|
|
|
|
8th March 2007 Published in The Japan Times By David Howell
Constructing a New Tower of Babel LONDON – The turn-around in U.S. policy on Iraq is truly breathtaking. From firmly refusing to talk to Iraq’s awkward neighbours, namely Iran and Syria, the Washington Administration has suddenly changed its tack. It seems after all that talking to them, without of course agreeing with them on much, if anything, is acceptable, and meeting is now being structured to take place in Baghdad to bring all parties together. The guest list to this party will also well include such countries as Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, presumably Lebanon and maybe neighbouring Kuwait. Whether it also includes some of the other bigger powers on the global scene, such as Russia and China and Japan remains to be seen. Certainly it looks like being a big affair. But the very size and scope of the gathering, and the enormous number of interested parties in the Iraqi imbroglio, spell trouble. The prospect is of a great many different nations all gathered together but not really understanding each other – more like the Tower of Babel than a purposeful conference aimed at solutions The difficulties begin with the fact that the line-up is not just Islam against the West, or most countries against the much-criticised Americans, or reformers versus extremists, but also Sunni against Shia, and some Sunni groups against others, and Shia sects against each other and against everybody else. On the whole Washington views the Shiite sects as the bad guys, because Iran is predominantly Shia. It favours the Sunni groups because Saudi-Arabia is mainly Sunni. But in Iraq it is the reverse. It is the Sunni jihadists who have inflicted by far the worst casualties on American and other allied forces and the Shia who have dominated the governmental system which is just managing to hold Iraq together. The situation inside war-torn Lebanon typifies and mirrors the larger confusion. There the enemy of Western influence and democracy is widely seen to be the Shiite Hezbollah movement, which has been openly backed by Iran and Syria, with both weapons and money. So America has put considerable resources behind the Christian and Sunni groups which support the elected government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But some of the more extreme Sunni groups , while they may be bitterly opposed to the Shiites, also have ideological ties to Al-Qaeda which straddles across the Sunni-Shia divide and has only one purpose in life, which is to rid the Middle East of all westerners and carry Islam into the heart of the western camp – a sort of crusade in reverse, and a very dangerous one. Then there is the topsy-turvy situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are still the main enemy, and an unfortunately resurgent one at present, but the Iranians are also strongly opposed to the Taliban and might well be able to help the struggling NATO and American troops in that country. In particular, Iran could probably provide considerable help in dealing with the problem of poppy cultivation in neighbouring Afghanistan , and the huge drug trade which it feeds. Which groups should Western policy back? If the ‘enemy’ is the Shiite ‘arc’ in the Middle East, led by Iran, that undermines any remaining stability in Iraq. If the enemy is the Sunni extremists (and most Muslims round the world are in fact Sunni), that plays into Iran’s hands. An additional twist to the fiendish complexity of the situation arises from the fact that in Syria it is the Sunni brotherhood who are the subjugated majority and the Alawi group firmly on top and intending to stay there. Any sign that the West is leaning too much towards the Sunnis and against the Shiites would increase Syrian hostility to America and its allies even more. A conference of all the opposing parties may be better than nothing. But if some of the participants are trying their best to undermine or destroy each other’s governments it stretches credulity that very much is going to be achieved . The clear message, if anything is clear in this maelstrom of conflicting interests, is that simplistic ‘good and evil’ nostrums have no place in the Middle East , and that campaigns to impose Western values or ‘wars against terror’ are just going to end in worse confusion. The one glimmer of hope could be that the great non-Western powers, such as China and Russia, and even rising India, may come to the rescue. Rather than stand by and enjoy seeing America bogged down they may come to recognise that a chaotic Middle East is as much a threat to their own stability and prosperity as it is to the West’s. In this strange new world all problems turnout to be globalized, rather than just ‘Western’, and no major nation can now shirk its responsibilities. Chinese pressure on Iran might do a power of good. The dream ticket would be for China, Japan and Russia to provide support for the beleaguered Government in Lebanon , (so that Fouad Siniora could no longer be accused of being an American ‘puppet’), for the Iranians to assist in Afghanistan, for Iran, Syria and other Middle East powers to help sort out Iraq, for Turks and Iranians to co-operate over their Kurdish minority problems, for the Saudis to carry on with their excellent work in bringing unity to Palestine and after that a serious negotiation with Israel, and for America and the West to adopt a lower profile and help where they can. But since almost all these countries are at loggerheads it will all remain just that - a dream. In waking, real life the nightmare of non-communication, and wilful misunderstanding, will continue, at least for a while, and no conference in Baghdad or anywhere else, will smooth it away. Ends
|
|
|
