Despite numerous international initiatives for peace and prosperity, the Middle East continues to be riddled with violent conflicts and lagged socio-economic development since the establishment of Israel in 1947. The most recent initiative was made by the U.S. to the group of eight industrial countries (G8) that unanimously adopted it in June 2004. This is by far the most ambitious initiative ever proposed for the Middle East, both in its geographic coverage and substantive content.
Geographically, the initiative covers Arab countries, neighboring Iran, Turkey and Israel, and extends beyond to Pakistan and Afghanistan, hence the term Greater Middle East (GME). Substantively, with the political, economic and technical muscle of the G8 behind it, the initiative promises a peaceful, free, and prosperous Middle East. Yet with all such promise, the GME initiative was born dead in angry Arab waters. 

This is a great loss for both the G8 and GME countries. Something bold needs to be done, with imagination and diligence, to salvage this worthy initiative and move its fate off dead center for the benefit of all participants, beneficiaries and donors alike. For reasons explained in this article, I propose that Russia and Germany are uniquely qualified to assume the responsibility of saving the G8-GME initiative. Whether Russia and Germany are willing to do so is another matter. The available window of opportunity for this historic initiative is rapidly closing, given the primacy of three GME hot fronts in the minds of G8 decision makers: Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan.

THE STORM

A storm of criticism in Arab media hit the GME initiative when it was first proposed by the U.S., but before the G8 adopted it in their spring meeting 2004. While Arab critics raise valid questions, they offer phobic answers. First, they question the absence of what they consider as the mother of all Middle East ills: Israel’s occupation of Palestine. In a reflective response И la Pavlov, they reject the GME initiative out of hand. Second, the critics question the interest of the West – led by the U.S. – in Arab reform. Their answers revolve around sinister American designs on the region, ostensibly to prepare the grounds for Israel’s hegemony – not only of the Arab world (already a fait accompli), but also of the four other Muslim countries, as well.

While such claims may appeal to Arab simpletons, they do not hold much water upon careful examination. The international community is justifiably concerned about stability in the Arab world: during the last 50 years, 35 percent of world conflicts were in that region, which has less than 6 percent of the world population. The interest of the G8 is clearly spelled out in the first paragraph of the G8 initiative:
“A close correlation exists between political and social disenfranchisement of Arabs and the rise of extremism, terrorism, international crime, and illegal migration.”
All such phenomena spell trouble for the G8 countries, which recognize that their vested interest is in containing those troubles by going to their root causes. As the leading industrial countries see it, fighting poverty and its correlates in Arab countries is an effective, though indirect, way to contain trouble in G8 countries.  
Does this mean that Israel is no longer relevant as a cause of Arab anger? No, it simply means that Israel is not the only cause. The West is well aware that Arabs are inflamed by the massacres of Palestinians and destruction of their homes at Israeli hands, mostly with American weaponry, aircraft and technology. Moreover, the West is somewhat divided on Israel: the U.S. provides unconditional support, while others provide qualified support for Israel’s survival, but not for Palestinian destruction. Occasionally, other members of the G8 condemn Israeli excesses. Public opinion in those countries is shifting in favor of Palestine, but not in the U.S. What about the other causes of disaffection?

THE THREE DEFICITS

The G8 document starts with adopting the conclusions of the two Arab Human Development Reports organized by the United Nations in 2002 and 2003. Ironically, Arab governments had completely ignored those reports until the G8 accepted their analysis and conclusions, identifying three deficits in the development of the Arab world: freedom, knowledge, and women empowerment. Arab experts claim that such deficits were responsible for the feeble pace of Arab development since the late 1970s. The G8 initiative logically builds upon that important premise by proposing policies to rectify conditions of economic and social ills in Arab countries. Let us look at the identified deficits.

The freedom deficit. The Arab reports decry the lamentable state of participatory governance in the region. This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development. To reduce this deficit, the G8 initiative proposes several programs to promote democracy and good governance through measures to ensure free elections, exchange and training programs for parliamentarians, women’s leadership academies, grassroots legal aid, promotion of independent media, efforts to improve transparency and reduce corruption, and expansion of the role of civil society institutions. 
The knowledge deficit. The Arab reports state that Arab countries lag markedly behind other regions in knowledge broadly defined. Knowledge constitutes the road to development and liberation, especially in a world of intensive globalization. To reduce this deficit, the G8 initiative aims at improving basic education, expanding literacy, upgrading textbooks, implementing educational reforms, increasing Internet access, and boosting business education.  

Lack of women empowerment. The Arab reports conclude that limited economic opportunities have largely been responsible for the weak state of women empowerment. To broaden those opportunities, the G8 initiative proposes to strengthen the potential of the private sector, especially small and medium enterprises that could act as the primary engines of economic growth and job creation. The two key factors for such a transformation are finance and trade. Financial reform is proposed for several levels: micro-finance, a regional finance corporation (similar to the International Finance Corporation), a regional development institution (like the European Development Bank), and measures to modernize banking and financial services. Trade reforms include: WTO accession, trade facilitation, establishing trade hubs, and business incubator zones, etc.

CALLS FOR REFORM

The remedies mentioned above bear remarkable similarities to the remedies proposed by the Alexandria Declaration of the Arab Reform Conference concluded in March 2004 (www.arabreformforum.org/English). To quell false claims that calls for reform are foreign-inspired and to avail maximum space for open discussions, the conference organizers led by the Library of Alexandria invited for participation only civil society representatives from different Arab countries. Pointedly, they did not invite Arab officials or foreign observers to ensure that the conclusions and policy recommendations of the conference are not only home-grown, but also contain no official inputs or influence. 

Significantly, the same policies recommended by the Alexandria Declaration, and now by the G8 initiative, had already proven their relevance and effectiveness in South East Asia, where the ‘Asian Tigers’ have emerged. The identified remedies, whether proposed by the G8 or by Arab intellectuals, provide recipes to reduce the three deficits if Arabs were to improve their performance and compete in the global economy. Significantly also, four other regional reform conferences for Arab civil society organizations took place during 2004: in Beirut, Amman, Doha, and Cairo. They essentially bear the same message. In addition, numerous political opposition parties in Egypt and other Arab countries issued their own statements about the necessity of reforms, each putting its own emphasis on what suits their particular platform, but the broad lines are also the same.

THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS

Regardless of who proposes remedies, it is evident that the Arab world is overdue for reform in all of its dimensions: political, economic, social, and cultural. In this regard, those who focus their energies on who proposes reform and neglect the substance of reform knock at the wrong door and deflect from the real issue. Unwittingly, they are the worst offenders to improved Arab future, even though they claim to be the defenders of that future. Conveniently, they hide behind big banners, such as nationalism, independence, Islam’s way, our uniqueness (whatever that is), etc. Maybe they are ashamed to accept evidence of Arab development failure and are incapable to stand up to do something about it. Maybe they lack confidence to debate international initiatives on their own merits, so they take the easy way out and attack the source of such initiatives.

The obstructionists belong to a wide range of political persuasions: Islamists, nationalists, communists, socialists, and independents. The most pathetic among the obstructionists are the Islamists, because they desperately try to stay in the reform debate where they have nothing to contribute. They invoke Arab history, culture, and geography, but so does everyone else. Their reminders of the contributions of Arab civilization to the world are irrelevant to the ongoing debate. Fair-minded Western observers know that Islam and socio-economic backwardness are not correlated. After all, two of Asia’s tigers are Muslim countries (Malaysia and Indonesia).
It is thus time for critics of various shades of opinion to stop chest beating and put conspiracy theory aside, because it is a poor, tired, old excuse. It is equally time to get the religious establishment out of politics, especially in arbitrating between conflicting objectives. The design of socio-political-economic reforms is not a religious issue; it is a social issue for technocrats and politicians to sort out. Because of their vested interests, Islamists insist otherwise and dig in their heels. The battle lines are drawn.

THE ABSENCE OF REFORMS

The truth about reform is that it cannot produce sustainable results unless it is coupled with a ‘social contract’ between the governing elite and the governed street. With the present freedom deficit, where the free will of citizens is seriously curtailed, such social contracts are likely to be fake – a dictation of the elite’s will upon the hapless street. Arab regimes have not really served their people; they worked tirelessly to protect their own interests and expand their wealth base. The media they own has worked equally tirelessly to mislead citizens, feed lies, and protect the masters’ interests. Under the circumstances is it any surprise that Arab regimes have failed to produce a credible and worthy vision for the future? The reason is self-evident: serious reforms in Arab countries would threaten existing vested interests that in turn would resist to the teeth.

The claim that Arab reforms had to be postponed to better prepare for the battle with Israel is an empty excuse. Israel adopted reforms and guarded its democracy while battling the Arabs. Equally empty is the claim that the conflict with Israel has diverted valuable Arab resources from development to armament. Israel had to divert resources for military superiority, without sacrificing socio-political development. It has been more than 30 years since the end of the October War, the last major armed Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel cleverly used this respite to deepen its own socio-economic reforms, which helped it integrate better into the global economy. Other developing countries that took reforms seriously made major strides during the same 30 years. South East Asia was able to join the ranks of the developed world. Regrettably, while many countries have been working diligently on reforms, Arabs snoozed!

Arab media rejected the G8 initiative out of hand, for no reason other than its origin is American. Similar policies have been articulated in five convergent Arab declarations, formulated by some of the best and brightest. What excuse do the obstructionists now have? Surely, they will come up with some trivia to undermine serious efforts. The Arab Summit in August 2004 only paid lip service to the cause of reform but failed to adopt any reform agenda. Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party failed to capture a golden opportunity to introduce serious political reforms in September 2004. They opted instead for economic reforms. In short, the main reason why calls for reforms are not heeded is the absence of political will on the part of Arab governments.

BREAKING THE DEADLOCK

Contrary to early optimistic assessments that 2004 would be the year of Middle East reforms, it became the year of recrimination and deadlock. Whether we like it or not, the obstructionists managed to mobilize the Arab street in the wrong direction and blocked dialog between the G8 and their spineless governments. Through intimidation they got Arab governments worried enough about accepting the G8 initiative, on grounds it is U.S.-inspired, and nothing good comes out of the U.S. If some government dares to accept the initiative, it risks branding as an imperialist stooge. Unhappily, as long as the U.S. is perceived to be leading the call for reforms in the Middle East, not much progress can be made.

It thus behooves the G8 to look for other messenger(s) to deliver the message forcefully and persuasively to reluctant Arab governments. Four likely candidates could step forward to lead the dialog with GME countries: France, Germany, Russia, and the UK. All four have active and strategic interests in the Middle East. Over the last few decades, all have extended development assistance to countries in the region. However, not all are acceptable as messengers of reform to the region’s skeptical public or weak governments.

To many Arab critics, France’s colonial oppression of political leadership in six countries of the region cannot be readily dismissed. The street is unlikely to forget or forgive what France had done to the political elite in Algeria, Djibouti, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia. The same applies to Great Britain because of its colonial history and oppression of national political movements in another six countries of the region: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, and Sudan. Rightly or wrongly, Arab historical sentiments against France and Great Britain would preclude them as messengers of contemporary reforms in that volatile part of the world.

The two likely candidates are Germany and Russia. Both enjoy a positive image and neither have had colonial experiences in the Arab world; they qualify as reliable, unbiased, trustworthy brokers. Postwar Germany is perceived as a neutral power that extended to Arabs generous development assistance since its recovery from the devastation of WWII. Russia is perceived even more positively because of its military assistance to Egypt, Iraq, and Syria and its helping Egypt with the construction of the Aswan High Dam during years of the Cold War. More recently, both Arab elite and street recognize that Russia is one fourth of the quartet that sponsored the road map for Israeli-Palestinian peace and for the two-state solution.

The weight and prestige of Germany and Russia in the GME countries could start moving the rusty locomotive of reforms off dead center into meaningful dialog. As Germany and Russia represent the collective will of the G8, they could engage the GME countries using a stick-and-carrot approach. The leverage of G8 countries is enormous: aid, trade, investment, finance, technology, and military. Collectively, the G8 controls the bulk of those flows to GME. If the GME countries fail to respond, at least they would have been duly forewarned of the disastrous effects of their failure.

Since the initiative was adopted in June 2004 by the G8, it is regrettable that nothing has been done with it so far. The next G8 meeting should take up this matter to start moving things forward in earnest. Considering how troubled U.S. image has become in Arab countries, the U.S. is best advised to cede leadership of this matter to Germany and Russia, in the interest of all industrial countries. In parallel, the GME countries are waiting for the U.S. to restart talks to establish an independent Palestinian State, now that Yasser Arafat, Israel’s old excuse is gone. Whether the U.S. is willing to agree to those actions in the forthcoming G8 meeting remains to be seen.

The interests of Germany and Russia to improve their relations with the U.S. as their strategic ally should be sufficient inducement for both to take the lead on the GME initiative. Such lead should get the U.S. off the hook, a welcome relief, and accomplish the broad objectives of all G8 countries. Whether Germany and Russia are willing to spend some of their capital on the Middle East must be weighed against their earlier Iraq-related rift with the U.S. With Bush’s re-election for another four years, I am inclined to bet that the two countries would find ways to get the G8 out of the deadlock.

This article is based on the author’s report to an international conference entitled Democracy, International Governance and the World Order, organized by the Club of Three, the Alfred Herrhausen Society for International Dialogue, DaimlerChrysler and the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in November 2004.