For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
The inauguration of a new president in January 2009 will provide a singular moment in international relations, a point in time where it is more likely than ever that thoughtful, fair and direct diplomacy can have a dramatic and positive impact throughout the Middle East. Currently, most of the debate in the presidential election surrounds diplomacy with Iran and withdrawing from Iraq. While these issues should be top priority, for progress in either area a larger context must inform policy makers' perspective and a plan must be put in place for the future.
Below I give the central themes of what I think a successful Middle East Peace Plan for the 21st Century would look like.
Goals:
For any plan to be legitimate, it must have clear goals to provide an impartial measurement of success and failure. These goals must provide a basis for moving forward with specific actions. The goals for a 21st Century Middle East Peace Plan are simple:
Short Term Goal: Political stability throughout the Middle East
Medium Term Goals: Diminished Iranian Influence, Increased Egyptian Influence, Diminished Tensions in Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, Political Development in Lebanon, Decreased International Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, Development of Good Governance Throughout the Region
Long Term Goal: Democratization
The short term goal of political stability throughout the region is important because it is also the fundamental goal of every government in the region, ally and enemy. While it will require working with and sometimes supporting governments and political figures who are anathema to many of our political and moral values, it is a necessary first step towards successful diplomacy. If a government feels threatened by instability within or instability in surrounding nations, it will be much less likely to be willing or able to trust, be honest and take educated risks, which are all vitally important for successful diplomacy.
The medium term goals are more specific and center around targeted areas where progress is both possible and a logical progression from the development of increased political stability. Each one independently furthers peaceful prospects in the region; while as a group they represent dramatic positive change.
The long term goal is perhaps the most controversial. Not only is it counter to the desires of numerous governments throughout the region, it could also be seen as a diplomatic extension of neo-con foreign policy. It is not. It is, and has always been, the most effective and constant foreign policy of the United States, to further democracy when possible throughout the world. This goal is furthered by finding the specific instances throughout the plan when political and diplomatic leverage can be used to further openness, good governance and democratic systems within every government of the Middle East. It need never be forced.
Timeline
Initial Actions: Actions taken or begun within the first year of the next presidency.
1)Begin Direct negotiations between the US, Syria, Lebanon and Israel with the short term goal of settling the issue of the Golan Heights and ending Syrian political interference in Lebanon, and the long term goal of normalized relations between Syria and Israel, as well as Lebanon and Israel. While this would require tough choices by all involved, it is a very real possibility that a deal could be struck where Israel agrees to give up the Golan Heights and Syria agrees to stop funding Hezbollah in Lebanon, while allowing a strong UN peacekeeping force to guarantee the security necessary for Lebanese political development.
While Israel giving up the Golan Heights would be a dramatic concession of a strategic asset, 21st century warfare no longer makes the Golan Heights the prize it was throughout the last half of the 20th century. Of much greater value to Israel would be taking away from Hezbollah their base in Lebanon. While the Syrians have shown little reason to be trusted, a UN force with a mandate to protect the political leadership of Lebanon, patrol the Lebanon/Israel border, and train the Lebanese army would provide essential tools for the always burgeoning but constantly undermined Lebanese government to take hold.
The dispute over the Shebaa Farms will have to be decided as well.
2)Dramatically increase engagement with Egypt as a political and diplomatic leader in the Middle East. To not see the potential for Egyptian leadership in the Middle East is simply to never have learned the history of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypt's current independence from much of the Middle East is a consequence of their 1979 peace treaty with Israel and the fact that Egyptian political leadership has found it easier and safer to stay out of Middle Eastern politics whenever possible. While Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was dramatic in 1979, for much of the region, normalization has become a de facto reality, even if not expressed in public by political leadership. This barrier to Egyptian influence has been greatly diminished.
Which means what is stopping the Egyptians from once again becoming prominent actors on the Middle Eastern stage is the fact that it's dangerous and they see little benefits to them. Yet America is able to provide numerous benefits to Egypt, not to mention the billions of dollars we currently give them in aid. A great deal of leverage can be obtained with Egypt through trade negotiations that would be helpful to numerous growing Egyptian business interests.
In the short run, Egyptian leadership could be a partner in Lebanese and perhaps Palestinian political development. In the long run, Egypt would provide a much safer counter weight to Iran than Saudi Arabia and Iraq currently do. This is not to say that Egypt is necessarily an example to the world of good governance, tolerance and respect for human rights; it is not. Yet Egyptian government and especially culture are more educated, in parts progressive and forward looking than any other area of the Middle East.
3)Push Turkey to legislate and enforce the laws necessary to qualify for EU membership, while at the same time convincing EU allies of the benefits and necessity of ratification. Specifically, Turkey needs to guarantee the civil and political rights of all secular and religious groups, as well as individuals of Kurdish ancestry. This would represent a dramatic, but not unpopular or impossible, step forward in Turkish political development, while simultaneously showing their good faith in pursuing EU membership. It would also diminish one source of instability in Iraq, the conflict between the Kurdish north and Turkey.
4)Establish an elite Middle East Peace Corps. Currently, the Middle East is likely the most dangerous region in the world to work, which has led to a brain drain the likes of which perhaps only the nations of sub-Saharan Africa truly understand. In order to balance against this emigration, it is necessary to provide strong incentives for people, humanitarian groups and good government experts to flock to the areas most in need.
Through a Middle East Peace Corps, the United States could train people in the specific tasks necessary for targeted projects of humanitarian aid, infrastructure development, political development, good governance workshops at all levels of government, and education. While safety would be a top priority, these will be dangerous jobs that require substantial compensation. Even still, a call of service to further US foreign policy goals through humanitarian efforts is one that many Americans will answer, and which would in the long run help reestablish US standing throughout the world.
5)Negotiate and Enact a strong and ambitious treaty on climate change. In the long run, America and our allies will never truly have any real leverage in the Middle East unless we begin to end the world's dependence on Middle East nations as a source of oil. While this goal will likely not be achieved for generations, a climate change treaty with dramatic emissions reductions and penalties for missing periodic target emission levels will send a strong signal to the nations that depend on oil for power that their future does and will depend on them acting in good faith with their neighbors and the community of nations.
Future Actions: Actions taken within the last three years of the next president's first term.
1)Begin direct negotiations with the Iranians over a broad range of issues, including the development of nuclear power and weapons, interference in Iraq, funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, and belligerency towards Israel. Negotiations with Iran can only be successful if a number of necessary steps are taken to begin to diminish Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.
Yet Iran is not a natural leader of the Arab nations in the Middle East, nor has it ever been. The current Iranian rise in influence can be derived almost directly from their defiance of the United States since the revolution in 1979. By working towards all of the initial actions in this plan, this defiance of the US will begin to diminish in key areas of Iranian influence, including Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. With Egypt as a once again emerging player in Middle Eastern politics, Arab nations and people will begin to have a choice of strong leadership in defiance of the radical tendencies of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
A more isolated Iran will likely be more dangerous in the short term, as it has long worked to emerge as a regional superpower. Yet, if incentives, support and guarantees of political stability can be used as the proverbial carrot of diplomacy, it is very possible that Iran can be, at minimum, stopped from engaging in any overt acts of aggression throughout the next four years, and, in the best case, begin on a track towards normalizing their relations with the world.
Any plan for peace in the Middle East will surely have diplomacy with Iran as the linchpin, upon which success will ultimately be decided.
2)Withdraw the vast majority of US troops from Iraq. There are not words enough to describe the danger, difficulty and absolute necessity of withdrawing US Troops from Iraq. In short, Iraq diminishes our military readiness, costs billions of dollars needed at home and in other areas of the region, is a source of resentment for millions of people throughout the Middle East and constant propaganda for our worst enemies.
Iraq is not a stable nation at this point, but has reached a level of security not seen in many years. This provides the best opportunity of the past five years to begin phased withdrawal, likely over a two year period. The goals of this withdrawal policy should be to get the most US troops out as fast as possible, while guaranteeing the security of the Iraqi government, reacting to terrorist threats and attacks, and, most importantly, ensuring as best possible that our withdrawal is not seen in Iraq and throughout the region as abandonment that equals our initial invasion in hubris and devastation.
Second Term Actions
1)Convene a regional peace conference with the goal of normalized political and trade relations between all Middle Eastern nations, most importantly Israel. In the long run, this is likely the toughest challenge in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as well as the most important to maintain as a goal. To some day strike this deal would be a coup for peace and progress throughout the world. While it is only one of many sources of instability, anger and violence in the region, it has proven the most sustaining and intractable.
2)Elimination of OPEC's ability to act as a cartel through bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. With peace comes trade; and with trade comes the desire to talk and the ability to listen. While eliminating OPEC may be impossible, diminishing its influence and securing concessions for free trade from OPEC nations may, in the long run, be very possible. Creating and maintaining a stable, secure and fair market for oil should always be a priority for US foreign policy.
3)Pursue direct and multilateral diplomacy to enact treaties that reward good governance and democratization with strong trade and political incentives. This effort should focus initially on creating democratic systems within individual communities in an effort to build the political infrastructure necessary to enact successful, sustainable and, most importantly, peaceful democratic political reform.
Cross Posted at Fitz on Politics and Talking Points Memo