. Talk, negotiate, contain, or pressure as you wish, but do so on the basis that universal human rights standards would be applied consistently across the region, whether in Arab lands, Israel, Iran or Afghanistan.

As Iraq slowly fades from their view, many in Europe and the West remain confused and frustrated about what to do in Afghanistan and Iran: increase the pressure and the troops, or shift into a political dialogue mode? The West says it intervenes in the Middle East to defend itself against new attacks and terror. It's hard to argue against self-defense; it's equally hard -- NATO is discovering -- to perpetuate an interventionist strategy that seems to enhance, rather than contain, the threat of radical militancy and terror from the lands that NATO has invaded.

A healthier and more useful debate would explore how security can be achieved by promoting the application of the rule of law and access to national and human rights for all, simultaneously. The courageous Shirin Ebadi said it succinctly: "If you go to other countries, go to build schools, not military bases."