The region between Egypt and Pakistan is a cauldron of five discrete, explosive components: Iraq's civil strife, Afghanistan's insurgency, Iran's nuclear ambitions, the longstanding Israel-Arab conflict and the risk of clashes between extremist groups and corrupt, repressive governments. A comprehensive policy is needed, yet the threats are so diverse and complex that separate approaches have to be applied simultaneously.
In Iraq, the US' policy of building a semi-federal state of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds runs a high risk of failure because of Shiite domination, Sunni and Shiite terrorism, Kurdish separatism and meddling by Iran. The cost in lives is already unbearably high. The US cannot sustain the current rate of casualties (either US or Iraqi), or the expense. To create the conditions for long-term stability, a negotiated separation may be needed, comparable to the Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the war in the former Yugoslavia.
Separating Iraq's populations would be painful. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the US-led coalition forces should help people who want to move to other parts of the country. One may object that to facilitate internal relocation is to collaborate with "ethnic or religious cleansing," but the toll of prolonged war in Iraq, which could lead to its dismemberment anyway, is much worse. The principle of pluralism is valuable, but curbing bloodshed deserves to be the priority.
A Dayton-like agreement can be achieved only if the UN Security Council backs it. It would be in the long-term interest of the permanent members to do so. Russia and China would, however, be helpful only if the US changes the current Bush administration's approach.
Such an initiative would need to be supported strongly by the EU. Perhaps tripartite mediation, backed by the US, the EU and Russia would increase the chances. The Arab League and the Conference of Islamic States should be consulted and involved. The US and other coalition forces would have to withdraw gradually, beginning from the south of Iraq. Foreign forces would still be needed to help protect the Sunni population west of Baghdad and in the middle of Iraq against the Shiite south, as well as in the Kurdish north to keep Turkey from intervening.
A peaceful separation agreement would require international peacekeepers with contributions from many powers, including Islamic states, India, China and Japan. As stability in the Middle East is essential to them, this is a matter of enlightened self-interest. Those of Iraq's neighbors that are potential spoilers would need to be restrained by a Security Council mandate for such a Dayton-type settlement.
In Afghanistan, NATO-led military operations against the neo-Taliban and other opponents of state-building offer only a partial and temporary solution. The influx of insurgents from Pakistan will not stop. The population sees little improvement in living conditions and expects Western forces to leave after a few years. Most Afghans will then be ruled again by tribal leaders, Islamists, drug barons and warlords. The Western aim of building Afghanistan up as a stable and more or less democratic state is extremely ambitious; it may be wiser to help stabilize Kabul and the relatively quiet northern part of the country. The difficult south will sooner or later return to Pashtun politics.
The outside world's chief interest is to curb heroin production and destroy terrorist training camps. But destroying poppy crops has been turning Afghan farmers against NATO. So it is smarter to go after the heroin bosses and their foreign networks, and in the meantime buy the poppy crop from farmers to destroy it. Encouraging a shift to legal cash crops and food requires time and heavy investment. This will only work where there is security for the local population.
Meanwhile, international sanctions are unlikely to dissuade Iran's government from pursuing nuclear weapons, while a preventive strike by Israel -- which would not sit idly by when Iranian nuclear forces become operational -- or by the US, would encourage terrorist attacks against their populations.
The most promising approach might be sanctions against leading personalities, and against transfers of technology and funding, as well as covert operations, to delay Iran's nuclear weapons program. In the meantime, Iran's youthful population may become more politically active and demand democratization and improved living conditions. It is uncertain how long the old clerical leadership and the country's nationalist politicians can hold on to power, although high oil and gas prices have been shielding them so far. Gaining time before a disastrous confrontation between Israel and Iran becomes inevitable would be smarter than taking an aggressive approach now.
As for Israel and its neighbors, an agreement on the Golan Heights has already been prepared, but needs external mediation and pressure if it is to be signed. State-building in Lebanon will require strong UN and EU support, and the courage to curb Hezbollah's influence. The Israeli government and Palestinian political leaders are locked in a ruinous struggle, which merely aids extremists on both sides.
The mutual struggle will therefore continue until there is strong enough external pressure to accept a peace agreement. Israel will have to vacate a large number of Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory, and accept joint international administration or division of Jerusalem.
Israel will never agree to this unless it is forced by the US. A US-brokered peace agreement would need to be supported by the UN Security Council and implemented by peacekeeping troops with large contributions from many members of the UN.
Of course, it is unlikely that the Bush administration would bring this about. The EU is still too slow and fragmented. So the new US president will have to take the lead in 2009. In the meantime, the EU should get its act together and take clear decisions on a joint Middle East policy.
Joris Voorhoeve, a former Dutch defense minister, is currently professor of international organizations at Leiden University and professor of international security studies at the Netherlands Defense Academy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate / Europe's World
In the past month, two important developments are poised to equip Taiwan with expanded capabilities to play foreign policy offense in an age where Taiwan’s diplomatic space is seriously constricted by a hegemonic Beijing. Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) led a delegation of Taiwan and US companies to the Philippines to promote trilateral economic cooperation between the three countries. Additionally, in the past two weeks, Taiwan has placed chip export controls on South Africa in an escalating standoff over the placing of its diplomatic mission in Pretoria, causing the South Africans to pause and ask for consultations to resolve
An altercation involving a 73-year-old woman and a younger person broke out on a Taipei MRT train last week, with videos of the incident going viral online, sparking wide discussions about the controversial priority seats and social norms. In the video, the elderly woman, surnamed Tseng (曾), approached a passenger in a priority seat and demanded that she get up, and after she refused, she swung her bag, hitting her on the knees and calves several times. In return, the commuter asked a nearby passenger to hold her bag, stood up and kicked Tseng, causing her to fall backward and
In December 1937, Japanese troops captured Nanjing and unleashed one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. Over six weeks, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and women were raped on a scale that still defies comprehension. Across Asia, the Japanese occupation left deep scars. Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines and much of China endured terror, forced labor and massacres. My own grandfather was tortured by the Japanese in Singapore. His wife, traumatized beyond recovery, lived the rest of her life in silence and breakdown. These stories are real, not abstract history. Here is the irony: Mao Zedong (毛澤東) himself once told visiting
When I reminded my 83-year-old mother on Wednesday that it was the 76th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, she replied: “Yes, it was the day when my family was broken.” That answer captures the paradox of modern China. To most Chinese in mainland China, Oct. 1 is a day of pride — a celebration of national strength, prosperity and global stature. However, on a deeper level, it is also a reminder to many of the families shattered, the freedoms extinguished and the lives sacrificed on the road here. Seventy-six years ago, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東)
RSS