Mohamed Sid-Ahmed asks to what extent unanimity at the global level can help overcome conflict at the regional level The unanimous vote in favour of Security Council Resolution 1546 on Iraq, and the harmonious mood that prevailed at the G-8 summit have been hailed as positive signs of international reconciliation following a year of acrimonious dispute over Iraq. They have proved that with patience and willingness to compromise, international consensus can be reached even over the most divisive issues. They are also a triumph for globalisation, which places the collective good of the planet taken as a whole over the individual interests of each state taken separately. In that logic, consensus should become the rule, not an exception; moreover, a rule that should apply just as much at the regional level as it does at the global. After all, regions are part and parcel of a planet that is increasingly coming to be regarded as one integrated whole, whether politically, economically or at the ecological level. However, that is not the meaning that comes across in the headline carried by Al-Ahram one week ago: "The G-8 summit adopts the American initiative of reform in the Middle East, while rejecting change imposed from abroad". If it is established that what applies to the world as a whole is subject to unanimity, this should apply to the Middle East as one of the component regions making up the world. If such is the case, why has the issue of reform imposed from abroad provoked such extreme sensitivity in the region? Why do the same elements seen from different perspectives elicit such different responses? We have here a question of logic that needs to be addressed. If it is possible to achieve unanimity at the global level, why does this fail when transposed to the regional level? Why do relations often take the form of confrontation rather than cooperation and complementarity, when moving from the global to the regional? This question touches on the very essence of the issue of reform in the Middle East, and is at the heart of the crises situations in the region, whether in Iraq, Palestine or Afghanistan. There is an obvious discrepancy between what happens at the global level and what happens at the regional one. The rules of the game are different. The global system emanates from above, from the US as the only pole in our present unipolar world order, and proceeds from above to below, while the regional system emanates from the region itself. Its outlook is different. Issues are treated according to a perspective emanating from inside specific societies towards what lies beyond them in the world at large. Such a situation does not, by its very nature, engender unanimity. At the bottom of societies, conflicts thrive. Tensions are multiple and tend to extend beyond their normal field of operation. Such tensions adversely affect every effort to reconcile views and reach agreements. Terrorism, a phenomenon now occupying the forefront of world politics, nourishes differences and disagreements because it operates not in the open area of collective action but in an underground world of great secrecy where mutual accountability is difficult and where violence, not consensus, is the preferred mode of discourse. Although no member of the loose terrorist network of individual cells knows what is happening in the other cells, terrorism has become such a formidable force that is facing the world with a new version of bi-polarity. One pole is made up of forces operating at the summit of the legitimate world system, the other of forces operating at its base, disaffected elements acting outside the bounds of international legitimacy who are determined to inflict the greatest possible harm on their opponents, even at the expense of their own lives. Although the G-8 summit ended on a high note, with members unanimously praising the mood of harmony that marked their talks, there were some areas of disagreement, notably between Chirac and Bush over the latter's proposal for a NATO role in Iraq. The French president said the alliance had no role there and Bush finally had to concede that his idea was not practical. As its very name suggests, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created to link Western Europe to North America, and, however extended the Greater Middle East could become, it can hardly reach the northern shores of the Atlantic Ocean. But if unanimity was reached concerning the problems of the Middle East, no similar unanimity was reached when it came to Africa. The G-8 had formerly promised to forgive a substantial part of the continent's debts but failed to act on their promise. Black Africa remains the part of the world which has enjoyed no improvement in its state of affairs for the last quarter of a century. The African leaders were deeply disappointed that their debts to the IMF were not cancelled and that all attention seemed to be focussed on the Greater Middle East with its resources, its geopolitical importance and its oil reserves. Although the summit agenda was clearly determined more by pragmatic considerations than by humanitarian or ethical ones, the G-8 leaders did discuss the situation in Darfur and called on the United Nations to lead a global effort to avoid a humanitarian disaster that can claim even more victims than the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. In its communiqué, the summit warned of human rights violations in various parts of Africa, most of them of an ethnic character. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing in Normandy, Bush delivered a speech comparing World War II against Nazism and Fascism with the Iraqi war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, calling both "liberation wars against evil forces". But the comparison is faulty, first, because no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, and, second, because there is no proof that Saddam Hussein had any connection whatsoever with Al-Qaeda. The comparison was obviously aimed at rehabilitating the image of the US military, which was severely tarnished by the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, and at defusing the tensions which marred French-American relations in the lead-up to the war on Iraq as well as during the war itself. Now that the leading actors on the world stage have managed to reach consensus on such touchy regional issues as Iraq, political reform and the Greater Middle East Initiative, they must work to ensure that unanimity at the summit level is used to tackle the underlying causes of crisis situations at the regional level. They should strive to adopt a common stand towards local crises and turn their unanimity to good account by addressing discrepancies in the regional balance of power. When it comes to the Middle East crisis, however, unanimity at the global level is irrelevant as long as the local actors remain divided among themselves. Indeed, unless the Arab parties close ranks and present a united front to the world, unanimity at the summit level can end up being more detrimental than beneficial to their interests.
