January 1996

Waging Peace

Leader Says Shi'i Will Work With All Arabs For Democracy

In a special visit to the Middle East Institute, the head of the Supreme Islamic Shi'i Council in Lebanon told a standing-room-only audience Dec. 5 that the goal of the Shi'i community in the Middle East is to integrate and cooperate in solving regional problems. Sheikh Muhammad Mahdi Shams Al-Din said the Shi'i have no separate political or social agenda to impose in their countries, although this has been a popular conception in the Middle East and in the West. "There are no concerns that Shi'ites have that do not concern all Arabs," Al-Din said. "Our focus is to cooperate with the citizens [in each country] and work toward one common society and a common political destiny."

Speaking through a State Department interpreter, the religious leader tried to dispel the stereotype of the Shi'i being a radical Islamic sect controlled by the Islamic revolutionary government in Iran. Al-Din said the Shi'i are "a main current within Islam" who have historically stood by other Muslim groups in protecting Arab and Muslim interests. "The idea that Shi'i are a front for leaders in Iran is a myth and it is unfounded," he said. "This doesn't mean that all Shi'i are against Iran, but they are not an extension of Iran politically or socially."

Western and popular Middle Eastern media are not the only ones responsible for this misconception of Islam, Al-Din said. The Shi'i themselves must join mainstream political and social structures in their countries to end their separate status.

The main problem that Shi'i and all Arabs face, according to Al-Din, is transforming their national political systems into democracies. The process of empowering citizens and having them participate in government is one that all Arabs and Muslims must address, he said. "It is a problem for every country in the region. Shi'i, like all peoples, are asking for the rights of the citizen. Demands for freedom are not just Shi'i demands, they are human demands," he asserted. Democratic reforms are especially needed in Lebanon, Al-Din said, where nearly all groups "feel outside the system" despite the representative style of government.

When asked about the influence of Hezbollah and Amal, Shi'i-based militia groups active in the Lebanese civil war, Al-Din said only 20 percent of the Shi'i population in Lebanon belong to these organizations and that a majority of Lebanese Shi'i are unaffiliated with any political and social groups. Al-Din said he is calling for all Shi'i to detach themselves from separate organizations. "I am calling on all parties to get rid of their communal identities and address common problems of democracy," he said.

—Geoff Lumetta

Panel Considers Possibilities for Middle East Cooperation

More than 20 years ago, the Helsinki Commission created a set of principles by which European states would deal with each other and with their citizens. The principles included the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for the sovereign equality of states.

But could Middle East countries also agree on principles of diplomatic and human rights? Three analysts of international and Middle East policy took on this question at a seminar sponsored by the Helsinki Commission Nov. 14. Alan Makovsky, a senior fellow at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a Helsinki-like process already is evolving in the Middle East through informal, multilateral talks. He said Israel, Palestinians and 13 Arab states have been meeting periodically since January 1992 in the multilateral process. Ten of these Arab states have no formal diplomatic ties to Israel. "These are significant meetings," he said. "There would be no other possibility of diplomatic contact between these states without the multilaterals." Makovsky attributed improved relations between Israel and Jordan to the multilateral talks as well as to progress made in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Other panel members were more skeptical about the prospects of international cooperation in the Middle East. Tahseen Basheer, senior fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace and a former Egyptian ambassador to Canada, said the Middle East is far from the kind of diplomatic cooperation shown in the Helsinki talks. One major barrier to diplomatic relations in the Middle East, he said, has been Western intervention and European imperialism in that region. "We have been exposed to something in the Middle East that European nations have not seen," said Basheer, referring to the Western-backed establishment of Israel in 1948. "The Middle East has faced active belligerency and active occupation and the region still is trying to deal with that occupation."

The former Egyptian ambassador, who also served as an Egyptian government spokesman in Cairo for many years, added that the inconsistencies of U.S. policies disturb diplomatic relations between Middle Eastern states and between the Middle East and the West. One example of this inconsistency is America's enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation while ignoring Israel's nuclear weapons. "The nuclear question is a continuing block in negotiations," Basheer said. "But we continue to raise the issue because someday Israel will have to be nuclear-free. If not, the peace will be meaningless."

The Middle East has to overcome more than the effects of Western policies before it can agree on Helsinki-like human rights standards, according to Fatemeh Ziai, of Human Rights Watch/Middle East. She said the region's reluctance to address human rights questions has also disrupted peaceful diplomatic relations. She pointed out that the subject of human rights has been excluded intentionally from nearly all peace negotiations including the multilateral talks.

"None of these countries are willing to bring these issues to the table," Ziai said. "But human rights is one of the crucial factors for promoting peace and stability." The United States also has been willing to ignore human rights standards in Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian National Authority areas, she added. This gesture tends only to encourage and increase violations in these areas.

Ziai said the influence of religious parties or movements often underlies human rights violations in the Middle East, especially violations against women. Political leaders are reluctant to challenge the religious authorities, Ziai added, so discrimination policies tend to continue. "Few leaders have tried to push for a liberal interpretation of religion," she said. "Most are content just to appease the religious right."

While some countries, such as Jordan, have taken strides toward improving their records on human rights, Ziai said, the Middle East is far from agreeing on and abiding by human rights standards.

—Geoff Lumetta

Seminar Finds Foreign Aid Hinders Middle East Economic Development

Foreign government aid to the Middle East is poorly distributed and creates economic dependence instead of successful development, according to political and economic experts at a Dec. 6 George Washington University seminar on "problems and prospects" for aid in the Middle East. In addition to assessing foreign aid, participants discussed regional economic development accomplishments and needs.

President Peter Gubser of American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA) said foreign aid generally does not address the human and societal needs in the Middle East. While some aid is used for humanitarian purposes, Gubser said it tends to focus on building up governments and economies, while ignoring the needs of people. He pointed out that only 13 percent of foreign aid to the Middle East is spent on education, nutrition and family planning, while much of it goes to bolster competing national governments. Without strengthening basic needs such as education, there will be little fertile ground for economic development, Gubser said. "It's necessary to look at the whole society, not just business."

He added that very little aid ever gets to what he described as the main catalysts for social change in the Middle East—the non-governmental organizations. These NGOs informally are organized by citizens to tackle problems such as education, health care and agricultural production. In countries where NGOs are allowed to exist, such as Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon, they have had a dramatic effect on improving living standards and promoting peace. "When people come together to resolve these practical issues, some progress is going to be made and people will become empowered," Gubser said. While aid highlights differences and antagonisms between nations, many NGOs transcend ethnic and religious differences and open their membership to diverse peoples.

Gubser said that these differences and animosities lead to another major problem in Middle East development, the closing of borders and lack of regional trade. Restrictions on travel and international trade are especially damaging to small countries such as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With limited space and few domestic businesses, Gubser said, people in these countries would benefit greatly from importing and exporting goods and from commuting over borders to work. Noting that more trust and cooperation will be needed in the future to open these borders, Gubser said that often children in bordering nations know little or nothing about the people who live in adjacent nations except for stereotypical images.

When people do not trust each other, there is little chance for cooperating in business, Gubser added. "We need to work on breaking down these suspicions between diverse groups." Yet foreign aid only tends to strengthen governmental institutions, some of which promote and irritate relations between different groups.

Middle Eastern countries are starting to realize these drawbacks of foreign aid, however, according to Steven Schoenfeld, an official from the International Finance Corporation. He said a number of countries are decreasing their dependence on financial aid, gaining money for development through private businesses and improving their stock markets. Schoenfeld said the countries that have started opening their economies to private investment are on the verge of becoming real players in the world economy.

"We are just at the take-off stage of looking at an enormous amount of investment opportunities in the Middle East," he said. Such countries as Jordan, Turkey and Israel lead in attracting investment dollars, but Schoenfeld added that Egypt, Morocco and Lebanon are catching up quickly. Egypt, he said, is in the process of privatizing 314 of its state-run businesses. Morocco is privatizing a number of industries including banking, and Lebanon has recently been given a stable rating in the international bond market. The emerging businesses in the Middle East are not just American- or European-owned, he said, but indigenous Arab companies as well. "People can now start thinking of Middle East companies as regional multinationals—not just U.S. businesses," Schoenfeld said.

Inder Sud, director of the Middle East Department for the World Bank, said that privatization creates independent markets and economies, while aid only forces dependence on foreign countries. But he added that private businesses still are looked upon with skepticism by many in the Middle East who see them as exploiting labor and giving back little to the community. While the business summit in Amman last November showed that the climate for private business is improving, some important countries still are reluctant to open their economies.

"The summit was a starting point for exposing the Middle East as a place to do business," Sud said. "But large markets such as Syria and Iran have to come into the fold to attract significant shares of business to the Middle East."

Schoenfeld added that, despite the potential for economic development, another major war or border conflict could halt the process. Investors and businesses, he said, are easily scared off by instability. And, with so many other emerging markets in the world—such as Asia and South America—they can take their money elsewhere. "The peace process has to stay on track and it has to broaden to intra-Arab interaction as well," he said. "The trends are in place, but they are not automatic."

—Geoff Lumetta

World Bank/MEI Hold Middle East Economic Conference

Economists and political scientists from the academic, governmental and policy-making communities gathered in Washington, DC on Nov. 20 to attend a day-long conference organized by the World Bank and the Middle East Institute. The conference, entitled "The Middle East & North Africa: Regional Prospects For Economic Development," focused on two important facets of the contemporary Middle East: long-term prospects for economic development and the economic ramifications of the current Arab-Israeli peace accords.

The first half of the day was devoted to discussing the recently released World Bank report on the Middle East and North Africa entitled Claiming the Future: Choosing Prosperity in the Middle East and North Africa. Two of the chief architects of the report, John Page and Nemat Shafik, summarized the report's conclusions for the audience, dividing their time into two segments that Page called "shock" and "vision." The "shock" portion, presented by Page, focused on the negative findings of the Bank's report and the challenges that lie ahead for the economic recovery of the region. "Vision," presented by Shafik, provided an optimistic outlook for the region based on its past economic successes.

Page and Shafik were followed by University of California and Georgetown University professors Alan Richards and Ibrahim M. Oweiss, who analyzed the World Bank report in detail, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. Both agreed that governments in the region should, in Richards' words, "post this on the door of their economics ministries" as a blueprint for future economic planning.

The remainder of the conference was divided between economic relations between the European Union (EU) countries and North Africa, and the economics of the Arab-Israeli peace agreements. Speaking during the EU/Maghreb session, which was moderated by University of Virginia professor and former National Security Council Middle East adviser William Quandt, were Uri Dadush (World Bank), Mary Jane Deeb (Middle East Institute) and Bertin Martens (European Commission). Speaking during the "economics of peace" segment, moderated by Washington Post journalist David Ignatius, were Shlomo Gur (Embassy of Israel), Caio Koch-Weser (World Bank), Aaron Miller (State Department) and Ramzy Ramzy (Embassy of Egypt).

—Shawn L. Twing

CPAP Hosts Graham Usher

The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (CPAP), a Washington, DC-based research institute, hosted British journalist and author Graham Usher for a Nov. 16 discussion entitled "Palestine Faces the Future." Usher, whose work appears regularly in The Economist and Middle East International , has lived in Gaza since 1987, using his experiences there as the basis for his recently published book, Palestine in Crisis: The Struggle for Peace and Independence After Oslo.

Usher began his presentation by dismissing the notion that the Oslo accords can be considered decolonization, saying instead that the new environment in the occupied territories will be one of "neo-colonization with the Palestinian National Authority as [Israel's] indirect control mechanism." To support his argument he cited the increase in Israeli soldiers in the West Bank that will accompany the Israel Defense Forces redeployment from major Palestinian population centers under the terms of Oslo II. Usher urged the audience to keep in mind that "redeployment does not mean withdrawal."

In response to a question from the audience, Usher offered his predictions for the future of Palestine. He maintained that under the current agreements, the best the Palestinians will receive is 40 to 50 percent of the West Bank's territory, accompanied by the symbols of statehood (e.g., a flag and currency). He added that the Palestinians will be left with an area that remains economically and militarily dependent on Israel. This, he said, will most likely result in a new, incremental and nonviolent struggle for real autonomy beyond the administrative autonomy offered by the Oslo accords, which eventually will produce a binational state encompassing both Israel and Palestine.

—Shawn L. Twing

Dare to Speak Out Awards Go to Washington Report

The publisher and executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs were given the Third Annual Paul Findley and Council for the National Interest Dare to Speak Out Award at a Nov. 18 dinner in Washington, DC. Former Congressman Findley was present and addressed the group after the presentation by E. Faye Williams, a former congressional candidate from Louisiana and a winner of the first award in 1993.

Ambassador Andrew Killgore was cited for his work in publishing the magazine and establishing its parent organization, the American Educational Trust (AET), in 1982. He and Washington Report executive editor Richard Curtiss were co-founders of AET, which began publication of the Washington Report as a newsletter in April 1982.

It quickly developed into a unique political and historical resource on the Middle East and American foreign policy there. Widely read by journalists and State Department field officers, it has grown from a newsletter into a 132-page four-color magazine found in most public and university libraries in the United States.

Both men, their dedicated staff and some 200 writers from all over the world are known for the sweat equity put into the magazine and into the many other activities of the American Educational Trust, including the sale and distribution of hundreds of thousands of books about the Middle East. For many years AET has been known as the major distributor of books that are judged by some booksellers and publishers as too controversial (meaning objective) in their presentation of the facts about the Arab-Israel dispute.

Richard Curtiss has written two seminal books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: A Changing Image: American Perspectives of the Arab-Israeli Dispute, a 200-page summary of U.S. involvement in the problem; and Stealth PACs: Lobbying Congress for Control of U.S. Middle East Policy. A third edition of the first title and a fourth edition of the second are planned for 1996.

Besides honoring the two founders of AET, the work of Donna Curtiss and Marjorie Killgore was recognized by the presentation of framed Palestinian artwork. Both wives, it was pointed out, have been deeply involved in the efforts to build the magazine into its present eminence in the field.

In his remarks Killgore, who was U.S. ambassador to Qatar at the time of his retirement from the foreign service, emphasized the need for a voice to counter pro-Israel interpretations of the Middle East scene. Curtiss, who was chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency when he retired from the foreign service, gave a survey of where he expected the peace process to go and its failure to deal with key issues so far in both of the agreements signed.

The presentation was made at the end of the Third Annual Workshop of the Council, which was held on the theme "Beyond Oslo." The award stems from the 1984 book by Congressman Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby. The book related the experiences of members of Congress and other major American figures who had written or spoken the truth about the Israeli-Arab dispute and U.S. policy toward it, often at severe personal and professional cost. Since then Representative Findley also has published Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship.

George Ball received the second award in 1994 for his many articles and books on the same subject, and particularly for his last book before his death, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present.

Killgore and Curtiss also were honored at a June 16 dinner sponsored by the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development and the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine at the Georgetown University faculty club in Washington, DC.

AET received an award from the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA) in 1993, and Killgore and Curtiss both received individual awards from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in 1992, from CNI and from Partners for Peace in 1993, and from the United Muslims of America and the Islamic Association for Palestine in North America in 1994.

(All books mentioned in this article are available from the AET Book Club.)

—Jean Asfour