Jordan’s former foreign minister, Jawad al-Anani, thinks that the US moved into Iraq to stay, but not necessarily as an occupying force. “It will,” he said, “establish military bases there for a long time, perhaps for many decades.”
“This is exactly similar to what happened in Korea, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and many other places,” said Anani.
According to the former Jordanian minister, the American presence in Iraq will help the US achieve its many objectives, including the implementation of the ‘roadmap’ plan, and hence the revival of the peace process between Palestinians and Israel.
In the same context, Anani says “all indications suggest that the peace process will be resumed, and we may perhaps witness a political initiative announcing the resumption of negotiations as was the case after the gulf war in 1991. A conference similar to the Madrid conference may be convened in order to restore momentum to the peace process before the launch of the US presidential campaign next October.”
“Progress on this issue cannot be predicted, however there are indications that the solution for the Palestinian problem will be, more-or-less, in the form of autonomous rule and the establishment of an ‘unarmed’ Palestinian State with no clear borders. The final status of Jerusalem is also unknown,” added Anani.
However, the former minister did point out that he expects the US to keep the Israeli-Palestinian issue ‘unresolved’ [for the time being] and therefore little change on the ground. He also adds that a withdrawal of Israeli forces and the restoration of the Palestinian security apparatus are foreseeable – a measure he believes is aimed at maintaining order and preventing any potential attacks on Israel.
“The presence of the US in the region is also intended to neutralize Syria,” said Anani, adding that the Syrian regime does not face the risk of being attacked by the American military. This, according to him, “is due to the fact that Syria has been tackling the American threats in a different way from that of the toppled Iraqi regime.” Anani reiterated that Syria “would start showing more flexibility and openness towards democracy and civil liberties, and will perhaps withdraw its forces from Lebanon leaving the Lebanese Hizbollah without support.”
“This dramatic transformation which the US is demanding [of Syria] will see the Syrians respond positively to them, knowing very well that the current environment in the Middle East is not favorable [to them],” Anani forecasts. On the other hand, he believes that “Libya faces the real threat now, and it will be an easy target particularly in view of the fact that its relations with other [Arab] countries are not good. This is in addition to the Libyan oil, which is a lure for Americans.”
As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, Anani does raise concerns in light of the statements made by Pentagon officials who criticized Saudi Arabia openly and bitterly. Moreover, “we hear about studies here and there recommending the division of the kingdom into three or more parts,” said Anani adding, “While these threats shouldn’t be exaggerated, we also do not want to downplay their seriousness.”
Anani anticipates “several cards to be dealt to the Saudi’s, including the ‘oil card’. This will inevitably put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia [to reform] as a result of [US] control over Iraqi oil and possible control over the Libyan oil later on.”
Moreover, “Saudi Arabia will be required to show more flexibility by giving more civil liberties and introducing democracy, as well as the removal of religious fundamentalism.” According to Anani, “US studies indicate that these issues are what led to the ‘politicization’ of religion and contributed to the violence against America.”
In conclusion, Anani expects the Arab world to enter a ‘very critical phase’, which will have ‘disciplinary’ repercussions on countries that may refuse to cooperate with the Americans. He does not see this [disciplinary action] in the form of a military one, but rather a siege on those [that refuse] to weaken them from the inside.”
“Some of these countries fully realize these imminent dangers,” said Anani, advising Arab countries to “pay close attention to what is going on in the US, which has now developed a voracious appetite to impose change in the Arab world.” He called for thwarting the American attempts through democratic reforms, civil liberties and human rights. This, Anani says, “will prevent the US from imposing its policies in a way that will only serve its [US] greater interests.”
While analysts believe the Palestinian Israeli conflict will be first to be addressed by the US [after the war on Iraq], Arab-Israeli analyst Wadea Abu Nassar does not believe the US “is no less serious about the Palestinian issue than the Iraqi one.”
“Several American officials have recently spoken about the determination of the Bush administration to push a new Middle East peace initiative as soon as the Iraqi issue is wrapped up,” he said. However, Abu Nassar believes, “the main problem lies in the big gap between the American [administration’s] announcements and the actual American [administration’s] attitudes.” He adds, “The American administration should translate its words into real actions.”
The Arab-Israeli analyst added, “What is urgently required now is the implementation of the ‘roadmap’ rather than its mere declaration. If this plan takes four or five months to negotiate and a similar time for implementation, it will be useless…because the US elections will have at that point begun, and Sharon will have the opportunity to stop the peace process altogether.
Asked about the internal Palestinian situation, Abu Nassar states, “There is no consolidated and cohesive Palestinian strategy. There are several good ideas, but there is the lack of a unified Palestinian approach.” He believes that “the ‘insistence’ of some Palestinian factions on [military] challenge, despite the presence of the Americans in Iraq, is wrong.” Instead he calls on Arabs “to ‘bow’ (rather than kneel) to the ‘storm’ until the dust settles.”
He adds, “The ‘storm’ is George Bush and his administration’s hawks, who are still motivated by Bin Laden’s terrorist attacks. In my opinion, the situation is very tragic and needs a smart plan for successful maneuvering.”
He also subscribes to the idea that what happened in Iraq should signal a red light for the Arab states. “These states should show wisdom at this stage by introducing internal reform [for their own interests],” said Abu Nassar. “I think many of these states will begin within the coming period a re-evaluation process of their entire internal political and security process,” he added. The Arab-Israeli analyst did however express optimism towards what he sees as “Arab countries learning a lesson from the results of the Iraqi war”.
In conclusion, Abu Nassar is more optimistic about the greater Arab region that about the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which he believes could again fall victim to ‘Israeli intransigence and US indifference.’
Has restructuring the Arab regimes for America’s greater interest become inevitable?
According to the assistant editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily al-Watan, Othman al-Sini, believes that “this depends on the ‘awareness’ amongst Arab countries.” “If the Arab countries review their internal affairs and make the required reforms, there will be no reason for foreign intervention. But if we do not take things seriously, we may face issues that may perhaps be beyond our control,” he said.
“Things have changed since September 11, and governments that continue with their same ‘old mentality’ have suffered (referring to Iraq). Others have progressed according to their understanding of the situation,” Sini added.
He thinks, “there will be no American military action against Arab countries in the near future...instead there will be economic and diplomatic pressure. Governments that do not understand the status-quo in a pragmatic way will be ‘out-fashioned’ and will eventually loose control.”
In this context, Sini referred to Saudi Arabia’s proposal for comprehensive reform in the region, which was scheduled to be submitted at the most recent Arab summit. The proposal was delayed until the next meeting as the focus was devoted to the developments in Iraq.
The Saudi editor believes reform in the Arab world would be enough to ‘foil’ American plans and protect the Arab [countries] against outside pressure.
He says the “US may not be totally satisfied with such reforms, however if there is a strong will towards political, economic and social reforms, both people and their government will be on each other’s side. At that point there will be no [political] gap for the US to exploit.”
In that same context, Sini used the Iraqi people as an example, noting, “They did not fight for their leadership as there existed a [political] gap between the two.”
Sini admits the American presence in Iraq will have a negative effect on several Arab countries. He also believes the American administration will not be able to control all what may happen in the region. “Although there may be an attitude towards liberalism, which the American administration feels is required [in the region], anti-US sentiment may grow in the region, thus negating any such steps,” said Sini.
For his part, chairman of the Lebanese daily al-Nahar, Jubran Twaini, believes that change in the region is imminent. He described the recent developments as “the beginning of a new phase for the whole Middle East.”
“The new situation [in the Middle East], which has come as a result of the American invasion, paves the way for regional development and a new role for the region to play worldwide. However, the US should understand that no project can succeed in the region without a real and just solution to the Palestinian issue,” Twaini said.
He added, “The absence of such a solution was a main reason Arabs rejected the war on Iraq. The implementation of a solution that will lead to an independent Palestinian state will serve as an entry visa for the US into the region.”
Twaini hopes that other Arab states, particularly the ones targeted for change by the American administration, will learn a lesson from Baghdad and the fact that its people did not defend their leadership.
“It was a normal thing for Baghdad’s residents not to defend their leadership, which has been killing and repressing them for over three decades,” said Twaini. “If we look at Iraqis today, we will find they are the poorest Arabs despite their oil wealth. These people have been unable to travel abroad, and were deprived of their basic rights including Internet, satellite channels, foreign or Arab newspapers and magazines. It was expected that such people would not defend an oppressive regime,” he added.
Twaini reiterated, “we do not want American’s to reform the area, we should have our own plans to reform this region and do it ourselves…the Arab people know what they want but the problem lies with the regimes.”
While Twaini admits that the region will witness change in the future due to internal and American pressures, he expressed hope that these changes will stem from an Arab will at both the popular and government levels.
“The map of the region will change soon, but this will depend on Arab regimes…that should rise up to the challenge and maintain their [political] systems in close collaboration with their citizens,” said Twaini. He concluded by saying that “the Arab world cannot stay outside the framework of civil liberties, democracy and openness forever.” (Albawaba.com)
