July 1996

Waging Peace

MEPC Discusses Political Islam

The Middle East Policy Council, a Washington, DC-based organization headed by former Democratic Senator and candidate for president George McGovern, held a May 14 discussion entitled “Political Islam: Can It Become a Loyal Opposition?” Speakers were Mumtaz Ahmad, a professor of political science at Hampton University, and I. William Zartman, director of African Studies and Conflict Management Programs at The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

Mumtaz began the discussion by pointing out that “loyal opposition presupposes a democratic order,” which does not exist in any of the countries where political Islam flourishes. According to him, the first question that has to be addressed by all parties in these countries—Islamist as well as secular—is the likelihood of real democracy developing in the Arab world. Without it, Islamists have little or no incentive to work within the established order and in many cases their participation in politics is formally banned.

The second question asked by Mumtaz was “loyal to whom?” Should Islamists seek legitimacy through loyalty to the state, its rulers, or its people? In answering this question Mumtaz pointed out a paradox for Islamists: if they renounce democracy for revolution the state oppresses them. If they renounce revolution for democracy and win, as was the case when the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won a popular vote in Algeria, the state refuses them access to power and actively suppresses them.

William Zartman focused on conditions for Islamists’ role in democracy. Among those he discussed were two that were of supreme importance. First, can Islamists accept the negative results of democracy, that is, can they be “unelected”? And second, can Islamists operate within a secular framework where, for example, presidents are popularly elected rather than divinely chosen? These questions are, according to Zartman, part of a larger “test” for political Islam’s role in a democratic order.

—Shawn L. Twing

National Endowment for Democracy Hosts Fatima Mernissi

The National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S.-government funded Washington, DC organization that promotes the development of democratic institutions around the world through non-governmental organizations, hosted Fatima Mernissi for a May 10 discussion of “The Role of Women in the Process of Democratization.” Mernissi, a sociology professor at the Muhammad V University in Rabat, Morocco, is the author of six books that explore, among other topics, gender relations in Islam, the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and the role of women in the development of the Islamic faith.

Mernissi discussed a broad range of topics ranging from Western mis-perceptions of Islam to the psychological effects on the Muslim and Arab worlds of Israel’s attack on civilians in Qana, Lebanon. In reference to the killing by Israeli artillery of more than 100 civilians and the wounding of many more at the U.N. compound in Qana, Mernissi said: “[Prior to the slaughter at Qana] people in the Arab world perceived the peace process as the delegitimization of violence as a political tool.” That perception was shattered, according to Mernissi, after the Clinton administration’s decision not to condemn the attack.

Mernissi was joined by several women who were speaking at the “Sisterhood is Global” conference held in Washington in June, and each made impromptu contributions to her discussion of women and democratization.

—Shawn L. Twing

Likud Government May Undermine U.S. Foreign Policy

The world’s support for U.S. foreign policy and for Israel has hit a “high-water mark” since the 1991 Gulf war, according to Geoffrey Kemp, White House Middle East policy adviser during President Ronald Reagan’s first term. This trend may be quickly reversed, however, if Israel’s new Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lives up to his pre-election rhetoric and halts the peace process.

Kemp told an audience at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom in Washington, DC, on June 11 that the United States and Israel should expect much less cordial relations, not only in the Middle East, but in Europe and Russia if the peace process is damaged. For example, Kemp said many countries have been willing to overlook the inconsistency of U.S. enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation everywhere around the world except Israel.

“The U.S. has been able to ride over criticism...despite Israel’s nuclear weapons,” said Kemp, who currently serves as director of Regional Strategic Programs at the Nixon Center. “This has been tolerated as long as Israel was exchanging land for peace.”

“A lot of these issues have been manageable for the last five years,” he added. “But [without peace] we’re going to get into trouble with our European and Russian friends, not to mention Iran and Iraq.”

Israel has gained support and acceptance around the world due to the Israeli Labor government’s peace efforts, Kemp said. Since the Oslo accords, over 60 new countries have established good diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. “Israel’s economy is soaring because of the indirect effects of peace with the Arabs,” he added. Leaders of these countries, however, would find it difficult to justify such relations if Jewish West Bank settlements and oppression of Palestinians continue.

But Kemp told the audience of journalists, academics and diplomats that it is still too early to tell what Netanyahu’s stance will be on the peace process. Despite his hard-line rhetoric, many believe the 46-year-old prime minister will continue at least some aspects of the peace negotiations. Kemp added that the United States could play a large role in encouraging Netanyahu to pursue policies the Labor government started. But there is little hope that the Clinton administration and the U.S. government in general will take a tough policy stand to support peace.

“U.S. policies are going to be tested when we are least prepared to be strong and assertive,” Kemp said. “But the long-term stakes [of these decisions] are very high.”

Peter Rodman, former deputy national security adviser and current director of national security programs at the Nixon Center, said the United States must strengthen its ties with the Netanyahu government in order to influence the prime minister’s decisions. The Clinton administration can do this, Rodman said, by reminding Israel of the common interests it has with the United States. “We have to nurture some sense that we are on the same side on many of the strategic questions,” he said. “We have a convergent view of military security and we share common enemies—namely Iran and Iraq.”

Rodman added that Netanyahu may pursue policies that make it more independent of the United States. The prime minister’s economic philosophy, for example, encourages businesses to be more self-reliant and compete in an open market. “The long- term objective of this is to decrease dependence on U.S. aid,” he said. If this occurs, the United States will have even less influence on Israel and the peace process. 

—Geoff Lumetta

Sara Roy Discusses Gaza

The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine, the Washington, DC-based educational program of the Jerusalem Fund, hosted a May 15 discussion by Dr. Sara Roy, a research scholar at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, on “Economic and Social Conditions in Gaza.” The author of The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development, who had just returned from a 10-day visit to Gaza, reported a “noticeable difference” from her previous visit in January.

Stating that Gaza has in fact been under Israeli closure since March of 1993, Roy described the latest tightening, since the suicide bombings this past March, as “more acute,” resulting in “new levels of desperation and humiliation.” In her previous visits to Gaza, Roy felt there was “still some sense of possibility”; this latest, total closure, however, has “eliminated any sense of hope.” In fact, Roy added, “Very few people, including myself, think that [the closure] will ever be lifted.” International donor aid, she believes, tends to mitigate the closure rather than end it.

In addition to enumerating the devastating economic effects of the closure on Gaza, Roy described growing corruption, often in the form of monopolies, which she said is openly criticized in Gaza. Some of the monopolies are state-run, others controlled by people close to PNA Chairman Yasser Arafat. She cited the price rise of a kilo of flour, from 45 Israeli shekels a year ago to 120 shekels today, as an example of the effect of monopolies on the living standards of Gazans, and concluded that “there is no free market mechanism anymore” in Gaza.

The development of monopolies has also resulted in the emergence of “a new economic class that benefits directly from Israeli policies and has acquired political power,” Roy noted. An end to the closure is not in the interest of this new class, she pointed out.

“The only good news” in an otherwise bleak picture of Gaza, Roy said, was the fact that the recently elected Palestinian National Council, which Roy sees as a “kernal of democratic practice,” has been successful in challenging PNA violations of rules of procedure. She concluded by expressing the hope that the balance of power in Gaza would begin to shift toward the Council, representing the people of Palestine. 

—Janet McMahon