The Desert Peace Will Help Define the New World Order

By Dr. Abbas Hamdani

The desert storm has blown over, but at this writing there is, as yet, no desert peace; not even a formal cease-fire, but only a suspension of hostilities announced by President Bush in his victory speech on Feb. 27, 1991. In his March 6 address to the joint session of the Congress, the president provided a glimpse of what he envisioned as the shape of the Middle East in the post-war period. The subsequent journey to the Middle East by Secretary of State James Baker was a first step toward the implementation of President Bush's vision.

The president spoke of four challenges facing the Middle East. His first concern was a shared security arrangement between the United States and Middle Eastern countries, including joint military exercises and the presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf—in other words, a US military involvement in the work of the Gulf Cooperation Council. This may necessitate the re-establishment of US military bases in the Gulf.

The GCC countries and Syria have already met in Damascus and decided on the creation of an Arab peace-keeping force, to consist mainly of Egyptian and Syrian troops, armed and financed by the Gulf countries. The Gulf states would also provide economic assistance to Egypt and Syria.

An Explosive Situation

The two plans of the US and its Arab allies may ultimately merge, if we do not insist on permanent US bases and the inclusion of Turkey, Iran or Israel in the military cooperation. The US must take into consideration the sentiment of the Arab public. Recent demonstrations in Morocco, Egypt, Syria and Jordan are indicative of Arab distrust of our military presence in the area. The most influential Egyptian daily, Al-Ahram, editorialized thus: "If the Americans keep any military presence in the area, the situation here will explode. All the anger between Arab people will turn against the Americans who are occupying Arab land."

The second challenge that President Bush referred to in his speech is the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction. He stated: "Iraq must not have access to the instruments of war." This, however, is not a matter restricted solely to Iraq. It should also be a matter of concern that Israel today possesses a stockpile of more than 100 atomic bombs, is a major nuclear power, has not signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is now manufacturing its own missiles, and has several Patriot missiles from the United States. In the past it has not hesitated to use napalm in the Golan Heights, cluster bombs in Lebanon, and concussion bombs in Southern Lebanon. It is a country paranoid enough to use its weapons of mass destruction in a moment of danger. How is the United States going to control that? In the recent conflict, Israeli leaders exercised restraint only because the US was doing the job of destroying Iraq for them.

The third challenge President Bush spoke about was the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. He said "the time has come to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict." He talked about "closing the gap between Israel and the Arab countries and between Israel and the Palestinians." He spoke against terror and for diplomacy. He reiterated his support for UN Security Council Resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973.

High Principles or Mere Talk?

There is nothing new in all this. It has been the official US stand for a long time. As long as we refuse, however, to put any pressure on Israel, and as long as we do not publicly and frankly come out in support of a Palestinian homeland side by side with Israel, our high principles are mere talk.

What we are actually doing is bringing pressure on America's Arab allies to talk directly to Israel (that is to recognize it) before Israel makes any previous commitment to the Palestinians. We are reviving the old Israeli trick of the "Jordanian option" by the possibility of joining just a little strip of the West Bank to Jordan, and calling the Palestinian problem solved. The Bush administration is refusing to talk to the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, i.e., the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It has even turned King Hussein into a persona non grata.

The US seems to have no words of rebuke, however, over the rise of a virulently racist, right-wing government in Israel. The Bush administration wants Palestinians to come up with "new ideas," i.e., fresh concessions, while at the same time it provides aid to Israel to settle Soviet Jews in the West Bank.

When there was great world pressure on the Reagan administration it opened a dialogue with the PLO, in return for the PLO's recognition of Israel's right to exist. The US then closed down the dialogue. Earlier in 1990, Secretary Baker publicly gave Israel a telephone number to call when it was "interested in peace." He has been waiting, silently, ever since for that call!

The Gulf war again brought the Palestinian issue into sharp focus. The US opposed all linkage between Iraqi and Israeli withdrawals from occupied territories during the war. New pressure from American allies in Europe and the Arab countries has forced the US to reconsider the issue. As long as we do not have the domestic political will to implement the UN resolutions for Palestinian self-determination, however, all American declarations are meaningless. The world understands US hypocrisy in insisting on Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions and yet not requiring Israel to do the same.

The fourth challenge President Bush mentioned in his speech was the need "to foster economic development in the service of the peoples of the Middle East." How does this translate into reality? Is it the spending of their oil-wealth by the Gulf countries to reward Egypt and Syria for their support, or is it the relief of poverty in the North African countries, Sudan, Jordan and Yemen? Will the oil-rich Arab countries spend as much on the poor Arab masses as they did in prosecuting the war against Iraq?

The "New World Order"

President Bush made passing references in short phrases to human rights, to solutions being not just American, to United Nations authority having been put to its first test during the Gulf war, and for the need to avoid bigotry. These are, presumably, essential ingredients of his often-repeated concept of "the new world order," which had originally come out of the Helsinki Summit of Sept. 6, 1990.

In the post-Cold War era, is the new world order to be based on "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," as represented by the United Nations, and on cooperation between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, or is it to be based on a new Monroe Doctrine expanded to cover the world? Is this the end of Empires or the beginning of a new one? Much will be revealed about this broader issue when the Bush administration undertakes the narrow one of the desert peace.

Dr. Abbas Hamdani is professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.