Fares Center Conference Opens Dialogue on the Way Forward in the Middle East
W
What would the Cuban Missile Crisis look like in slow motion? The current situation with Iran—or so says David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, who emphasized Iran’s capacity for damage during a recent conference at The Fletcher School. He engaged with a number of other scholars and experts speaking at the Fares Center’s summit on “Foreign Policy Challenges for the New administration: Iran and the Middle East.” Throughout the course of the conference, two themes emerged: the importance of understanding the Middle Eastern perspective and how to change U.S. policy going forward.
John Esposito, author of What Muslims Really Think, provided some important information about Muslim attitudes informing Middle East engagement with the West. Despite the prevailing misconception that Muslims loathe the West, there is no clash of civilizations, religions, or even Western-style democracy. To the contrary, Esposito argues, Muslims admire American technology, freedom, human rights, democracy, and governmental transparency.
It is U.S. foreign policy which provokes negative reactions from many Muslims. Instead of blindly hating the West, the Muslims who participated in Esposito’s interviews clearly distinguished among the policies of France, Britain and Germany. They see a double standard in the way the West pursues democracy and human rights abroad. While espousing democratic ideals, the U.S. invaded Iraq without international legal sanction. While dismissing Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, the United Nations has leveled punitive measures against Iran. Muslims in the Middle East generally have a nuanced understanding of Western interests and policy, but they disagree vehemently with the substance and style of many of these ends when it comes to their own region.
Esposito advocated a new paradigm of Western interaction with the Muslim world based on six qualities. First, the U.S. must rethink its unequivocal support for governments that commit human rights violations such as Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The current policy reinforces the perception that the American human rights agenda is hypocritical. Second, the U.S. should broaden its base of support by reaching out to political extremists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Moroccan Justice and Charity Party, that it previously disregarded. Third, the U.S. needs to leverage diplomacy to support democracy in Egypt and Jordan, countries where democratic measures have been manipulated to strengthen ruling regimes. Fourth, the U.S. must increase aid to unstable countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Fifth, the gaudy display of American influence and military power, such as massive arms sales or expensive, prison-like embassies, should be reduced. Lastly, the U.S. should engage in dialogue with opposition and reform movements like mainstream Islamic political parties, even if this engagement annoys the allies in charge of host governments.
Contributing to the theme of engagement as the way forward, Ignatius commented on the importance of engaging Syria and Iran. What is required now is both broad and narrow dialogue. For example, former Congressman Lee Hamilton participated in a broad, sustained dialogue with the Soviet Union during the Cold War which helped thaw relations there. During her recent visit to the Middle East, Secretary of State Clinton said, “The U.S. is back. We are listening; we don’t have all the answers.” Clinton has also initiated a narrow dialogue by inviting Iran’s participation in responding to the Afghanistan crisis. This first step could lead to expanded cooperation over time.
Ignatius offered sound words to conclude the policy discussion. He stressed the importance of emulating the Middle Eastern way of negotiating. While many policy analysts have employed the “carpet bazaar” analogy, it is true that the West needs to communicate the way the Muslim world does in order to further its interests. Like a buyer, the U.S. should not point out the item that matters the most because the seller will demand the highest price. Instead, the U.S. should be cunning and patient. The Iranians are master bargainers. The most favorable outcome will depend on not only engagement and dialogue, but clever diplomatic maneuvering at all levels.
Cybele Cochran F09