ما بعد التجربة

The face of Iranian diplomacy

Leave a comment

The face of Iranian diplomacy

Much of the success in achieving a breakthrough in the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 Group may go to Iranian chief diplomat Mohamed Javad Zarif, argues Salah Nasrawi

Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might be the ultimate power in Iran, but if there is one Iranian the world will remember as being behind the breakthrough in the nuclear talks with the world’s major powers it will be Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Mohamed Javad Zarif.

As chief diplomat of a nation long considered as an international pariah, Zarif has led a diplomatic charm offensive to break his country’s international isolation since he was appointed foreign minister by President Hassan Rouhani in 2013.

In contrast to former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration, which isolated Iran over its nuclear programme and hardline foreign policy, Zarif’s diplomacy has seemed to signal Iran’s preparedness under Rouhani to move away from tough stances on its controversial nuclear programme.

Under the tentative framework agreement he and his team of negotiators reached with representatives of the world powers (the US, Britain, Russia, France and China plus Germany), Iran will keep its uranium enrichment capabilities, though there will be restrictions so that Tehran is unable to use the material in nuclear weapons.

In return, the United States and European Union will terminate all nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirms that Iran has complied.  All UN Security Council sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme will be lifted immediately if a final deal is agreed.

Who is this Iranian diplomat who received a hero’s welcome from jubilant Iranians upon his return from the talks amid hopes that the pact he has reached will end years of Tehran’s international isolation?

Zarif was born in 1959 to “a traditional religious family” in Tehran, according to his biography which is posted on the Website of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He received his primary and high school education at a private institution in Tehran. According to some accounts, during this turbulent period in Iran’s history he became exposed to religious ideology, including the ideas of Ali Shariati, a famous Iranian intellectual who is sometimes dubbed the ideologue of the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

At age 16, Zarif left Iran for the United States for “security reasons,” apparently to avoid harassment by the secret police of the pro-US Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi who was deposed by the revolution.

In the United States, Zarif attended Drew College Preparatory School, a private school in San Francisco, before joining San Francisco State University from which he received a Bachelors degree and then a Masters degree in International Relations.

Zarif continued his postgraduate studies at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, from which he obtained a second Masters in International Relations in 1984 and a PhD in International Law and Policy in 1988.

His doctoral dissertation was entitled “Self-Defence in International Law and Policy.”

While still studying in the US, Zarif was appointed a member of the Iranian delegation to the United Nations in May 1982, apparently because of the close ties he had built with the new Islamic regime in Tehran.

After long service as junior diplomat, Zarif was promoted to Iran’s representative at the United Nations in 2002. During his tenure in UN headquarters he participated in international gatherings, and in 2000 Zarif served as chairman of the Asian preparatory meeting of the World Conference on Racism and chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

At the UN, Zarif also held private meetings with a number of top Washington politicians, including Vice-President Joe Biden and former secretary of defence Chuck Hagel, then prominent US senators.

Zarif left office in 2007 and upon his return to Iran he joined Tehran University as a professor of international law. Later he served as vice-president of the Islamic Azad University in charge of foreign affairs from 2010 to 2012.

Zarif served on the boards of a number of academic publications, including the Iranian Journal of International Affairs and Iranian Foreign Policy, and he has written extensively on disarmament, human rights, international law and regional conflicts.

On 4 August 2013, Zarif was named minister of foreign affairs by the newly elected moderate Rouhani. He was confirmed by parliament with 232 votes.

Zarif has a son and a daughter, both of whom are married and live in Iran.

Despite criticisms by hawks, the nuclear deal which Zarif has signed has been overwhelmingly backed by Iran’s establishment, including Rouhani who pledged in a speech to the nation that Iran would abide by its commitments under the agreement.

If finalised, the agreement will cut significantly into Tehran’s bomb-capable nuclear technology while giving Iran quick access to bank accounts, oil markets and other financial assets blocked by international sanctions.

Proponents have noted that the deal, reached after 18 months of drawn-out negotiations, has proved that diplomacy is not futile and force is not inevitable.

For the negotiator of a country that has been constantly accused of embracing hidden agendas, the personal traits, international experience and professional skills of Zarif seem to have played a key part in making reaching the deal easier.

Many analysts have attributed the breakthrough in the talks to Zarif’s skills in building confidence with his counterparts, many of them maintaining scepticism about Iran’s readiness to reveal secrets about its nuclear programme.

In this regard, Zarif may have succeeded in breaking one of the persistent orientalist clichés of Iranians having a “bazaar mentality,” being expert carpet merchants of duplicity and deception.

Indeed, Zarif proved to be a shrewd politician and seasoned intellectual by brushing up on his history and religious lessons to push his arguments.

One of Zarif’s efforts during the negotiations was to counter Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign to torpedo the deal by claiming that Iran would eventually produce a nuclear weapon and try to destroy Israel.

In an interview with the US news channel NBC, Zarif said that “Iran saved the Jews three times in its history,” referring to the Persian king Cyrus who ordered the Jews of Babylon to return home from captivity after he conquered the Babylonian Empire in the 6th Century BCE.

Zarif said Netanyahu distorted both the current reality and writings in Jewish sources and the Bible.

“It is unfortunate that Netanyahu now totally distorts the realities of today,” Zarif said. “He even distorts his own scripture. If you read the Book of Esther, you will see that it was the Iranian king who saved the Jews,” Zarif said.

But Zarif’s diplomacy has also made him plenty of enemies at home, especially among hawks who have always refused to make concessions on the country’s nuclear programme.

But again Zarif has been proved to possess the skills needed to address both foreign and local detractors.

The ideals set by the late Imam Khomeini and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were embodied in the nuclear talks held in the Swiss city of Lausanne, he said.

He also came under attack from hardliners for a stroll he took with US Secretary of State John Kerry in downtown Geneva and along the Rhone River for almost 15 minutes on 14 January as part of the bilateral talks.

At least 25 Iranian MPs signed a petition to question Zarif on the issue, calling the stroll “a diplomatic mistake.”

Zarif’s deal has been overwhelmingly backed by Iran’s establishment, however. He even returned to Tehran to a hero’s welcome as thousands of people desperate for an end to international sanctions greeted him at the airport.

But it remains to be seen if the deal will be wrecked by hardliners in Iran who have always preferred their “death to America and Israel” sloganeering to skillful diplomacy and making deals with the “Great Satan.”

Arabs-Iran-Deal

A new Middle East deal

Leave a comment

A new Middle East deal

 The tentative agreement signed with Iran is a double-edged sword for the Arabs, with everything depending on how they choose to use it, writes Salah Nasrawi

 When US president Barack Obama telephoned king Salman of Saudi Arabia last week to break the news of the nuclear deal with Iran, the monarch responded cautiously, saying he “hopes reaching a final and binding agreement will lead to improving security and stability in the region and the world at large.”

Obama seems to have tried to assuage Saudi concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme by stressing that the framework deal would “cut off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon” and reaffirm US commitments to the security of one of its key Middle East allies.

Yet, Salman’s diplomatic remarks can hardly reflect the actual Saudi stance on the Iran deal which the kingdom and its Sunni Arab allies have never been shy about opposing even before it materialised, fearing it would fuel Iranian expansionism across the region.

Under the deal Iran made undertakings to cease all uranium enrichment, which could be spun further into weapons-grade material. Some of its facilities will either be destroyed or redesigned in order to render it incapable of producing or housing any fissile material for at least 15 years.

In exchange, the United States and European Union will terminate all nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirms that Iran has complied.  All UN Security Council sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme will be lifted immediately if a final deal is agreed.

Even so, the Arab camp led by Saudi Arabia seems to find it difficult to accept the challenge of the deal, though Arab scepticism and dissatisfaction have not amounted to Israel’s ferocious opposition and its threat to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Arabs have two types of concerns: one is that the deal may not stop Tehran from seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, thus putting them at a disadvantage. The second is Iran’s continuing rise in both military and political terms. They believe the nuclear deal will embolden Iran and eventually tilt the strategic balance in its favour in the region.

As for the proliferation issue, the agreement is considered to make Iran a nuclear threshold state. This will make Iran stronger with dramatic implications for the future of the region since Iran will become a nuclear power-in-waiting.

Allowing Iran to keep its nuclear capabilities will push key Sunni states to act to protect themselves by trying to obtain nuclear arms for themselves. Efforts to acquire similar technology by key Arab countries will open a potential atomic arms race.

The Iran deal constitutes a geostrategic nightmare for Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies who believe it opens the door to the Persian and Shia nation to become a regional superpower.

Tensions with Iran over a host of regional issues are already at an all-time high. The Arab camp has raised a red flag about Iranian expansionism across the Middle East.

From Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen, Saudi Arabia is fighting mounting Iranian influence and engaging in proxy wars against Iranian-backed organisations.

Efforts by Saudi Arabia to contain the regional repercussions of the deal have already begun. It is no coincidence that an Arab Sunni coalition launched a campaign of airstrikes against Iranian-backed Shia rebels in Yemen only a few days before the world powers reached the deal with Iran.

Simultaneously, Saudi-backed rebels have recently made significant gains against the regime led by president Bashar al-Assad in Syria, including by capturing the strategic city of Idleb.

One of the worst scenarios for the Saudi-led Arab camp is for Washington to build up relations with Iran far beyond the nuclear deal. A US-Iranian regional alliance would have a decisive influence in the region

Given the critical milestone the Iran deal has created and the changes in the Middle East that it is widely expected to unleash, there is surprisingly little serious debate in the Arab world about how to deal effectively with Iran’s growing prominence.

Instead of shrewd strategic choices or even sophisticated diplomacy, key Arab countries show few signs of being able to reorient their policies for this new era.

Indeed, the Iran deal provides an opportunity for the Arabs to redefine their overall regional strategy on a more realistic basis that could change their fortunes. The Arabs should use the improving environment which is expected to prevail after the signing of the final deal to address regional rivalry with Iran.

The agreement itself reflects a realpolitik approach as the best way to change the behaviour of hostile governments, not through isolation or the threat of military force but by persistent engagement. The Arabs could learn a lot from this important lesson in easing strained relations.

The Arabs need to relax tensions with Iran, which have recently reached fever pitch involving sectarian and nationalist geopolitics making an Arab-Iranian détente long overdue.

Over the last decade several proposals have been made to try to deal with the region’s uncertainties as Iran has risen in power and influence due to a series of geopolitical changes brought on by the US-led invasion of Iraq and the new regional geopolitical dynamics it has unleashed.

In 2008, Bahrain’s foreign minister sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed al-Khalifa proposed a gathering of Arab states with Israel, as well as Iran and Turkey, to try to solve the region’s problems.

A year later, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, then an adviser to supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unveiled a 10-point plan for collective security arrangements in the crisis-ridden region.

In 2010, former Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa suggested that the 22-nation bloc engage Iran in a forum for regional cooperation and conflict resolution that would also include Turkey.

All these efforts to initiate a broad dialogue on balancing various security interests foundered due to competition and jealousies between the regional powers.

The present writer has also proposed a broader framework for a new order in the Middle East overturning the status quo which has been in place since the end of World War I and founded on European decisions.

In the Arabic-language book “The Dog of Esfahan: the Repressed Self in the Dialectic of Struggle between the Arabs and Iran” (2009), it is argued that this regional order would be based on the European model.

Starting with the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the wars waged by competing European dynasties in the 17th century and through the 1975 Helsinki Accords which eased tensions between the east and west, Europe has provided a historic example of nations solving their conflicts despite decades of war.

Even Asian nations which have fought bloody wars with their neighbours and suffered from prolonged conflicts have been able to overcome their historic animosities and join cooperation forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in order to promote regional peace and stability.

Now there is an opportunity that the nuclear deal with Iran will help create a momentum for such regional arrangements in the Middle East, binding Iran and its Arab neighbours in efforts to deal with specific issues such as maintaining existing relations and promoting cooperation in conflict-resolution and the peaceful settlement of regional disputes.

Obama has invited the leaders of the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries to a summit in Camp David later this spring in order to discuss security cooperation following the signing of the deal.

The accord with Iran and Obama’s push to open up trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba will likely serve as an example of how countries must be open to negotiations with their enemies.

In fact, this perception of engagement, which is now being called the “Obama Doctrine,” is already embedded in Obama’s outreach to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, encouraging them to take the Iran deal as a regional fact.

“The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries,” he told the New York Times in an interview on 5 April.

 This article appeared in Al Ahram Weekly on April 9, 2015

Iraq-Iran-Militias

More than just IS

Leave a comment

This article appeared in Al Ahram Weekly on April 2, 2015.The paper went to print before the Iraqi military started its operation to root out IS militants from Tikrit in collaboration with the Shia militias. The participation of the militias highlights the challenges to the overall campaign against IS and US-Iranian competition in Iraq which the article aimed to pinpoint.

More than just IS

 As Baghdad prepares to retake Mosul from Islamic State forces, Tehran and Washington seem to be locked in a race for prestige in Iraq, writes Salah Nasrawi

 On 25 March, US bombers launched their first airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) targets in Tikrit, coming off the sidelines to help Iraqi government forces fighting to retake control of the city from the terrorist group.

US president Barack Obama approved the bombardment after a request from Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi on the condition that Iranian-backed Shia militias that have been fighting alongside the Baghdad government troops move aside.

But the US decision to give air support to the Tikrit offensive, the biggest collaboration so far by the US-led coalition with the anti-IS campaign in Iraq, could define the US role in Iraq for years to come and shape its regional struggle with Iran.

The Americans stayed away from the Tikrit campaign when it started four weeks ago, largely because the United States has been refusing to take part in the operation which was launched without consultation with Washington. They insisted that they could only help if the operations were coordinated by the joint Iraqi-US military centre in Baghdad.

Prior to the Tikrit campaign, US officials leaked reports to the American media about the Iraqi military operation in Tikrit, saying that it had no clear targets. The reports also stirred doubts about whether government forces could beat the IS militants in street battles.

Though the Iraqi forces have regained a string of towns and villages near Tikrit from IS, the leaks also claimed that Iraqi short-term tactical victories would not be enough to defeat the group.

A main US criticism of the Tikrit campaign was its heavy reliance on the Shia militias. The latter’s track record of sectarian violence was highlighted in the American media with warnings that their involvement in more offensives threatened to drive more Iraqi Sunnis into the arms of IS.

It may be no coincidence that several human rights groups also released critical reports about abuses by the Shia militias during the Tikrit offensive. Most of these reports highlighted what they termed “violations of the laws of war” against Sunnis in the wake of the IS retreat from the towns.

These and other media reports carried disgruntled messages to al-Abadi, who is also commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces, from Washington which has been leading an international coalition against IS since the terror group made stunning advance in northern Iraq last June.

Al-Abadi has also been under pressure from Brett McGurk, deputy leader of the US-led coalition, and Stuart E. Jones, the US ambassador to Iraq, who have been meeting with him regularly to press him to request coalition airstrikes and sidestep the Shia militias.

But when al-Abadi showed reluctance to heed the US warnings, knowing that he cannot tear up the Iraqi rule book without the green light from Iran, US officials went public to make their point about the offensives.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, told lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the operation to reclaim Tikrit was dominated by 20,000 Shia militia forces, which far outnumbered the 3,000 Iraqi troops also taking part in the assault.

Dempsey expressed concern about what might happen after the Shia militia forces took control of the Sunni-dominated city. The Obama administration has been pushing al-Abadi to form a Sunni National Guard to police their areas after the IS withdrawal.

After a recent trip to Iraq, Dempsey said he had seen a “plethora of flags” while flying over the country, but only one official flag of Iraq.

Iran showed its anger over the US joining forces with Iraq in the fight for Tikrit and in forcing the Iran-backed militias to stand down. The Iranians have orchestrated their own propaganda effort to discredit the US-led coalition in the anti-IS campaign.

On Monday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said a US drone strike had killed two of its advisers in Iraq. Iran’s controlled media outlets have been reporting airstrikes by coalition warplanes against Iraqi troop positions. Some of these outlets have been selling blown-up reports about the US maintaining networks of supply lines with the terror group.

The United States and Iran have been in stiff competition since Iraq started its campaign against the jihadists who seized huge swathes of land in Iraq in the summer of last year. Iraqi Shia militia leaders have been saying that they intend to deprive Washington of victory and “glory” in Iraq.

But the political match seems to be more than a contest between Iran and the United States over who is taking ownership of the war against IS. Instead, it seems to be a power play over Iraq and even the Middle East as a whole.

For now, efforts to drive IS fighters from Tikrit have entered their second month. While most Iranian-backed Shia armed groups have boycotted the offensives in protest against the US-led airstrikes, Iraq’s military has proved to be ill-prepared to drive the militants back.

That could have a big impact on the liberation of the remaining territories from IS insurgents, especially Iraq’s second-largest city of Mosul. In February, US Central Command officials disclosed that the battle for Mosul would likely begin in April or May.

Yet, the disagreements over the militias’ role may have far-reaching consequences for Iraq’s fragile government. Al-Abadi seems to be caught in a US and Iranian double-pincer that could not only cost him his job but also the country’s stability.

Since the militias were ordered to step aside, relations between al-Abadi and their leaders have sunk very low, and some of them have even accused the prime minister of hampering the liberation of Tikrit by capitulating to the American conditions.

Others have accused al-Abdi of “selling off” the Shias to the Americans.

On Monday, Hadi al-Amri, a key leader of the Popular Mobilisation Forces, the name given to the militias, warned that his fighters “will not fire a single bullet” unless the US airstrikes stop.

This is a vital moment for al-Abadi, and it provides his government with possibly its greatest challenge since it was formed in August last year. While the row has brought al-Abadi to the brink of a conflict with the Shia militias, any caving in to the militias will be disturbing to the Iraqi Sunnis and the Americans.

Sunni leaders in Mosul have insisted that the liberation of their city should be carried out without involvement by Iran or the Shia militias except Iraqi volunteers and forces from the Iraqi army.

Tribes in Anbar, another Sunni-dominated province awaiting liberation from IS, have also resisted the participation of the Shia militias in the operations.

Meanwhile, Washington has intensified pressure on al-Abadi’s serving as the putative defender and protector of the Iraqi Sunnis.

On Sunday, US vice-president Joe Biden called al-Abadi to remind him of the importance of “the protection of civilians and of ensuring all armed groups act under the control of the state.”

According to a White House statement, Biden reiterated Washington’s demand that the Iraqi government enable fighters from Sunni provinces to participate in reclaiming their own territory from IS.

Washington is expected to increase the pressure ahead of a visit to the White House by al-Abadi in mid-April to discuss US military cooperation with Iraq in the joint fight against IS.

Moreover, the Tikrit offensive and the widely expected campaign to retake Mosul could have an impact on wider regional conflicts involving Iran with the Sunni Arab world, if Shia militias resume their participation in the anti-IS campaign.

Sunni Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia accuse Iran of fuelling the conflict in a number of countries across the Middle East, including Iraq.

The Mosul operation is specifically sensitive to neighbouring Turkey, a largely Sunni populated nation which maintains close ties to Iraqi Sunnis.

While Turkey is concerned about Iran’s role, many in the country emphasise historical affiliations with Mosul going back to the Ottoman occupation of Iraq.

Twelve years after the US-led invasion that turned Iraq into a playground for terrorists and foreign forces, the bickering over the war against IS is not about defeating the terror group as much as it is about regional power.

Arab-Politics

Egypt to press summit for Arab force

Leave a comment

Egypt to press summit for Arab force

The Arab summit is the first such major leaders’ gathering in Egypt since El-Sisi took office and Cairo is using it to push for a joint Arab force, writes Salah Nasrawi

Arab countries should forge closer military and security ties, including a security task force to fight terrorism, according to an Egyptian proposal to be discussed at an Arab leadership summit in Sharm El-Sheikh this weekend.

The summit comes amid unprecedented turbulence in the region since the Arab League was founded seventy years ago this month to safeguard members’ independence, national integrity and security.

Turmoil has spread across the Arab world since a series of popular uprisings in 2011 and many Arab countries now face heightened terror threats which have underlined the need for closer regional cooperation to stop the menace.

Ahead of the Summit, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi told the Wall Street Journal that his proposal for a counterterrorism force will be the centerpiece of the summit. He warned that the new force is needed “to preserve what is left” of the stable Arab world.

El-Sisi has become increasingly vocal about the need for Arab military cooperation after jihadists in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and in neighbouring Libya declared their allegiance to the Islamic State (IS) terror group, which has seized large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.

El-Sisi has clearly stated the goals behind the proposal to form a unified force to fight terrorism in the region. Still no firm details on the proposed alliance, apparently to give other Arab governments a chance to discuss the plan.

The proposal, however, has been subject to a good deal of debate in Arab political circles, including the Arab League. One idea which has been under discussion is the “reactivation” of the League’s Arab Defence and Economic Pact to confront jihadist terrorism and other security threats.

 Under the 1950 agreement member states consider “any attack against one of them as an attack on all” and allows them to use “all steps available, including the use of armed force, to repel the aggression and restore security and peace.”

Ideas to create a joint force have been floated before, but a pan-Arab military alliance has always proved difficult to implement as security policies remain largely a national issue for Arab governments.

The last time Arab Leaders discussed such an idea was at an Arab summit in Riyadh in 2007 when Egypt proposed “a comprehensive concept for pan-Arab security.” The proposal was aimed at creating a “mechanism” to resolve regional conflicts “without foreign intervention.”

The proposal never came close to enjoying the support of a majority of the Arab countries due in part to bickering over competition, sovereignty and national security and defence strategies.

This time it is not expected to be much different even though the hope for closer security cooperation is crucial in confronting the terrorism challenge. Those who oppose the collective counterterrorism project offer several arguments.

Arab League Secretary-General Nabil El-Araby has downplayed the idea of reactivating the Arab Defense and Economic Pact. Instead, he suggested “a comprehensive” counterterrorism approach that includes “renewal of the religious discourse” and combating religious extremism in the media.

“The defense pact was signed in 1950 with perceptions which are different from the ones prevailing today. It was meant (to help) Arab countries which face a threat by another state, ostensibly Israel,” El-Araby was quoted as saying in an interview with the Middle East News Agency.

“Now the perceptions about wars and armies have changed. What is important today is that there is a unanimous resolution by the Arab states to confront terrorism,” he said.

Other key disagreements have emerged. Saudi Arabia, for example, is reportedly in favor of a broader defense alliance which includes non-Arab Sunni countries, such as Pakistan and Turkey to contain Iran and its regional Shia allies.

These views underscore sharp differences between those in the Arab governments who want the new security strategy to focus on fighting terrorism and others who give priority to efforts to confront Iran and its Shia allies.

These differences are expected to reflect on the leaders’ discussions on the conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen where they are required to take unified stands on how to confront turmoil in these countries which threatens to spiral into their neighbours.

While Iraq, Syria and Yemen remain wracked by sectarian divisions and political uncertainty, surge of violence and a brutal power struggle in Libya raise the specter of another civil war in the Arab world.

Yet, differences on priorities between the Arab governments are making a unified Arab stand on resolving these conflicts a mission impossible.

One major difference is over Syria’s bloody conflict. While several Arab countries, including Egypt, support a diplomatic solution for the four year old war in Syria, which implicitly means that the negotiations should involve President Bashar Al–Assad, Saudi Arabia leads the camp which pursues a course in which Al-Assad has to step aside, even by force if necessary.

Similarly, the Arab leaders are unlikely to offer tangible solutions to chaos in Iraq and Yemen where the conflicts are increasingly turning into to sectarian wars with wide ranging consequences for the region.

In Libya, Arab countries in North Africa have yet to come to agreement on how to deal effectively with the terrorist groups who have taken advantage of the vacuum of central power and threaten regional stability.

With Iran and the world powers are believed to be close to an agreement on Tehran’s nuclear programme, Iran is expected to top the summit’s discussions.

Here again the summit may be overshadowed by members’ disputes over a potential deal with Iran with Saudi Arabia and some of its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) expected to hold the toughest stance vis-a-vis Iran.

For the kingdom, ending fear of developing nuclear weapons is not going to be the end of the troubles with Iran. Saudi Arabia and other Arab Sunni governments remain concerned about a larger bargain that will allow Iran to increase its regional influence at their expense.

While a grand deal with Iran will have vast implications on the regional balance of power, options for the Arab countries to confronting Iran seem limited without risking further sectarian division in the region.

Leaders are also expected to ponder on the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process following this month’s re-election of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has disavowed the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his elections campaign.

Efforts to convince Israel to accept an Arab peace initiative, which was endorsed by the Arab summit in 2001 and offers Israel recognition by all Arab League members in return for Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution, have been met with repeated Israeli rejection.

The Palestinian Authority is expected to seek support from the summit to its move to ask a new UN Security Council resolution endorsing Palestinian statehood. El-Araby, told Al-Ahram over the weekend that such a decision has a better chance of winning passage now that the Obama administration is conducting a “reassessment” of its Middle East peace policies.

Among the main topics at the summit’s agenda will be the overhauling the Arab League, including amending its founding document. El-Araby, has repeatedly blamed the League’s failure on its member states, which he accuses of solely making its decisions and forging its policies without much participation from the secretaries or the civil society associations.

One of the main reform suggestions by El-Araby is to amend the League’s charter which he has described as “unsuitable” to meet the challenges faced by the Arab world today.

A committee which was formed to suggest reforms has presented its report to El-Araby. Its conclusions which have been kept secret are expected to be reviewed first by the Arab foreign ministers who meet Thursday before they were submitted to the Arab summit.

Arab diplomats, however, told Al Ahram Weekly that recommendations to rewrite the League’s charter, which was pressed by El-Araby may be deferred for now for further deliberations.

Recommendations to activate the Arab Peace and Security Council which was established in 2007 to boost the League’s work in the prevention, management and resolution of disputes, may be adopted by the summit, the diplomats said.

Though this year’s summit coincides with the 70th anniversary of the Arab League no events have been planned for this important milestone in Arabs’ modern history. The lack of official celebrations probably reflects not only the grim mood in the Arab world but also the low expectations from the summit.

Also, it remains to be seen if any of the key heads of state and government will skip the summit aimed at forming a united front line in the war against terror and other security threats to the Arab world.

 While leaders of Algeria and Oman are expected to stay away for health reasons, chaos in several Arab countries may impact the level of their participation. Among the most notable absentees will be Al-Assad whose country’s membership in the League was suspended after the 2011 uprising.

This article appeared in Al Ahram Weekly on March 26, 2015

Arab-Politics

The Arab League at 70

Leave a comment

The Arab League at 70

The Arab League marks its 70th anniversary this month, but is there much to celebrate, asks Salah Nasrawi

It is 70 years ago this month that Arab leaders agreed to set up a political entity in the midst of a fierce struggle by their peoples for independence from the First World War colonial powers. The goal of the League of the Arab States, as this entity was officially named by its founding fathers, was to propel a united Arab world towards liberation, sovereignty and economic prosperity.

A major objective for the then seven-member organisation was also to help the Palestinians in their struggle against the Zionist Movement and its Western-backed endeavours to create a Jewish State in Palestine.

Yet, 70 years after the founding of the organisation the Arab world today is at a dangerous crossroads. Too many Arab countries are involved in armed conflicts, and political turmoil can be found across the region stretching from the Arab Gulf in the east to the Atlantic coast in the West.

Israel ended up controlling virtually the whole of Palestine after four major wars with the Arabs, leaving generations of Palestinians stateless inside their historic homeland and millions of others homeless around the world. Seven decades after the creation of the pan-Arab organisation, some 360 million Arabs remain trapped either in stagnant repression, poor governance or cycles of strife that rule out the possibility of progress.

Today, the case can be made that the League, founded on a charter to which have been added numerous agreements that have taken it from seven to 22 members, has failed to effectively and actively take the initiative, leading the Arabs facing daunting challenges and many of their countries finding themselves in a state of chaos.

Founding the League: Distinct from a project of federation, confederation or union, the Arab League was established to provide a legal and institutional framework that would bring the Arabs together and provide a platform to serve their interests.

Under its charter the main purpose of the League was to boost relations between the member states, to coordinate their policies in order to achieve cooperation between them, and to safeguard their independence and sovereignty.

However, while many Arabs hoped that the charter had laid the foundations for a strong and effective organisation, the League was ultimately a creature of the post-colonial era which divided the Arab world into separate entities. It could do only as much or as little as the Arab regimes permitted.

One of the main weaknesses of the League lies in its nature as a voluntary association of states, with members refusing to sacrifice some of their sovereignty in favour of closer integration. Its effectiveness has been further hampered by political divisions, rivalry and competition in key areas such as foreign policy and defence.

A key constraint on the Arab League system has been its tightly knit institutional structure which was based on its founding documents that gave decision-making power to the Arab regimes, many of them unelected.

According to the charter, a council composed of representatives of member states is tasked to make decisions and supervise their execution. Each state has a single vote, irrespective of the number of its representatives. This rigid and undemocratic system has made the League captive to the visions and decisions of the representatives of autocratic regimes, rather than to those of the Arab peoples and their civil societies.

A major constraint in the work of the League lies in its institutional capabilities. Its secretary-general and bureaucracy are considered to be “employees” who do not initiate plans or make decisions. The League lacks mechanisms to compel member states to comply with its resolutions, a void that has made it unable to function effectively.

Recognising the need for a more systematic approach in order to ensure the League’s role as a pan-Arab organisation that safeguards the Arab peoples’ interests, several attempts have been made to reform the system to enable the organisation to function more effectively. The current secretary-general, Nabil Al-Araby, has called for institutional reforms to revive the organisation, including of its structure, economic cooperation and citizen participation.

Al-Araby, a former Egyptian foreign minister and international lawyer, has repeatedly blamed the League’s failure on its member states, which he has accused of making its decisions and forging its policies and not the League’s secretariat. His main proposal has been to amend to organisation’s charter, described as being “unsuitable” to meet the challenges faced by the Arab world today.
A committee formed by Al-Araby to make recommendations for reforming the League is expected to submit its report to the Arab Summit in Egypt later this month.

One area where the League has been seen to have failed is in its attempts to help the Palestinians achieve their own independent state. From the outset, the League failed in its attempts to prevent the creation of Israel when a coalition of Arab armies fighting under the League’s military command lost the 1948 War. Subsequent wars and peace overtures have failed to bring a just solution to the problem.

The consequences have been devastating. The Arab-Israeli conflict has become a catalyst for wars and struggles that have exacerbated regional instability and added political challenges to existing economic and other hardships.

Inter-Arab disputes, whether border disputes or power and influence struggles, have also prevented closer cooperation in the political, military and economic spheres, contributing to regional instability and creating more conflicts.

The invasion of Kuwait carried out by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 1990, for example, acted as the catalyst for a polarisation that split the Arab world, opening the door to foreign interference that deepened divisions and mistrust between the Arab countries.

A poor harvest: One of the League’s notable failures has been in the field of the economy. According to its charter, the organisation is tasked with coordinating economic cooperation between its member states with the aim of an integrated Arab market.

At its outset the League set up specialised agencies to promote cooperation in the fields of telecommunications, postal services and finance. Later, it established the Arab Common Market in 1965 to provide for the eventual abolition of customs duties on natural resources and agricultural products, the free movement of capital and labour among member states, and coordination of economic development.

But this never happened, and by 2014 inter-Arab trade did not exceed 10 per cent of member state trade volumes, with the rest mostly going to international partners such as China, Japan, the European Union and the United States.

The Arab countries sit atop perhaps half the world’s oil and a third of its natural gas reserves, yet the economies of the region are among the most stagnant in the world because of a lack of sufficient capital. Hundreds of billions of dollars in hydrocarbon wealth from the Arab Gulf countries have been kept in foreign banks instead of being used for badly needed investment in poor or lower-income Arab countries.

Sovereign wealth funds belonging to the Gulf countries were estimated to contain about $5.6 trillion at the end of 2013. They have become key players in world markets, but they are scarcely used for investment purposes in the Arab world.

Overall, economic growth in the Arab countries remains weak. According to the International Monetary Fund, growth in per capita income among the Arab countries has lagged far behind Asia, Latin America and Africa during the past 30 years, and even major oil powers such as Saudi Arabia have fallen behind.

In its 2009 Arab Human Development Report, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) found that, as of 2007, the Arab states as a whole were less industrialised than they were in 1970, with governments using revenues from oil, gas and other outside receipts to sustain unproductive economies that maintain large public sectors and import foreign goods.

In addition, mismanagement, corruption and the dependency of ruling cliques on foreign powers have remained key reasons behind this poor economic record. Economic growth rates have been consistently too low to keep pace with population growth, and most of the Arab countries remain deadlocked and struggling to make ends meet.

Unemployment, particularly among young people and women, remains high, and the size of government is staggering. In its Fourth Unemployment Report, released in September 2014, the Arab Labour Organisation disclosed that unemployment in the Arab world had risen from 14 per cent in 2008 to 16 per cent in 2013.

The phenomenon that helps to exacerbate this problem is the lack of a common regional labour market that would allow nationals of the Arab countries to be able freely to take up employment and settle in other Arab countries. The six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are the largest recipients of migrants in the world and host some 16 million workers, but the majority of these are not Arabs.

As a result, Arab economic integration has turned into a ghost of what it could have been, and the Arab League has failed to achieve the minimal goals of the “joint Arab action” wanted by the League’s founders and promoters.

Another dismal shortfall has been in the field of knowledge. Statistics on knowledge indicators such as spending on science, technology and innovation have revealed Arab deficiencies on a major scale. According to the “Overview of the Knowledge Economy in the Arab Region,” written by experts at the United Nations University, the “Arab region is lagging far behind the comparable range of the other world regions and advanced countries, and even behind those of the developing countries.”

Of the top 500 educational institutions in the world, only five are based in the Arab world. In its Academic Ranking of World Universities 2014 (ARWU), the Institute of Higher Education of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) rated two Saudi and one Egyptian university among the 150 to 500 of its top 500 research universities worldwide.

In comparison, Israel has six entries in the top-500 university list, including three among the top 100.

Scientific and university-based research critical to the economic and social development of Arab societies has never been a priority for most Arab governments. The first Arab Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation, or STI, was signed just last year. It remains to be seen if Arab scientists will be able to overcome political and other hurdles and create showcases in their fields.

Several world development and governance indicators also show the Arab world to be in a horrible state of regression. Nine Arab countries came among the 50 fragile states worldwide, according to the Foreign Policy Index of Fragile States for 2014. The 2014 Corruption Perception Index also ranked seven Arab countries among the most corrupt in its 174-country list.

However, Arab countries top the list of the World Happiness Report 2013, which provides critical data on how the world measures economic and social development.

At the edge: The dramatic events that have been unfolding across the Arab world since 2003 are seen by many as being apocalyptic and the result of a collective failure by the Arab countries to advance the Arabs’ political, economic and security goals.

Across the Arab world, countries that were once strategic pillars of the Arab political order are now unravelling, and the whole region seems to be heading towards a massive geopolitical shift that will have far-reaching consequences. The magnitude of the changes that are taking place could barely have been imagined some years ago even by the most pessimistic of Arab world observers.

The rise of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group and its capture of large chunks of land in Syria and Iraq and proclamation of an “Islamic caliphate” has been a turning point. The group has abolished the borders drawn at the creation of two modern Arab states and raised its black banners over areas stretching from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean.

The war front against terror goes beyond the territory IS has captured in Syria and Iraq, however. Numerous terror groups from Egypt, Algeria, Libya and other countries have now pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and operate in unstable areas like Derna in eastern Libya and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.

Civil wars are raging in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, while several other Arab countries have been wracked by communal divisions and political uncertainty. In Iraq and Syria the chances are slim that the two countries will remain intact even if IS is defeated. Kurds in both countries are moving toward self-rule, while Sunnis are resisting Shia and Alawite domination.

In Libya, the popular uprising against the former regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has now evolved into a war that could tear the country to pieces. While a civil war is raging in many parts of the country, some parts of eastern Libya have declared their autonomy. The Tuareg tribes in the south are looking for closer bonds with neighbouring countries.

Yemen has entered a turbulent era as Iran-backed Shia Houthi rebels now control much of the country after an uprising in September that has deepened divisions among tribal, sectarian and provincial communities fighting over the sharing of wealth and power. A federal system proposed by a UN-led national dialogue following the overthrow of the country’s long-time president Ali Abdullah Saleh is in tatters, with southern Yemen now pressing to break away from the north.

Elsewhere, the Arab countries are suffering from the repercussions of regional wars and do not seem to be immune from the ripple effects of Middle East balkanisation. With sectarian strife escalating all around them, governments and large segments of the populations fear that they might be the next ones to be hit by the turmoil.

It has never been plain sailing, but 70 years after the establishment of the League that was intended to safeguard its security and interests, the Arab world now seems to be heading towards a tectonic shift that could redefine its political landscape and century-old national borders. Such changes may take time, but if the momentum continues there will be no Arab world like the one we have known for the past seven decades in a few years.

In many ways, the new political map and the new regional order it will create will be a major setback and an invitation to transform the admittedly imperfect existing order into a chaos in which ethno- and sectarian-based new countries will be pitted against each other.

If the Arab world were to fall apart and be remapped in this manner, it would in many ways be the result of the failure of the Arab League to establish a political order, a security system and a common market that serves Arab interests.

Above all, the League has been unable to give the citizens of its member states an Arab identity alongside the national identities that preserve the region’s diversity. Unlike the citizens of the European Union who can see identity markers in the EU flag, the single currency and the free movement of goods, people, capital and services, the overwhelming majority of Arabs can see nothing of that sort when they look at the region.

Instead, in many cases Arab governments perceive Arab integration to be a threat to national identity.

This article appeared first in Al Ahram Weekly on March 19, 2015

Analysis & views from the Middle East