As the new year begins, thunder and dark clouds make the task of forecasting Middle East-related events and policy risky. The deep divisions within the Bush Administration’s foreign policy team keep both the international community and the American public off-balance.

In many ways, Secretary of State Colin Powell has epitomized the diplomatic model of working cooperatively with other countries and the United Nations, especially with regard to the Arab-Israel conflict and Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq. At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have championed a strategic doctrine based on near-imperial military dominance, with preemption and unilateralism replacing the U.S. reliance on deterrence, containment and international alliances and treaties. While President Bush has said he benefits from hearing differing views, the mixed messages confuse both friend and foe.

What is clear is that in 2003, individuals and institutions, including the PCUSA, that are committed to resolving conflicts peacefully and with the application of justice will be challenged in ways familiar and new.

Iraq – War or Bluff?

At this point, predictions related to the Middle East are dependent on what happens in Iraq: If the U.S. attacks unilaterally, or without the support of key Arab states…if the U.N. inspections prove, or fail to prove, the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction or his deceit…if the Iraqi opposition shapes into a credible alternative, or resorts to infighting …if an invading army is met with a celebrating public, or a humanitarian disaster…if Israel is attacked, or attacks ...if militants in Arab and Muslim countries cast the war as liberation from tyranny, or as cause for terrorism against Americans, etc.

The PCUSA, along with many other Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church, advocate against United States’ rush to war in Iraq. Across the country, church leaders and church members are leading popular opposition to this war, especially a war that is not endorsed by the United Nations.

Many analysts think that a war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the early months of 2003 is inevitable, especially given the buildup of American forces in the Persian Gulf and Turkey. Some hold onto hope that Saddam Hussein will retreat to exile and/or that U.N. inspections will continue with Iraqi cooperation and compliance.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

In any event, the dangerous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will continue unresolved and with increasing complexities. Iran’s construction, with Russia’s help, of a nuclear power plant is seen as a threat by Israel and the United States. As the plant moves closer to completion, scheduled within the next three years, it is a potential test case of the Bush Administration’s new doctrine of preempting threats. Israel has already suggested that it will not allow the Iranian plant to be activated, possibly taking action as it did on June 7, 1981 when Israeli fighter jets destroyed the French-built Osirak light-water nuclear reactor near Baghdad.

The U.S. has shied away from seriously pushing for control of WMD on a Middle East regional basis as well as from international controls on Israel’s pseudo-secret possession of nuclear weapons. There is no reason to think that 2003 will be the year for a serious diplomatic non-proliferation initiative, even though non-proliferation could be the stated reason for military action.

A Palestinian State: Vision or Mirage?

One thing is certain for 2003: The dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and potential for peacemaking will continue regardless of how the confrontation with Iraq plays out. Some predict that it is only after a regime change in Iraq that there will be real traction on the “road map” that is being shaped by the U.S. along with the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. Others contend that Arab states will sign-on to the war against Iraq only if there is evidence that the U.S. is willing to pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace. The worst-case scenarios have Israel taking military action against Iraq, possibly in retaliation for an attack on Israel, which would lead not only to great loss of life but would end any residual diplomatic gains of the Oslo Accords.

At this point, the road map’s three-phased plan holds but dim hope for a resolution of the conflict. Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon has argued that his caretaker government not oppose the road map’s route to a Palestinian state because President Bush’s conditions for creating a Palestinian state are probably too stiff for the Palestinians to fulfill anyway. The official release of the plan has been postponed until sometime in February, following the formation of a new government in Israel.

Fortunately, the earlier demand of President Bush to end Arafat’s rule seems to have evolved into a more reasonable requirement that the Palestinians appoint a prime minister or cabinet with executive authority. And the possibility exists that Amram Mitzna’s leadership of the Labor Party could restore the readiness of Israelis and American Jews to make the policy changes suggestive of peacemaking, such as curbing settlements.

Indeed, dismantling Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was cited as “an idea that’s doable” in the New York Times editorial page wish list for 2003. Calling the settlements the greatest Israeli obstacle to peace, the editorial notes that the settlements “deprive the Palestinians of valuable land and water and deny them geographic continuity. …They are hard for Israel to defend against Palestinian attack, and they make it impossible to establish a clear, secure Israeli border.” Chastising the U.S. for largely ignoring the settlements issue, the Times urges the administration to press Israel to begin reducing the settler population.
The same editorial places terrorism as the greatest Palestinian obstacle to peace. Unfortunately, despite considerable U.S. pressure on Palestinian leadership, such actions by Palestinians are likely to continue. Palestinian life and livelihood are at rock bottom; and with fear and revenge rampant in both the Jewish and Palestinian populations, it must be expected that death and despair will characterize the new year’s beginnings.

In the Washington political scene, the sorry competition between Congressional Republicans and Democrats to vie for political advantage—by promoting hard-line hawkish support for Israel—will continue with vigor. Advocates of peace will be busy fending off resolutions that weaken any pressure on Israel—such as linking loan guarantees to a freeze on settlement building—and that bolster Israel’s claim to its unilateral sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Christian and Jewish Right Together

Over the years, a strange coalition has emerged in unquestioning support of Israel. This coalition of opposition to a Palestinian state is pressuring both the Bush and Sharon Administrations even before the road map is official. In ads published in late December, conservative Christian leaders placed their names alongside political conservatives Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, Alan Keyes and William Bennett. Published by the Zionist Organization of America, the ads address President Bush with the message, “Creating a Palestinian Arab State Means Creating a New Terrorist State.” The ads further claim that “Christians are persecuted and pressured to emigrate.”

Among the signers are Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson, Ed McAteer of the National Religious Roundtable, and Gary Bauer, a policy advisor in the Reagan Administration and former Presidential candidate. Bauer has said that a Palestinian state would jeopardize Israel’s security and violate God’s covenant with Abraham promising the biblical land of Israel to the Jewish people.

Democratization Is the Buzzword

Whether the Bush Administration will match its rhetoric with actions on its stated objective of a democratic transformation in Middle East is an open question. It is sadly true that successive administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have not used the democratic governance yardstick in measuring its Arab allies. In fact, the clear-cut rule of autocratic regimes has often been preferred, especially among those on which the U.S. has depended for oil, military bases, arms sales and cooperation on the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Now, what is being called “closing the democracy gap” is cited as an essential part of the war on terrorism. Administration leaders are giving speeches and proposing U.S. financial aid to promote educational and economic reform, provide capital for entrepreneurs and support civil society movements. Nevertheless, this remains a standard applied by the administration much more to Palestine and a new Iraq rather than to the Arab allies of the U.S. It has been acceptable for some friendly states —such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia—to prohibit the free speech and political participation of those critical of their own rulers and their relationship with the United States.

As the democracy talk is turned up and grandiose plans for a “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East are heralded, the sound fundamentals of social change and sustainable development should be held as a measure. Military spending in the region, and in our foreign aid outlays, must be curtailed, and resources redirected toward human development. Greater participation in governance and the empowerment of women, along with a more equitable distribution of resources are essential development strategies. Regional challenges, such as water distribution, and regional opportunities, such as tourism, must be approached cooperatively. Long-term development will depend on investments in better health care, better schools, and better infrastructure as well as on greater social equity, particularly poverty reduction and broader political participation. These changes will provide the foundation for private sector investments and area government funding that can sustain regional development.

U.S. foreign aid has long been primarily a tool to advance U.S. policy and political interests. The year 2003 will bring new openings to commit resources to develop the human and political potential of people in the Middle East. That could prove to be the best strategy for countering terrorism.

By Corinne Whitlatch