 |
A Progressive Iraq: Looking Far Forward |
 |
There are some think tank type people who are looking far into the future, beyond the Iraq war, and thinking about how the U.S. should engage in Middle East politics in a larger sense. Is it heartening for me to see some real progressive discussion on this topic.
For those who are interested, a recent panel convened by the new magazine Democracy: A Journal of Ideas had some interesting thoughts on the subject of a progressive Middle East. (A full transcript is available here. [.pdf]) The basic premise, which I heartily agree with is that, in the words of Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “I think we ought to be opening a dialogue with political Islam.”
Iran is a perfect test case for dealing with political Islam. It is a Muslim state, and one that is independent, democratic, and hostile to outside influence. However, it has the potential to be an economic powerhouse and it wants to be taken seriously within the region and within the world. Most importantly, Iran and America’s main geopolitical goals in the Middle East actually line up pretty well:
RAY TAKEYH, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS : In one of the first meetings that took place in Baghdad between Ambassador Crocker and his Iranian counterpart, Crocker said, well, the overall objectives of Iran and the United States do coincide in Iraq, and he’s actually right. And I would suggest, at a sort of a macro level, the objectives of the two countries are curiously coincidental. However, at the operational level, you begin to see that coincidence not translating into a cooperative relationship.
So what are Iran’s objectives next door? They are probably about four or five to one to the extent to which one can decipher. First, I will say that an important objective of the Iranians is maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, in a sense that Iraq not become fractured between three independent states that are actually incapable of maintaining themselves and become part of the larger, sort of the sectarian divide of the Middle East. And that, as initially largely conforms to the objectives of the United States, which wants to maintain Iraq as a cohesive nation-state.
[snip]
The second Iranian objective would be the Shi’a empowerment. That’s not necessarily a gesture of solidarity with what their core religion is, but does have some geopolitical undertones. And it tends to largely derive from Iran’s experiences during the Iran-Iraq War, where increasingly there’s a consensus within Tehran that the cause of Iraq’s aggression and the cause of Iraq’s revisionist policies was the Sunni domination of its politics, the way the Sunnis tried to justify their monopoly of power was to pursue aggressive, Pan-Arabist designs.
[snip]
Now, Shi’a empowerment may not have been the American objective, but as a practical matter, it’s likely to come about within Iraq, whether they’ll be a sort of a unitary Iraqi government that encompasses moderate Sunni voices or not, the demographic reality being that a central government in Iraq is likely to have a Shi’a coloration although its powers may be mitigated by strong provincial representation.
Also, essentially maintaining Iraq as a federal structure. And why do Iranians suddenly maintain Iraq as a federal structure? Well, because weak central governments don’t have strong standing armies. The Iranians can live with militias, but not necessarily with a strong, central, Iraqi army. That type of Iraq may actually contest Iranian predominance in the Persian Gulf. So the federal structure is a means of actually devolving much of the power and influence to the provinces. Iran can have influence over provinces more easily than it can have over the Iraqi central government which may, once again, embrace this sort of a Pan-Arabist design to become the leading power in the Gulf.
[snip]
The other goal that I think we share with the Iranians is the departure of U.S. forces, for different reasons. I think, at this particular point, the consensus within Tehran, the consensus within Washington, the consensus within Baghdad, is for American forces to leave. So that’s a unique sort of a coincidence of agreement. It would be very hard for Iran to emerge as a preeminent power in the Gulf so long as there’s a sizable and important contingent of American forces there. So, that departure doesn’t have to be hasty; it doesn’t have to be precipitous. It should be planned. It should be gradual. It should, nevertheless, take place.
With these convergences of interest in mind, why are we fighting Iran for influence in Iraq? It seems very easy to give Iran what it wants (greater power in the region) and get what we want too (a quick and graceful exit from Iraq). Why are we allowing a war of words to stand in our way?
To me, the conflict with Iran comes down to a basic inability of Americans to deal with strong, potentially threatening Islamic states. We don’t know how to make friends with countries that are “different.” Instead, we prefer to make enemies, just like we did with the Soviet Union. Why not treat Muslim countries like we treat the Amish or the Mormons, as has been suggested here. America and Muslim countries can stick to their own enclaves and mind their own business, without any of the silly adversarial posturing that we see today.
The question for progressives, and really for America, is how to deal with religious, modern, Muslim states. Right now, the answer from conservatives seems to be we can’t, which I find ridiculous. Muslim states want many of the same things secular Western states do, things like security, trade, growth, and respect. There is no reason a Muslim state like Iran can’t be our friend. There is no reason we can’t develop a progressive dialogue with political Islam that can benefit all parties.
Thoughts? What’s the best way to engage and sincerely negotiate with political Islam?
Normalizing relations with Iran is the obvious first move and honestly, far overdue. There is a pretty lively moderate movement there; look no further than the student bloggers for a great example. The country has an actual economy not completely reliant on oil. So get to talking instead of the ridiculous kabuki act on both sides (they’re responsible for some silly rhetoric as well).
As for other states, it has to be taken on a case by case basis. There are certain failed states in which diplomacy with the existing government is pointless because those governments don’t have monopoly of violence in their territories, let alone anything close to actual legitimacy in the greater population. Those states we should largely leave alone other than offering aid through 3rd parties (say, Turkey and Kuwait) and encouraging whatever progressive movements emerge there. Getting off of oil will be a big help here because it will make rentier states like Libya actually interact with their populace instead of buying them off with oil money.
Also, I think it’s a little off to treat “political Islam” like a monolithic entity. It differs country to country, sect to sect, and must be treated with a high level of understanding of regional nuances and dynamics (water politics, tribal identities, etc.) severely lacking in the Bush administration.
They may never be our close allies but they can become trading partners and marginal allies.
Great point on the political Islam as a monolith. Certainly, a case by case basis is necessary. However, I do think examining political Islam as a broad concept is also necessary. Right now, we treat religious governments with skepticism or even open hostility. However, why should that be? Examining the ideas behind political Islam is important. For example, would the U.S. be comfortable working with a state that has absolutely no separation between politics and religion? Would the U.S. be comfortable working with a state that imposed Sharia law on its people? Would the U.S. be comfortable working with a state run by religious leaders?
I personally say, why not? There is no reason to impose our values on other countries. If that’s how they want to live, fine. You draw the line at human rights abuses, sure, but no reason to treat governments like Irans with open hostility.
I guess where we differ is that I consider many aspects of Shariat law to be human rights abuses. Lack of universal suffrage along with various proscribed restrictions against non-believers are just the beginning.
So in those cases, there would be substantial friction. I don’t know how it’s avoidable if secularism is not a defining feature of future any future government.
The question is where do you draw the line? I mean, should we go around attacking or antagonizing countries that don’t have free and fair elections? Maybe we should start by antagonizing Florida and Ohio?
Basically, we need to get out of the role of world police. It’s not something that suits us and not something that we do particularly well. There will have to be lines (genocide, for instance) that we will take action on. But if a country wants to mandate that women can’t drive cars (Saudi Arabia) then so be it. I don’t like it. I’d support people who want to change it. But it really shouldn’t cause America to bat an eye.
I totally agree though that getting off oil is the first step. We antagonize those regimes who we disagree with when they are of no use to us, but we are willing to turn a blind eye to make money. Get rid of oil and our dealings in the Middle East immediately become more transparent. Then maybe we can start working out some intelligent standards and best practices.
I draw the line where integral human rights are violated. Suffrage is one of those. I would even argue that reproductive rights should be included as well. Obviously, violence wouldn’t be the solution to these issues. However, political and diplomatic pressure would be fine.
As you said, we’re not the world police. That said, there are some things that are simply not ok. Having state sponsored stoning of women who are accused of having premarital sex is not ok. Denying women the right to vote is not ok. Violently oppressing minority groups is not ok. The list of possible atrocities condoned by Shariat law is practically unending.
Regime change and occupation are not the way to go in these cases. But I wouldn’t be above sanctions if theocracies fail to meet humanitarian standards that reasonable people can agree on.
I mean, yes, there are some things that are not ok. The question is, what do we do about that? Do we refuse to have any dealings with states that don’t give universal sufferage or support female genital mutilation? It seems to me that economic sanctions have no effect these days. There will always be states willing to trade. Cutting of diplomatic relations doesn’t seem to work either. Usually that is a precursor to war or at least very deep misunderstandings and veiled hostilities.
So if sanctions don’t work (which I believe they largely don’t), and cutting off diplomatic ties isn’t a good idea either (I mean really, what are you going to get done when you’re not even talking to one another), where does that leave us? In my view, you need to use carrots and not sticks. Work closely with countries but work closely for change.
That of course means you can have little vested interest in order to deal honestly, which in the Middle East means we have to get off oil.
What kind of carrots do you think would work? I’m honestly interested because what you’re suggesting is that we have free trade with them, no diplomatic sanctions, and no threat of force. What kind of incentives, given your conditions, would be effective?
Well, of course these will need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. But some ideas:
- bilateral trade deals including reduction in tarriffs and such
- US help with the other country’s geopolitical goals (pressure their allies, etc…)
- help with entrance into regional organizations (NATO, EU, Arab League)
- monetary aid
- lend our expertise to help them run elections, set up new industry, etc…
- promote tourism
- increased respect in general (more talks, more invitations, etc…)
Some of these won’t help, but some might. Of course, it’s hard to say exactly what we could offer without knowing the exact situation. There are things to be offered though.