 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 April 1999 Issue No. 425 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 April 1999 Issue No. 425
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters A tentative agreement
By Ahmed Abdel-Halim *A group of experts on the Middle East met behind closed doors recently to discuss ways of developing a comprehensive regional security regime. The group held four meetings between February 1997 and October 1998 in Egypt, Sweden, Jordan and Morocco under the auspices of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. An international meeting was held at the National Centre for Middle East Studies to discuss the group's report on Thursday 23 March. This article summarises some of the basic concepts underpinning the report.
The group did not intend to design a regional security regime; rather, the aim was to identify and understand what issues would arise were such a regime to be established in the Middle East. The group did not feel that the experiences of other regions could simply be transferred to the Middle East. Each region is unique and faces particular problems and unique traditions in dealing with them. They recognised the fact that such a regime must be based, first of all, on a solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute. This is primarily a question of reaching a just and lasting settlement.
In discussing the current situation, four particular areas were touched upon. First, the region relies almost totally on so-called "zero-sum" thinking as regards security matters, and how possible it is to slowly develop a "win-win" approach with respect to the fundamental issues at least. Second, the various concepts which are being discussed in many quarters for the future of the region's security are all based on the exclusion of certain states. Until this mentality is challenged, a regional security regime will be difficult to construct. Third, the region is characterised by asymmetrical relations between states and differences in social, political, economic and military power; these discrepancies should be dealt with in a peaceful manner. Fourth, the Middle East is a region where the so-called "security dilemma" is acutely felt, as each side tries to maximise its own security through unilateral steps, such as the acquisition of more sophisticated weapons in ever larger quantities; this causes others to feel increasingly insecure, and take actions designed to enhance their own security. The end result of this vicious circle is paradoxically, permanent insecurity for all states. This dilemma must be resolved; the development of a new perspective on regional security is the only way of doing so.
The group discussed basic concepts such as comprehensive security, cooperative security, coordinated and collective security and regional security regimes. None of these approaches is perfect, and the Middle East needs a specially designed regional security regime. Such a regime does not have to guarantee that differences between nations will gradually wither away, or even that every difference will be resolved rather than simply being defused. What it does mean is that the states in a given region have agreed to adhere to a set of norms and to settle their disputes in a certain way -- most importantly, without recourse to violence. Such a regime would develop an environment that recognises the inevitable persistence of differences, but seeks to prevent their getting out of hand.
Often, processes of this sort are marked by the creation of a set of norms enshrined in a document outlining the fundamental understanding of how relations between states shall be conducted. Such agreements are not in themselves sufficient to prevent violence. They are not self-implementing and must be given life by a series of conscious actions over a long period. On the other hand, the enforcement of regional security regimes worldwide is voluntary. No state can be induced to join a regime if it does not believe membership to be in its interest. Moreover, in most cases, an inclusive approach has been taken so that new members may join when they are prepared to abide by regional norms, rather than when their basic "nature" has changed. This distinction is crucial in that security regimes must be prepared to accept different models of societies and seek to develop means of enabling them to live together in relative harmony. Security regimes often begin modestly and evolve over time, both shaping and being shaped by events. The process never ends. As soon as one issue is resolved, others arise to take its place. What can be developed, however, is a mechanism which allows the states of a given region to deal with issues as they arise without recourse to the threat of violence.
In the final analysis, the outcome of the report can be summarised as follows. As regards the means of forming a security regime, the group agreed that further progress in the Middle East peace process would create a suitable political climate for consideration of a regional security regime. Cooperative security is the only possible basis for such a regime in the Middle East. This will require the creation of a set of guiding principles for conduct in the region. Attempts to create a Middle East security regime must stress the evolutionary aspects of this process. The regime should be flexible and pragmatic; it should emphasise voluntary participation, especially since not all the states of the region are likely to take part in initial efforts. The process should leave a seat at the table for others to join when they are ready. Latecomers, however, will have to accept decisions that have already been made.
Before this can take place, however, confidence- and security-building measures are necessary to reduce the likelihood of surprise attack and lessen the demand for weapons.
The creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, the group felt, should be a central objective for any regional security regime. This zone would include, at least, the states of the Arab League in addition to Iran and Israel. The cooperation of "proximate" states would be vital, and their role would need to be defined. The permanent members of the Security Council could be called upon to provide security guarantees.
As a long-term goal, the security regime must seek to eliminate ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles from the region. In the immediate future, control of such weapons would probably take the form of unilateral restraint.
Although an official dialogue on many of the issues addressed in this report may not be possible for some time, informal and academic discussions can proceed. The governments of the region should support them.
*The writer is an expert at the National Centre for Middle East Studies.
