Realism versus resignation

Those who shrink from capitalising on the strengths that they have, multiform as they can be, in the vast chess game of nations are doomed, writes Ammar Ali Hassan*

---

For most of the latter half of the 20th century the official Arab order trumpeted the "Arab nationalist dream". Suddenly, in the wake of the second Gulf War, it softly and meekly began to urge "political pragmatism". But as timid as this change in tune was, its pundits suffered no shortage of intrepidity in their pursuit of various trains of argument to back up their stance. Unfortunately, their lines of reasoning were less an exercise in rationality than a desperate attempt to ameliorate the unprecedented weakness of the Arab order at that crucial historical juncture.

The need for realistic foreign and domestic policies is undeniable, as has been amply driven home by the type of demagogic morale building that has rallied the people around unrealistic policies that more often than not have ended in disaster. However, there is a vast difference between realism and rationalisation. The former is a practical and rational approach to foreign and domestic policymaking. It is founded upon a thorough awareness of the operative factors in a given situation and point of time, a thorough assessment of one's own strengths and weaknesses, and minute calculations as to how best to minimise one's weaknesses and optimise one's strengths, however few and seemingly insignificant they may seem to be. Rationalisation, by contrast, implies resigning oneself to one's weaknesses, scrambling for shelter from some of the fallout, and merely holding on. The rationales, themselves, are by now familiar: there's a conspiracy afoot, we lack the necessary resources/power, we can't risk alienating or angering the powers-that-be by taking any action they will be regarded as a challenge, an affront or a sign of recalcitrance.

Political realism, or realpolitik, is a long established, time-honoured school of foreign policy. It built empires. But its founding father, Hans Morgenthau, who strove to devise a rational framework for calculating and enhancing one's strengths, would never have foreseen his system being turned into a means for vindicating the inability to act on the grounds that the available margin of manoeuvrability is too narrow.

Arab officials tell us that they are only being realistic when they point to structural weaknesses as the cause for their inability to rise to a challenge. However, realism is not based only an assessment of such tangible material assets such as economic health, material might and technological prowess. It also rests on sources of "soft strength", such as diplomatic acumen, democratic dynamism and the wealth of human resources that is accumulated over time by an effective, up-to-date educational and training system that gradually generates an increasingly higher international standing for local literary, intellectual, artistic, scientific and athletic talents.

History is replete with examples of countries that staked a place for themselves on the map of international relations on the strength of their deftness at utilising their "soft assets". As economically and militarily weak as India was in the post-independence era, Indian diplomats had the sagacity and wherewithal to garner international respect for their country. Today India's progress in the realm of communications technology is performing the same role. Japan does not possess a strong military arm, but the Japanese mentality, which was brought to bear in generating a massive state-of-the-art industrial base and sophisticated managerial class, is what earned that country the admiration it merits. Belgium has risen to international prominence on the strength of its judicial system as did Switzerland on the basis of its renowned neutrality and banking system. A charismatic leader, such as Nelson Mandela, won his country universal homage because of the struggle he waged and the hardship he endured under apartheid. Similarly, the consummately erudite Leopold Senghor drew international attention and respect to Senegal during the period of his rule. It was not just economic development but also President Tun Mahatir Mohamed's vision and tenacious advocacy of the respect for national autonomy and cultural specificity that earned Malaysia a key international role, at least in the Islamic world. Nobel Prize laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez ensured that the world knows that Columbia is not just a country of drug barons. Brazil won its international repute as an athletic power, not as a military or economic one, and the same applies to Cameroon. Having a millennia long history as a civilisation can also attract international admiration and win global status, as long as this past is used to serve the present and not as a means to rest on inherited laurels or as a refuge from a disagreeable now.

This is not to say that tangible assets can be dispensed with. Many of the countries mentioned above worked to build their economic and military strength in tandem with their careful exploitation of "soft strengths". After all, the soft and hard sources of strength feed off one another. The more a country expands economically, diversifies industrially, and grows militarily, the more occupationally diversified and technologically skilled its human resources grow, and the more such positive social values as achievement, participation and competition take root. These are all forms of soft strength.

Even as we build our sources of strength, we should not shrink from asserting ourselves in the international arena on the grounds that we are "not strong enough yet", or that the repairs to our dilapidated economy are incomplete. A country that resigns itself to its weakness, however temporary, and chooses to recoil into itself to lick its wounds, will lose whatever international standing it had quicker than its decision-makers could imagine. This applies even more to a country that had once stood in the limelight as a dependable and influential power within its regional sphere and that had a considerable record of achievement in the defence of national and regional causes.

The principle Arab nations are unaware of their sources of soft strength. Or if they are, they are deliberately reluctant to use these resources, and their excuses for doing so are flimsy at best, or their management of these resources is extremely poor. They have a wealth of untapped human resources, among which are individuals of international repute. They have the spiritual energies of a people imbued with the religious fervour characteristic of eastern peoples in general. They have diplomats whose superb skills have been tried and tested in crucial negotiating battles. They have experts in every field and talents in all the arts, as was demonstrated so robustly and dynamically in those decades before economic and political stagnation put a heavy damper on their activities.

These are some of the soft assets that the Arabs must bring into play and develop now. Certainly the very positivism of this approach is far more preferable than the resignation and lack of ambition that Arab officialdom falsely passes off as "realism".

* The writer is director of the Middle East Research and Studies Centre, Cairo.