War changes relations ... sometimes surprisingly

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Mid-East awash with diplomatic moves

by Paul Wood
BBC correspondent in Jerusalem

The Middle East is awash with diplomatic initiatives. Libya is talking to Israel. Egypt is talking to Iran. Turkey is passing messages from Israel to Syria.

In fact, almost the only people who are not talking to each other are Israel and the Palestinians.
This is big picture diplomacy. The discussions are not about this settlement or that road, but about and between states not on speaking terms for a generation.

“The war against terrorism launched by the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq has brought Israel and its Arab neighbours closer than ever before,” said Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad.

Briefing foreign journalists in Jerusalem, Mr Halevy said the potential for change in the region was more now than during the early part of the 20th Century, when the great powers redrew the map of the Middle East.

Exaggerated hopes? There was certainly a mood of genuine excitement in Israel when news broke that some “initial contacts” had been made with Libya.

But Israeli officials have been playing down expectations that normal ties can be restored easily or quickly.

**Old enemy **

There is still less optimism about Syria.

President Bashar al-Assad wants talks. Israel has conditions. These seem to reflect Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s caution in dealing with the Jewish state’s old enemy.

The diplomatic landscape is changing. The question is if that will alter the sad dynamic of the conflict here

First of all, Damascus will have to curb the activities of Hezbollah as it wages a sporadic guerrilla war against Israel on its northern border.
Other demands include closing Hamas and Islamic Jihad offices in Damascus, arranging prisoner swaps for Israeli soldiers missing in Lebanon, and allowing the remains of the spy Eli Cohen to be returned for burial in Israel.

Some Israelis believe President Assad is not serious about talks. If he was, they say, he would have used diplomatic back channels rather than calling for talks in an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph.

Newspapers here also quote US officials as saying that even if President Assad wanted to sign a peace deal with Israel, they are not convinced he is strong enough to do so.

The principle demand of both Israel and the United States is that Syria close down what are held to be its chemical and biological weapons programmes. Syria has stopped short of fully acknowledging it has such programmes.

**Peace talks **

American officials say President Assad has not yet come to terms with the fact that US troops are on his border. Others disagree.

“Syria is an isolated country, with a tyrannical regime trying to survive in the face of an historic tidal wave that is removing such tyrannies,” said the influential former Prime Minister, and current Israeli Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

He told Israeli radio: “Syria needs a peace arrangement with us like the air they breathe; they need it much more than we do. The advantage is totally on our side.”
It is Mr Netanyahu’s calculation that Syria is weak now and can be pressured into peace without Israel having to give up all of the Golan Heights.

This is why some in Israel are pressing for a positive answer to Syria’s overtures.

The head of the Knesset’s defence and foreign relations committee - an ally of Mr Netanyahu’s - has called for President Assad to be invited to talk peace in Jerusalem, just as President Sadat of Egypt once did.

**Despair **

All this is a sign that the Iraq war has transformed the strategic situation in the Middle East. Wars have a way of doing that.

Some things remain the same. Glancing over the Israeli papers on Friday, there was one of those stories which just makes you despair about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The report, in Haaretz, began: “It was a bitter cold night at the Deir Balut checkpoint and Lamis Mustafa, who was in labour, begged to be allowed to get to the hospital. The soldiers delayed her for about 90 minutes. She gave birth at the checkpoint. Neither of her twin babies survived.”

The diplomatic landscape is changing. The question is if that will alter the sad dynamic of the conflict here after more than three years of bloodshed.

It’s an interesting take … and I wonder how the relations of those countries in Middle East who supported the war (willingly or unwillingly) are being treated by those who apposed it.

2

An article from the Christian Science Monitor with the same observations:

In world’s hot spots, forward steps

From Pakistan to Sudan to North Korea, problems may be starting to yield to economic imperatives and global pressure.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – The dawning new year has been witness to good news from a number of the world’s most protracted conflicts and dangerous trouble spots.
Promising developments are suddenly marking the global landscape: between nuclear powers India and Pakistan; in Sudan, where rebels this week reached an agreement with southern rebels that could end Africa’s longest civil war; in Libya, which recently announced it would give up its unconventional weapons programs to reenter the community of nations; in US-Iranian relations, with Iran agreeing to international inspection of nuclear sites; and even in North Korea, which this week offered to freeze its nuclear programs

While foreign-policy experts generally remain cautious about linking these events too closely or about assigning them a common catalyst, they do see some common threads:

• Economic imperatives. Libya and Sudan, both hobbled by US economic sanctions for promotion of international terrorism, are anxious to clear the way for foreign investment, particularly of US companies in their oil sectors. Iran, which bowed to European Union pressure for inspections, wished to avoid prospective international sanctions. And Pakistan is desperate for improved economic relations with both India and the US.

• Religious terrorism. Many of the countries that are party to one of the “good news” developments have either sponsored or tolerated ambiguous relationships with Islamic extremists, but are now reassessing those ties. Just as Saudi Arabia considers last year’s bombings in Riyadh “our 9/11” - a wakeup call that has prompted measures against home-grown terrorists - Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf is seen as motivated in part by two recent attempts on his life by Islamic extremists. And Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, who knows something about international terrorism, appears to prefer the company of the international community to that of religious terrorists who could threaten his own regime.

• The WMD factor. The focus that the US and the world community has put on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction since Sept. 11 has, at the least, forced countries with nuclear programs and unconventional weapons goals to weigh the costs of those pursuits.

Diplomacy vs. military power

Beyond this, foreign-affairs analysts say that the confluence of forward steps will feed Washington’s ongoing brouhaha over diplomatic versus military power.

“The debate in Washington is over whether all of this is a product of tough Bush administration policies and the war in Iraq, or whether it’s more the result of multilateral diplomatic pressures and things like economic sanctions having an impact,” says Charles Kupchan, a foreign-policy expert at Georgetown University.

Adds Lee Hamilton, the director of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, “The hawks argue the case that it is military action that has prompted this movement, while the doves will claim it’s the diplomacy and sanctions and the collective tools that have been the most effective. Who knows?” he adds. “I don’t think you can identify exclusive factors in this.”

Libya, especially, is offered as evidence of the ripple effect of the Bush administration’s willingness to topple a regime in Iraq. But at the same time, progress in Sudan is coming after many months spent and miles traveled by US diplomats - and after President Bush, spurred by some US Christians who have taken on the cause of Sudan’s Christian south, promised to receive the two sides in the White House once a final peace accord is reached.

A more muscular US role in the world - and in particular Bush’s declaration after Sept. 11 that countries would be seen as either with the US or against it - “has forced a lot of countries to make choices,” says Jon Wolfsthal, a weapons proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

In a similar vein, the war in Iraq has jarred the global landscape and forced new choices, especially as the US has asked for international backing.

As just one example, the US has moved to improve its relations with Iran, given that country’s influence with Iraq’s majority Shiite Muslim population. That scenario in turn has pushed Saudi Arabia toward fuller accommodation of US demands, in hopes of blunting American cooperation with Tehran that could enhance Iranian influence in the region.

But Mr. Wolfsthal notes that the current examples of progress also suggest that perhaps more could have been accomplished without the distraction of the war in Iraq. Indeed, Georgetown’s Kupchan says recent events demonstrate the reemergence of diplomacy and negotiation.

“The biggest change of the last six months is Washington’s recognition that in most cases, a negotiated solution is really the only viable alternative,” he says. “The war in Iraq is demonstrating just how costly the military route is.”

Just scratch deep?

At the same time, some experts are cautioning that what looks like progress might only be scratch deep. “You can attribute some of this to President Bush’s foreign policy, but in other cases it could be dangerous to overplay the significance of what’s happening,” says Max Boot, a foreign-policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Noting that Iran has not committed to stopping its nuclear program and that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in his view continue to play with the fire of home-grown extremists, Mr. Boot says, “It could be that we’re seeing a number of balancing games with countries doing as little as possible to reap some benefit.”

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Adds Lee Hamilton, the director of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, "The hawks argue the case that it is military action that has prompted this movement, while the doves will claim it's the diplomacy and sanctions and the collective tools that have been the most effective. Who knows?" he adds. "I don't think you can identify exclusive factors in this."
[/QUOTE]

I wonder why it's so hard for people to accept that you need to have both the credible threat of force and the credible offer of benefits to cause behavioral change in others. I think there is room for legitimate debate as to where you strike the balance, but no room to debate that you can be successful with only one side of the equation covered.

If we lived in a pollyanna world where all leaders were benevolent and cared more for the health and welfare of their people than they did about their own power and wealth, we wouldn't need to use force or the threat of force. If someone places their highest priority on maintaining and/or expanding their power and wealth, then only the real threat to take away their power and wealth will prompt them to act as you want them to act. Sometimes,the only way to take that power and wealth away is by force.

It is simply too much for me to believe that Qaudaffi changed his tune because he all of a sudden realized his highest priority is the health and welfare of his people. He changed because of fear that he would lose his power and wealth. It's doubtful he was too worried about his own people throwing him out.