Peace and democracy: Arab talking points for Tunis
By Abdul Aziz Said
Special to The Daily Star
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Democratic peace theory has never been more popular than it is today in
Washington. According to this theory, democracy and peace are so closely
correlated that the way to spread peace is to spread democracy.
The argument has provided an intellectual rationale for the proposed Greater
Middle East Initiative, which will offer trade and aid as well as other political
incentives to governments that promise to implement reforms related to
human rights, women's rights and economic liberalization. Whatever merit
there may be in the assumption that well-established democracies are
unlikely to go to war with one another, democratic peace theory is
dangerously incomplete when applied as a guiding framework for policy in
situations where conflict is fueled not only by the narrow interest-based
calculations of self-serving elites, but also by the powerfully felt national
bonds to territory and endangered kinsfolk.
The Middle East is a case in point; stable peace in the region is inconceivable
without an evenhanded response to the conflict between Arabs and
Palestinians on the one hand and Israelis on the other, not to mention the
competing claims of Arabs and Kurds. Unfortunately, it is not easy to sustain
a conversation about peacemaking in Washington these days. Every time an
Arab diplomat or American academic tries to make a point about the vital
importance of US efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians,
the official response is that democratic reform must come first.
However incoherent Washington's trickle-down, selective approach to
democratization may be, the subject cannot be avoided. Rather than try
futilely to change the subject, Arab interlocutors and advocates of Middle
East peace need to develop detailed talking points that link issues of reform
to the challenges of peacemaking. Here are some themes that Arab leaders
may wish to emphasize next week at the Arab League Summit in Tunis:
l Without peace, the cause of Arab reform is likely to fail. With peace, the
cause of Arab reform will flourish. Without democracy peace will have no
foundation, but if peace and democracy come together, the future will be
bright.
l Peace requires leaders on all sides who are willing to take risks and pay a
price.
l A comprehensive peace is needed, but may have to be achieved in stages.
For example, the US could start by helping to resolve Israel's issues with
Lebanon and Syria, or by moving decisively on Israeli-Palestinian issues. As
long as efforts on one track are serious, they can clear the way for further
progress on the others.
l The Saudi peace proposal adopted by the Beirut Arab League summit in
2002 is still on the table. Arabs are willing to accept Israel within its 1967
boundaries, which means Arabs are no longer categorically opposed to
Zionism as such; it is Zionist expansionism that alarms them. (This is an
important distinction, because in the United States categorical anti-Zionism is
equated with anti-Semitism.) Arabs recognize that the idea of Zion has deep
roots in Jewish tradition; therefore Zionism is not equivalent to racism.
l The principle of peace through democracy and human rights should be
applied within the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations as well as in the
broader region. Democracy and human rights begin with the principle of selfdetermination.
l Arabs are realists insofar as they do not expect the US to be completely
disinterested or to disavow its historical relationship with Israel. However,
they do expect it to adopt an enlightened and inclusive understanding of
American interests. They believe that it is possible for the US to be "multipartial" in its approach to mediation, and not simply impartial. Washington
should seek a resolution that is both pro-Israel (including security guarantees
from great powers as well as from the Arabs) and pro-Palestinian (providing
full independence in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in combination with
an ambitious program of international partnership to reverse the suffering
and marginalization of refugees).
l The Arab-Israeli conflict is about modern nationhood and the intertwined
destinies of traumatized peoples, not ancient hatreds. It has emerged out of
a relationship grounded in fear and asymmetry of power. It is sustained by a
process that fosters exclusivist identities. Violence on all sides is driven by
despair. There is a need for more talk about the impact of conflict on
innocent civilians and younger generations, with special consideration for
Palestinian demands concerning equal access to resources.
l There is a need for the different sides to talk about their fears and "national
nightmare scenarios." If parties to conflict can take steps to help end one
another's national nightmares, they may also be able to imagine common
dreams.
l Diplomatic discourse should address not only rights, but also the need for
hope, dignity and homes. Moreover, it should not focus exclusively on the
delineation of boundaries, but also on the improvement of relationships.
(Arab leaders seeking to make such points would be wise to invite a Seeds of
Peace delegation to the Arab League Summit in Tunis). Intercultural
confidence-building measures such as inter-religious dialogue can play an
important role in conflict resolution. After all, Arabs and Israelis alike partake
in the covenants of Adam and Abraham.
l For enduring peace, both the Arab wall (the boycott of Israel) and the
Israeli wall (the barrier that has intruded on Palestinian lands and lives) will
have to come down. If Israelis are willing to embrace their own status as a
Middle Eastern people, Arabs are ready to acknowledge this regional status
as well.
For too long, Arabs have put off reform until a time of peace, and Americans
have used the absence of reform as a basis for withholding efforts to
establish peace. If Arabs and Americans can agree to work together and
move simultaneously on both fronts, however, they can address the root
causes of problems in which the whole world has a stake. 2004 is unlikely to
be a year of decisive American action to support a just and humane Middle
East peace. Yet it is a year in which peace advocates around the world can
take steps that might possibly prepare the way for a peace offensive in 2005.
The best way to prepare for decisive action is to develop a common vision.
The old order is disintegrating, and the new order will only begin if it is
inspired by a shared vision that will help leaders overcome self-centeredness,
avoid drift and mobilize social energies so that people throughout the region
can feel energized by the sense that they are owners and authors of their
own future.
An ancient Latin saying affirms there is hope for as long as the breath of life
persists. Despair is not an option. Despite opposition, fear, violence and
injustice, there is much that can still be done for peace this spring.
Abdul Aziz Said is professor and director of the Center for Global Peace at
American University in Washington. Nathan C. Funk is a visiting assistant
professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington
University. They wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR