Richard Hass and the New Middle East

By Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban

26 Dec. 2006

In his article titled: "The New Middle East" published in November Issue of Foreign Affaira; Richard Hass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations in the US, comprehends part of the truth about the Middle East but fails, due to his commitment to certain conceptual and intellectual principals, to assimilate the whole picture.

Hass was right in the conclusion of his analysis that "the age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might." And that "the Middle East's next era promises to be one in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand -- and in which the local actors gaining power are radicals committed to changing the status quo. Shaping the new Middle East from the outside will be exceedingly difficult, but it -- along with managing a dynamic Asia -- will be the primary challenge of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come. This is, definitely, right and accurate analysis and it comes out of Hass' conviction that the military force has failed this time also in yielding Arabs. The last Israeli war on Lebanon and the Steadfastness of Palestinians in the face of the daily Israeli war on them have proved that war could never eliminate the national feeling or undermine the determination of people who aspire to freedom and independence but on the contrary it enhances them.

Richard Hass seems to be aware of the consequences of the transition that is underway in the Middle East and of the emergence of new local factors which will lead the change in Arab states. Nonetheless, he focuses on two basic issues; oil and terrorism and how to sustain the US hegemony as the sole dominating colonial power. Hass admits that Iraq has become a prey to sectarianism and chaos but he dose not hold the American occupation responsible for this reality. Similarly, he dose not hold the Israeli occupation  responsible for what is going on in Palestine, Lebanon and Golan. Hass thinks that the Arab nationalism is something from the past and anticipates that hostilities between Sunnis and Shiites to intensify and that will create problems in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Lebanon. He, inappropriately, considers the resistance movements kind of terrorism though, according to his own definition of terrorism as "the intentional use of force against civilians in the pursuit of political aims" Israel is the party that exercises terrorism openly, on daily basis and according to deliberate governmental plan. Hass also expects, in the light of the imminence of conflicts he anticipates, that militarization will continue and private armies will grow in the region. It is obvious that Hass's advice of relying on active diplomacy instead of military action is based on the awful American failure in Iraq and the consequences of the last Israeli war on Lebanon.

However, Hass, who advises the American administration to continue its domination of the Arab oil, seems to be unaware that the new era of national awareness has started to grow among Arabs and will crystallize in actions that guarantee their independence in the eras to come. The last colonial era that cost Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon very much is ending and the dawn of true independence and democracy for the Arab peoples is in sight.    

What we witness today is the true formation of the true Arab citizenship, which does not make compromises or bargain at the expense of the national interest and dignity. Thus, Hass was right in his conclusion that the new Middle East could not be controlled and ruled by military means or by foreign forces because domestic elements started to interact and blossom.  Ms. Rice was also right when she said that the birth pangs of the new Middle East have started. Though, it would take years, the birth will be at the end of a new Middle East different from what Ms. Rice imagines and wishes. It will be a Middle East of an authentic face, free of all kinds of hegemony and of all kinds of sectarian and ethnic struggles always incited and kindled by colonial forces. Only in this Middle East people can build their true political democracy and achieve the desired reforms.