The United
States, members of the Group of Eight, and, indeed the
Middle East, are going through a historical moment
starting this week. The United Nations has unanimously
passed a resolution legitimizing the interim Iraqi
government, thereby, at least tacitly, endorsing the
presence of US forces in Iraq. The industrial allies of
the US are meeting under the auspices of the G8 in the
US state of
Georgia to discuss, inter alia, the
US-sponsored Middle East initiative of democratizing the
region.
However, only a few Arab sycophants
of America are present at that summit in order to create
a semblance of dialogue. These are important
developments, but the administration of President George
W Bush does not understand that, given its record of
invasion of Iraq, any attempt to
democratize the Middle East will be
viewed as just another "ploy" by Washington to subjugate
the Arab Middle East, a la Iraq. In fact, that's how it
is presently couched in Cairo and Riyadh.
Despite the controversies involved
in the selection of the members of the interim Iraqi
government, the UN Security Council unanimously passed
resolution 1546 that endorses the handover of
sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on June 30.
The resolution also authorizes a US-led multinational
force to maintain security in the country. One major
reason for that outcome was the US willingness to revise
the draft resolution at least five times with a view to
fulfilling the requirements of France, China and Russia
about spelling out the nature of sovereignty of the
interim government, and attempting to ensure that the
Iraqis, in the final analysis, will have a say about
future security operations and about the presence of
multinational forces in their country.
Secondly, the
presence of the foreign minister of the Iraqi interim
government at the UN was also quite helpful. Thirdly,
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi sent a letter to the Security
Council spelling out the interim government's resolve to
take charge of internal security and to consult with the
multinational forces about internal security. US
Secretary of State Colin Powell also assured the
Security Council of the US willingness to consult with
the interim government in that regard. Needless to say,
France, China and Russia will be watching the behavior
of the multinational force closely.
After the
passage of 1546, it is up to the Iraqis to pass judgment
on the legitimacy of the interim government by
supporting it. The continued violence in Iraq
immediately following the passage of that resolution was
not a good sign. However, one has to hold judgment until
further evidence emerges regarding the reception of the
larger Iraqi population of the UN's endorsement of the
interim government. What is even more important is how
the interim administration will handle itself in the
coming months. President Ghazi al-Yawar's participation
in the G8 summit - whose popularity in the Middle East
is questionable, to say the least - may turn out to be
an inauspicious start for the interim government.
The G8 summit is presently considering the
US-sponsored Middle East initiative. Even though the
Bush administration is somewhat chastened by the
deterioration of the security situation in Iraq and by
the continued refusal of a number of major countries to
send peacekeeping troops to Iraq; its idea of imposing
democracy from outside is perceived as grotesque by a
number of major Arab states. Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
while not opposing the principle of democratic reforms,
have opposed the Bush administration's attempt at
imposing "foreign order". They are also critical of the
US for paying too little attention to reviving the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process. In fact, the European
attendees of the G8 summit said that reforms in the
Middle East should be accompanied by support for a
settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a
considerably more palatable perspective than the one
originally promoted by the US.
President Bush
wanted to further build on what he perceives as the
victory of the US in the unanimous passage of resolution
1546, by pressing the European attendees of the G8
summit for some sort of agreement for broadening the
role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in
the Middle East. Apparently, he wants that alliance's
presence and support in Iraq in the near future. For
now, France has expressed its unwillingness to support
such a measure. The Arab League itself is on the record
in its opposition to any NATO role in the Middle Eastern
political reform process.
From the US side, a
visible role for NATO had its precedent in Afghanistan.
However, the US military campaign in Afghanistan was
carried out under different circumstances and for a
different reason. In Afghanistan, the US went in to
dismantle the transnational terror network of al-Qaeda,
an objective that had international support. Such
support is seriously lacking in the case of the US
invasion of Iraq.
Considering that the US
presence in Iraq is still a highly contentious issue in
Europe, Bush's advocacy for NATO's role in the Middle
East may not materialize any time soon. Even if it were
to become a reality at some point, it is likely to widen
the scope of the present conflict. Right now, Arab
states and the US don't see eye-to-eye in the Middle
East regarding Washington's role in Iraq, Palestine, and
about its insistence on promoting democracy from
without.
The potential participation of NATO in
that region is likely to couch the conflict in a broader
and a considerably more ominous framework. Then, the
radicals and extremists of the Middle East may be able
to make a strong case that the "West" is determined to
"subjugate" the world of Islam, something that Egypt and
Saudi Arabia are already arguing, even though at a
comparatively smaller scale.
Bush may eventually
learn that, as hard as it is to stabilize and
democratize Iraq, democratization of the entire Middle
East is even harder, especially for the Bush
administration. Democratic change in the Middle East
must come from within, or through dialogue among
friends, as the Europeans have been insisting, but
definitely not through gunboat diplomacy or preemption
of any sort.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
Georgia to discuss, inter alia, the
US-sponsored Middle East initiative of democratizing the
region. 
