Outlook 2003: Advocates Oppose an Iraq War, and Wait for the U.S. to Push
a Peace Plan for Palestine
As the
new year begins, thunder and dark clouds make the task of forecasting
Middle East-related events and policy risky. The deep divisions within the
Bush Administration’s foreign policy team keep both the international
community and the American public off-balance.
In many ways, Secretary of
State Colin Powell has epitomized the diplomatic model of working
cooperatively with other countries and the United Nations, especially with
regard to the Arab-Israel conflict and Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq. At
the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld have championed a strategic doctrine based on near-imperial
military dominance, with preemption and unilateralism replacing the U.S.
reliance on deterrence, containment and international alliances and
treaties. While President Bush has said he benefits from hearing differing
views, the mixed messages confuse both friend and foe.
What is clear is that in 2003,
individuals and institutions, including Churches for Middle East Peace,
that are committed to resolving conflicts peacefully and with the
application of justice, will be challenged in ways familiar and new.
Iraq
– War or Bluff?
At this point, predictions
related to the Middle East are dependent on what happens in Iraq: If the
U.S. attacks unilaterally, or without the support of key Arab states…if
the U.N. inspections prove, or fail to prove, the threat of Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction or his deceit…if the Iraqi
opposition shapes into a credible alternative, or resorts to infighting
…if an invading army is met with a celebrating public, or a humanitarian
disaster…if Israel is attacked, or attacks ...if militants in Arab and
Muslim countries cast the war as liberation from tyranny, or as cause for
terrorism against Americans, etc.
CMEP, along with its Protestant
and Catholic member churches, advocate against United States’ rush to war
in Iraq. Across the country, church leaders and church members are
leading popular opposition to this war, especially a war that is not
endorsed by the United Nations.
Many analysts think that a war
against Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the early months of 2003 is inevitable,
especially given the buildup of American forces in the Persian Gulf and
Turkey. Some hold onto hope that Saddam Hussein will retreat to exile
and/or that U.N. inspections will continue with Iraqi cooperation and
compliance.
Weapons of Mass
Destruction
In any event, the
dangerous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will continue
unresolved and with increasing complexities. Iran’s construction, with
Russia’s help, of a nuclear power plant is seen as a threat by Israel and
the United States. As the plant moves closer to completion, scheduled
within the next three years, it is a potential test case of the Bush
Administration’s new doctrine of preempting threats. Israel has already
suggested that it will not allow the Iranian plant to be activated,
possibly taking action as it did on June 7, 1981 when Israeli fighter jets
destroyed the French-built Osirak light-water nuclear reactor near
Baghdad.
The U.S. has shied away from
seriously pushing for control of WMD on a Middle East regional basis as
well as from international controls on Israel’s pseudo-secret possession
of nuclear weapons. There is no reason to think that 2003 will be the year
for a serious diplomatic non-proliferation initiative, even though
non-proliferation could be the stated reason for military action.
A Palestinian State: Vision or Mirage?
One thing is certain for 2003:
The dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and potential for
peacemaking will continue regardless of how the confrontation with Iraq
plays out. Some predict that it is only after a regime change in Iraq
that there will be real traction on the “road map” that is being shaped by
the U.S. along with the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.
Others contend that Arab states will sign-on to the war against Iraq only
if there is evidence that the U.S. is willing to pursue
Israeli-Palestinian peace. The worst-case scenarios have Israel taking
military action against Iraq, possibly in retaliation for an attack on
Israel, which would lead not only to great loss of life but would end any
residual diplomatic gains of the Oslo Accords.
At this point, the road map’s
three-phased plan holds but dim hope for a resolution of the conflict.
Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon has argued that his caretaker government
not oppose the road map’s route to a Palestinian state because President
Bush’s conditions for creating a Palestinian state are probably too stiff
for the Palestinians to fulfill anyway. The official release of the plan
has been postponed until sometime in February, following the formation of
a new government in Israel.
Fortunately, the earlier demand
of President Bush to end Arafat’s rule seems to have evolved into a more
reasonable requirement that the Palestinians appoint a prime minister or
cabinet with executive authority. And the possibility exists that Amram
Mitzna’s leadership of the Labor Party could restore the readiness of
Israelis and American Jews to make the policy changes suggestive of
peacemaking, such as curbing settlements.
Indeed, dismantling Israel’s
settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was cited as “an idea that’s
doable” in the New York Times editorial page wish list for 2003.
Calling the settlements the greatest Israeli obstacle to peace, the
editorial notes that the settlements “deprive the Palestinians of valuable
land and water and deny them geographic continuity. …They are hard for
Israel to defend against Palestinian attack, and they make it impossible
to establish a clear, secure Israeli border.” Chastising the U.S. for
largely ignoring the settlements issue, the Times urges the
administration to press Israel to begin reducing the settler population.
The same editorial places
terrorism as the greatest Palestinian obstacle to peace. Unfortunately,
despite considerable U.S. pressure on Palestinian leadership, such actions
by Palestinians are likely to continue. Palestinian life and livelihood
are at rock bottom; and with fear and revenge rampant in both the Jewish
and Palestinian populations, it must be expected that death and despair
will characterize the new year’s beginnings.
In the Washington political
scene, the sorry competition between Congressional Republicans and
Democrats to vie for political advantage—by promoting hard-line hawkish
support for Israel—will continue with vigor. Advocates of peace will be
busy fending off resolutions that weaken any pressure on Israel—such as
linking loan guarantees to a freeze on settlement building—and that
bolster Israel’s claim to its unilateral sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Christian and
Jewish Right Together
Over the years, a strange
coalition has emerged in unquestioning support of Israel. This coalition
of opposition to a Palestinian state is pressuring both the Bush and
Sharon Administrations even before the road map is official. In ads
published in late December, conservative Christian leaders placed their
names alongside political conservatives Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, Alan Keyes
and William Bennett. Published by the Zionist Organization of America,
the ads address President Bush with the message, “Creating a Palestinian
Arab State Means Creating a New Terrorist State.” The ads further claim
that “Christians are persecuted and pressured to emigrate.”
Among the signers are Christian
Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson, Ed McAteer of the National
Religious Roundtable, and Gary Bauer, a policy advisor in the Reagan
Administration and former Presidential candidate. Bauer has said that a
Palestinian state would jeopardize Israel’s security and violate God’s
covenant with Abraham promising the biblical land of Israel to the Jewish
people.
Democratization Is the Buzzword
Whether the Bush Administration
will match its rhetoric with actions on its stated objective of a
democratic transformation in Middle East is an open question. It is sadly
true that successive administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have
not used the democratic governance yardstick in measuring its Arab allies.
In fact, the clear-cut rule of autocratic regimes has often been
preferred, especially among those on which the U.S. has depended for oil,
military bases, arms sales and cooperation on the Arab-Israeli peace
process.
Now, what is
being called “closing the democracy gap” is cited as an essential part of
the war on terrorism. Administration leaders are giving speeches and
proposing U.S. financial aid to promote educational and economic reform,
provide capital for entrepreneurs and support civil society movements.
Nevertheless, this remains a standard applied by the administration much
more to Palestine and a new Iraq rather than to the Arab allies of the
U.S. It has been acceptable for some friendly states —such as Egypt,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia—to prohibit the free speech and political
participation of those critical of their own rulers and their relationship
with the United States.
As the democracy talk is turned
up and grandiose plans for a “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East are
heralded, the sound fundamentals of social change and sustainable
development should be held as a measure. Military spending in the region,
and in our foreign aid outlays, must be curtailed, and resources
redirected toward human development. Greater participation in governance
and the empowerment of women, along with a more equitable distribution of
resources are essential development strategies. Regional challenges, such
as water distribution, and regional opportunities, such as tourism, must
be approached cooperatively. Long-term development will depend on
investments in better health care, better schools, and better
infrastructure as well as on greater social equity, particularly poverty
reduction and broader political participation. These changes will provide
the foundation for private sector investments and area government funding
that can sustain regional development.
U.S. foreign aid has long been
primarily a tool to advance U.S. policy and political interests. The year
2003 will bring new openings to commit resources to develop the human and
political potential of people in the Middle East. That could prove to be
the best strategy for countering terrorism.
|
