Crisis averse

Arab leaders cannot afford to be inert, believing that the region's woes or future threats do not concern them, writes Abdel-Moneim Said

---

This region is stumbling from one crisis to another. Over the past few years, we've seen major wars, a spate of terrorist attacks, as well as an Intifada that has cost thousands of lives. We've seen countries fall apart, and we know that within a few years they will break up yet again into new countries we know nothing about. The ever-present Palestinian problem, that one problem that we've elevated into a cornerstone of our communal grievances, remains unresolved. Fifty-eight years after losing their homeland, the Palestinian people have yet to secure an independent state. Some territories were freed by the Oslo Accords, but these are now lost. As if this wasn't enough, the victory of Hamas in Palestinian general elections has bankrupted the Palestinian Authority and put the nation on the verge of civil war.

It is a sad scene, indeed, even when you consider "lesser" problems. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan, and think of the horrors unfolding there. In the middle of all that turmoil, some Arab countries have managed to keep their stability and a modicum of respectability intact. But even they cannot afford to sit on the fence. Whether you're talking of a central issue or a peripheral one, Arabs who may not want to get involved end up doing just that. With every crisis spiralling into greater horrors, aloofness comes at a price. When Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries recently criticised Hizbullah's behaviour, saying that the Shia group put an entire country at risk, acting irresponsibly, their remarks backfired. Domestic pressures were such that those who asked Hizbullah to put the jinni back in the bottle opened their own Pandora's box replete with regional and international demons. Arab honour, once again, was at stake.

What I am saying is that major Arab countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, cannot afford to ignore the perils stalking them every step of the way. Every crisis ignored tends to snowball. Every disaster ignored comes back to haunt them. The balance of power in the region keeps shifting with every crisis, and no country can afford to block off the world and enjoy a moment of peace. Sooner or later one regional crisis or another will seep into the domestic situation of any given country.

What is remarkable, however, is that we have no mechanism of forecasting crises or nipping them in the bud. You can only manage a crisis if you predict with some accuracy the behaviour of its various players. In this region, this is not always possible. In the recent war in Lebanon, no one knew exactly what Hizbullah wanted, or even what Israel wished to achieve. As a result, the Arab world was engaged in a damage-limitation exercise. It got the Arab League involved somewhat, and promised material and moral assistance. While doing so, it didn't forget to denounce Israel and the US for triggering the tragic situation.

Damage limitation can be expensive. In this case, things weren't so bad. Oil prices were at record highs, and Saudi Arabia was in a position to offer Lebanon $1 billion or so. And thanks to Egyptian and Saudi pressure, UN Resolution 1701 turned out slightly better than the original French-US draft. Furthermore, Lebanon is a small country. Imagine what would happen should a full-fledged confrontation break out between Iran and the US, or if Israel were to bomb Iranian nuclear installations. These scenarios cannot be ruled out completely. It is clear that Iran is playing its cards close to its chest, hoping to gain time and confront the world with a fait accompli in which it already has developed nuclear weapons. Iran is offering to negotiate with all major powers at one go, a matter that would elevate it to the position of being a regional superpower. Perhaps that's all Iran really wants. But the West doesn't seem to understand that, or is unwilling to give Iran what it wants. Reading reports from the US and Israel, one detects the same mood that prevailed six months before the invasion of Iraq. No one in the West wants to let a fundamentalist state acquire nuclear weapons.

Sadly, our decision-making institutions have no independent information on the situation. There is no sign that our intelligence services are active in Iran in any significant manner. Relations between Washington on the one hand and Cairo and Riyadh on the other are rather strained. Washington is not discussing regional policy with Arab countries, not even those countries upholding peace treaties with Israel. As a result, in the next major crisis in this region we will still be looking for a black cat in a dark room. Reacting to developments without having a policy of our own is what we've been doing all along and you might say we're getting better at it. But to lack policy is costly, and the cost increases when more countries are involved and when those involved are bigger. So the next crisis is likely to involve stakes that are higher than anything we've seen so far.

We can always get lucky. Perhaps it's all one big Iranian bluff. Early in the summer, there was an indication that some people in Tehran were hoping for a deal with Washington. And already the US, the EU, and other major countries have made Iran an offer, but Iran wants a better deal and is continuing to enrich uranium. Still, when the stakes are so high, luck is not enough. Leaders cannot make sound policy without having sufficient information and options. To this moment, we haven't decided whether Iranian nukes would be just as perilous to the region as Israel's nukes, or would ultimately reduce the Israeli threat. To my knowledge, Arab countries have not discussed this matter yet. They are worried, that much is clear. But more so, they are resigned to their fate.