Making the Middle East Safe for What?
by Leon Hadar by Leon Hadar
The Bush administration seems to be drawing the outlines of a strategy to oust Syria’s President Bashar Assad and the ruling Ba’ath party.
Of course, no one is considering an American-led military invasion la Iraq to achieve a "regime change" in Damascus. Instead, neoconservative policy makers and analysts are urging Washington to take advantage of the conclusions of the soon-to-be-issued United Nations report on the assassination of the late Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri.
Some experts expect that UN chief investigator Detlev Mehlis will point at several top Syrian officials and accuse them of orchestrating the killing that helped trigger public pressure in Lebanon on Syria to withdraw its troops from that country. The neocons are proposing that if and when Mr. Mehlis issues his report, the Bush administration will then take the lead in a diplomatic effort aimed at isolating Mr. Bashar and forcing him out of power.
Unfortunately, not unlike the pre-Iraq-War grand schemes concocted in Washington to get rid of Saddam and his Ba’ath allies and bring freedom to Mesopotamia, the American plans to unseat Mr. Assad and his Ba’ath cronies and implant a democracy in the Levant are based mostly on wishful thinking.
It is assumed that the main obstacle to the political and economic renaissance of Syria, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East is the lack of a viable process to conduct open and free elections. According to the neocons’ fantasy, if only the will of the Syrian (or Iraqi, or Egyptian, or Saudi) people could be fully expressed in the voting booths, the sky will prove to be the limit for transforming Syria (or Iraq, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia) into centers of progress.
If that would have been the case, one would have expected that some of the states in the Middle East and North Africa that had been freed from imperialism after 1945, adopted western-style constitutions and held at one time free elections should have been now in the process of applying, like Turkey, for membership in the European Union (EU).
The reason that Iraq, Syria, Egypt, or Algeria have not been able to do the same as Turkey has nothing to do with their failure to hold free elections. In fact, when Algeria was about to complete legislative elections in 1992, the Algerian military, with the support of the French government, moved to cancel the vote that was expected to bring to power anti-Western Islamic political parties.
Ethnicity and religion
Indeed, as anyone knowledgeable about the Middle East will maintain, open and free elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Syria – as opposed to the government-managed voting that takes place from time to time in those countries – will probably bring to power radical Islamic groups whose foreign policy interests and values such as the rights of women and minorities are antithetical to that of the United States and the West.
The main reason for that is the collapse of the secular Arab nationalist ideology; now the only legitimate sense of identity based on which political leaders and movements can draw genuine public support tends to evolve around tribalism, ethnicity and religion. What has happened in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein demonstrates this proposition: The authoritarian Ba’ath regime that was in the hands of the minority Sunnis had lacked any sense of political legitimacy but was able to maintain its power over a mishmash of tribes and ethnic and religious groups only by using brute military force and by promoting an amorphous ideological mix of fascism, communism and Arab and Iraqi nationalism.
But what replaced Saddam and the Ba’ath is not a new leadership committed to building the foundation of a viable Iraqi nation-state and to securing individual political and economic rights. Instead, Iraq is now ruled by ethnic and religious parties and militias, including those representing clerical Shiite groups that would have never been able to win legitimacy in the name of the identity of a unified Iraqi nation-state because such an entity has never really existed. Hence the best outcome for Iraq is partition or a low-key civil war.
The possible collapse of Mr. Assad and his Ba’athists will probably ignite a similar process of "Iraqization" in Syria. Mr. Assad may be less brutal than Saddam, but he also is a member of a minority ethnic group (Alawites) that has controlled the country by force and by trying to keep alive a moribund Pan Arabist ideology.
Like in Iraq, the sources of legitimacy for rising political players in Syria will be religion, that of the dominant Sunni group, and ethnicity, including that of a small Kurdish minority. Radical Muslim groups, like the Moslem Brotherhood will fill the political vacuum created by the possible collapse of the Ba’ath and will try to settle old scores with sworn enemies, the Alawites and the Ba’athists who had massacred their members in the past. The bloodbath that could take place in post-Assad Iraq could also spill-over to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Iraq, increasing the chances for a regional conflagration.
In that context, expect Iran to back its co-religionists in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon against Arab-Sunnis that enjoy the support of the Saudis, the Jordanians and the Egyptians. At the same time, Turkey and Iran will try to suppress Kurdish nationalism, and the United States will be drawn into all this mess and be forced to make difficult and costly choices.
It’s all very depressing but it reflects the reality of most of the Arab Middle East today. The choice that most of those societies face today is not between dictatorship and democracy, but between the continuing status-quo in the region and the rise of governments who will derive their legitimacy from reawakened ethnic and religious identities and that will end-up devastating the current nation-state system there.
Not much a choice. But let’s not pretend that the collapse of the Saddams, Assads, Mubaraks, and Saudis will usher a new era of enlightened democracy in the region. Let’s recognize that American-led war in Mesopotamia is probably the first step of the “Iraqization” of the Middle East, a process that is bound to harm America’s long-term interests.