Western countries should prepare for the challenge of engaging with a born-again Arab world, writes Ayman El-Amir* Countries of the Arab world are engulfed by revolutionary fervour. In Tunisia and Egypt, the old regimes have crumbled and the convulsions of a new order are shaking them and the whole region. Libya is labouring through a similar, though more bloody revolutionary uprising while the Yemeni people are inexorably tightening the noose round President Ali Abdullah Saleh's regime. Protest movements are escalating in Algeria, Morocco and farther afield in Jordan, Bahrain, Sudan, and even in impregnable Saudi Arabia. Not all of the latter are calling for radical change of the regime, but all demand fundamental reforms that would mark a significant departure from the decades-old culture of ruling by divine right or by stuffed ballot boxes. The sea change sweeping the Arab world will not only affect the way people view their domestic situation but is also bound to change their perspective on the world around them. It will include inter-Arab relations, the Middle East situation, Arab-Western relations and common interests with key partners. For most of the 20th century, Arab countries and their ruling elite, with few exceptions, succumbed to the understanding that they have to accept Western domination as a matter of destiny. With former US president George W Bush's declaration of a war on terror after the 11 September 2001 attacks, every Arab leader fell in line, with no questions asked. A case in point is Egypt's acquiescence in meeting the US request that its airspace, land and the Suez Canal waterway be used for the passage of arms shipment and troops that were mobilised for the invasion of another Arab country, Iraq. In addition, the Gulf Arab states are hosting seven US and French military bases and naval facilities. If these could have been a justified deterrence against the spread of Soviet Communism during the Cold War years of the 20th century they can not be warranted now, even as a defence against the inflated threat from Iran. True, the Gulf region has been the scene of three wars that have destabilised the region in the past two decades. First there was the Iraq- Iran war, then came the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and last the Anglo- American invasion of Iraq. However, the presence of foreign military bases has long been an anathema to newly independent developing countries. The assumption that the sitting regimes in the region see this military presence as a guarantee of their survival is inescapable. The West has some key legitimate interests: steady flow of oil, pre-empting the rise and spread of Al-Qaeda-inspired acts of terror before they can reach Western shores, stemming the tide of illegal immigration, continued investment of Arab oil funds in Western markets, maintaining a stable and peaceful region and preventing the outbreak of war. Hardly can any Arab country quarrel with these common interests, except for the assured instability of the Middle East due to the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Egyptian Revolution of 25 January 2011, however, would not have any negative implications for the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty in which both sides have vested interest. While the treaty itself is not etched in stone and may require amendment at some future point, its maintenance serves the vital interests of both parties and could possibly pave the ground for spreading stability in the region. This, however, depends primarily on fundamental changes in the attitude and policy of Israel and the United States, as well as Palestinian unity of ranks. A restored sense of Arab pride, which has long been undermined by despotic regimes, will contribute towards reshaping the perception of new Arab governments of the world around them. Pressure tactics that cowed old Arab regimes may no longer work as would be expected. Two weeks ago Israel raised a hue and cry over the passage of two Iranian warships, a frigate and a supply ship, through the Suez Canal en route to Syria. A battery of Israeli officials, including Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman tried to ignite a crisis situation, describing the passage as a "provocation", while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned that "Israel views this Iranian move with utmost gravity." Washington did not react, Egypt was not perturbed and the two ships transited the Canal to Syria, passing along Israel's coast. If anything, the incident may serve to alert Egypt to the fact that a review of its frozen relations with Iran is long overdue. Whether this could send a distressing message to Tel Aviv or Washington, which are mobilising the world under the umbrella of the UN Security Council to squeeze Iran, this worry should not inhibit the independent conduct of Egyptian foreign policy. Iran is a key player in Middle East stability regardless of whether Israel, the US or some Arab regimes like it or not. In effect, Arab countries should undertake a collective review of their relations with Iran, as Middle East stability can no longer rest on Israeli military supremacy and US protection of fragile regimes. With the cascading change of Arab regimes and potential policy reorientation, Western countries should prepare for the challenge of engaging with a born-again Arab world. The new stage will mark the end of the post-colonial era of micro-management of Arab policy, whether by military intervention, the threat of it, or by soft power. What the Arabs will need to focus on is development, building democratic institutions and practices, the transfer of technology, mastery of the implements of knowledge and scientific empowerment. This is where the West could make a practical contribution to a new model of shared values and balanced mutual interests, not just oil profits. However, the new paradigm will require a stable and peaceful environment to develop. Israeli territorial ambitions and intransigence will not make this transition possible. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman put it recently "... the Israeli government fails to acknowledge regional changes and prefers an autocratic dictator like (former president Hosni) Mubarak rather than a democratic regime." With this mentality, Israel is a sworn enemy of any form of Arab progress and is happy only with autocratic rulers it can control militarily and the US can subdue politically. Israel has consistently been on the wrong side of history and US-led Western countries have been blindly supporting its policies against their better judgement. To think that newly transformed Arab regimes will focus exclusively on putting their house in order to the exclusion of regional policies is a serious miscalculation. Revolutionary changes so far have been triggered by the people at the grassroots level. Israel and the US have been gratified that demonstrators did not chant anti-Israeli, anti-American slogans. However, the Palestinian- Israeli conflict is a matter of national security for all Arab countries, with varying degrees of involvement. As the new revolution is consummated in as many Arab countries as it may develop, the reality of Arab-Western relations and their priorities will become more transparent. New Arab regimes may not be willing to paper over differences, anymore than Egypt would tolerate Israeli wanton bombing of its border with Gaza on claims of destroying Palestinian underground tunnels. The policy of aggression, which is second nature to the State of Israel, may not endure for long. And Palestinians may not be the only victims. Western interests in various forms may be at stake too. That is why great expectations of new policies and attitudes are shaping on this southern part of the Mediterranean where former client states are now in rebellion. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
