BEIRUT — It is not a coincidence that serious political talks are taking place simultaneously these days: top Lebanese political foes with each other, Saudi Arabia with Iran, the United States with Syria and Iran, Israelis with Palestinians, the Europeans with Syria, and, directly or indirectly, Israel with Saudi Arabia.
For the past three years, the situations in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine-Israel have all conflated into a consortium of conflicts, and there has been frequent talk that one way out of the region’s stressed condition is to strike a Grand Bargain that resolves all these disputes simultaneously. That has always been an unlikely long shot. It is also obvious that these simmering conflicts and active battles are all linked to one another to some extent — since Syria, Iran, the United States and Israel all have their fingers in all of these disputes. Therefore, progress on any of these disputes could trigger movement on the others.
If a comprehensive Grand Bargain remains elusive, March 2007 may prove to be the month when all the principal antagonists entered into the Great Talk Fest, to conclude from the many meetings and discussions taking place these days in the region. On the premise that it is always preferable to talk than to shoot, and to share a meal rather than a cemetery, the diplomatic engagements that now define the Middle East do offer a ray of hope. Talking is not a guarantee of success, but it is an essential first step in that direction, and a crucial sign that even the most virulent warriors will explore reasonable alternatives to their senseless death marches.
The gallery of gab is impressive by any standard. Iraq, the United States, and all concerned parties and neighbors met in Baghdad last weekend, establishing follow-up committees, and planning further, higher-level talks. The United States engaged Syria and Iran at that meeting, and a senior American diplomat also held talks in Damascus this weekend, prompting the Syrian government to call for a “serious dialogue” with the United States on all regional issues. An unofficial Syrian envoy (American-based and US citizen) plans to speak before an Israeli parliamentary committee this month. The European Union’s top foreign policy official, Javier Solana, is in Damascus this week to revive stalled relations. The Israelis and Saudi Arabians have launched behind-the-scenes probes to explore the feasibility of the Arab summit in Riyadh later this month, re-launching the 2002 Arab peace plan, about which Israeli officials have made semi-positive noises recently. Palestinian and Israeli leaders continue to meet bilaterally, even if largely fruitlessly. Iran and Saudi Arabia hold high-level talks every few weeks, in part a proxy process for US-Iranian discussions. Pro-government MP Saad Hariri and pro-opposition MP and Speaker of the House Nebih Berri have held three meetings in Beirut in the past week, to resolve the internal Lebanese political crisis. This is talk taken to the level of epic.
If talking is a small but important sign of possible progress, more significant is the simultaneity of all these discussions, for several reasons. It forces all concerned to clarify their positions and thus construct a possible negotiating framework, especially by identifying one’s minimum needs and most important demands from the other side. It generates new possibilities for optimism in public opinion across the region, potentially opening the door for mass movements to push for reasonable negotiated agreements rather than savage battlefield legacies. It increases the possibility that reasonable trade-offs and compromises can be made on more than one front (i.e., Iran and Syria might ease off in Lebanon if their regimes were no longer threatened with removal by force, and Israel would concede more to Syria and the Palestinians if it were confident about Iranian, Hizbullah and Hamas willingness to coexist with it).
We have now seen the two bookends of contemporary Middle Eastern politics. On the one hand, the common lesson of the Israel-Hizbullah war last summer, strife within Palestine, and fighting in Iraq is that local and foreign forces are prepared to fight each other to the death, and to destroy their respective societies if need be. On the other hand, antagonists who discern the potential dangers of their macho attitudes and militarism are also capable of more humble and reasonable acts, by exploring possible peaceful resolutions of their conflicts.
We shall soon discover if our decision-makers are the irresponsible killers they often seem to be, or still have enough sense and humanity left in them to pull pack from the brink of their own extremism. For the first time in many years, they have the opportunity to choose from both options that are on the table before them.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, and co-laureate of the 2006 Pax Christi International Peace Award.
Copyright ©2007 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 14 March 2007
Word Count: 778
—————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757