NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
March 31, 2004
An Arab split
The cancellation of the annual Arab League summit which was to have begun on Monday has sent fresh shockwaves through the Arab world. The Tunisian hosts who as the holders of the rotating presidency had the right to set the meeting's agenda were determined to put democracy and political reform at the top of it. Most of the member states rebelled demanding the usual parade of "Arab unity" ritual condemnations of Israel and an opportunity to organize authoritarian resistance to the reform pressure coming from Washington. The Tunisians responded unilaterally saying in effect We won 't do that any more. President Mubarak of Egypt called a desperate meeting at Sharm el Sheik enlisting the Saudi princes and the Sheikh of Bahrain to organize a replacement summit in Cairo for April 16th. But he is outmanoeuvred for a change. The other North African states especially Libya share Tunisia's commitment to realign with the United States Britain and the new Iraq. They expect to benefit as Iraq has benefited and seem willing to allow the Arab League to split rather than trudge to Cairo. Their willingness to discuss openly things that the Arab governments have always swept under the rug -- real questions of constitutional legitimacy and human rights -- has already left the Arab League in chaos. This is good news. The Arab League committed from the beginning to confusing questions of state with questions of race and religion is one of the world's unnecessary evils. It provides rhetorical and some financial cover for many of the world's most despicable regimes. If through their invasion of Iraq the Bush and Blair governments have contributed to its destruction then they deserve additional praise. Paradoxically just as Spain and other European allies may be excusing themselves from the U.S.-led "war on terror" more Arab states are joining up. And they are showing a boldness that was inspired by that Iraq invasion -- by their discovery that the U.S. is now willing to put its money and its troops where its mouth is. The underlying issue is not international co-operation per se. It is how this can be accomplished. "Old Europe" and the more backward-looking Arab regimes insist that the best way to do this is to continue subverting the international state system by taking major decisions and responsibilities out of the hands of sovereign states and transferring them to the United Nations and other collective agencies including the Arab League. With a much sounder grasp of history and reality the Americans are trying to restore that state system by creating functioning benign states to replace the failed and evil ones. In an excellent piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal George Schultz the clear-headed man who was President Reagan's secretary of state wrote directly to this point. He was thus writing against the sentimental idealism that persists in eulogizing "collective policy" -- and thus overlooking the astonishing manifestations of corruption and incompetence that it invariably achieves (e.g. billions in "oil for food" kickbacks in Iraq; millions laundered into Palestinian terror organizations; Rwanda). For centuries such order as has been achieved on earth has been through the existence of independent states acting on legal responsibilities to one another. International organizations exist for the individual states and not vice versa. Mr. Schultz wrote about the phenomenon of failed and rogue states from his experience in the Reagan administration. It was a huge and growing problem then. Yet the idea that terrorists could exploit the lawless environment of collapsed states such as Somalia and Afghanistan or rogue regimes such as Iraq Iran and North Korea was only beginning to be discerned. The obvious Western policy was to shore up the state system not subvert it further. Alas this was not the Clinton administration's policy and crucial time was lost through eight years when the U.S. itself ignored the growing problem while responding to the incidental ones by firing the odd cruise missile up the backside of a camel then walking away. The issue is more fundamental than democracy and glib rhetoric about democracy (from Bush and Blair among others) has helped to obscure it. In the present circumstances of the world where a suitcase nuclear bomb or vial of anthrax can open the gates of hell we cannot afford to ignore breeding grounds for terrorists. Failed or rogue states -- states unable or unwilling to deal with international threats as they form within their own territories -- must be replaced with states that are able and willing. Hence regime change in e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top