While business leaders gathering for the World Economic Forum may believe that good economics cures all ills, reality demands that the region's political woes be addressed first, writes Wahid Abdel-Meguid* Can a booming economy deliver the Middle East from its political woes? This is the question that participants in the World Economic Forum of the Davos fame may wish to contemplate during their upcoming meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh. A mere look at the map of the region offers much food for thought. Not long before the participants were due to meet for three days at the Red Sea resort, the region erupted in more than one place. Teetering once again on the brink, the twist of events in both Lebanon and Sudan threw the region into further disarray. Those who have been following the Lebanese crisis can tell that it is as much a regional and international crisis as a domestic one. Perhaps some may have heard the Arab League secretary-general -- a man who has mediated repeatedly and with little success among rival Lebanese groups -- saying that the crisis in Lebanon is three-layered. The first layer is Lebanese, the second Arab, and the third international. If left unchecked, the battles that erupted nine days before the Sharm El-Sheikh event could turn into a civil, if not regional, war. The tribulations in Lebanon may trigger a war that could be the worst the region has seen since the Iraq-Iran war. For one thing, Israel is not going to let Hizbullah take control of Lebanon, for this would be like having another Iran at its doorstep. Few doubt that Hizbullah is capable of winning the conflict within a few days. Anyone who's followed the recent battles in Beirut and the mountains of Lebanon knows how one- sided these were. So let's consider a situation in which Israel intervenes in the conflict to keep Hizbullah at bay. Iran and maybe Syria would be tempted to intervene as well. Should that happen, the Israeli incursion would turn into the bloodiest since 1982. A whirlwind of devastation, indeed a tsunami, would follow. And most likely, those attending the Sharm El-Sheikh summit would turn their eyes away, hoping to see Hizbullah destroyed. Iran cannot afford to let Hizbullah go down. Hizbullah is its trump card, its strongest line of defence in the Arab world. So I invite the Sharm El-Sheikh interlocutors to take a moment to think things out. I want them to imagine a regional war raging from the east Mediterranean to the Gulf. Even bankers and businessmen -- who make up the bulk of the Davos club -- should be worried. With fighting approaching Khartoum, Sudan is hardly in a better shape than Lebanon. But Sudan, and the war-torn Horn of Africa, doesn't command the same level of attention in the business world. It is not even on the map of the economic salvation that the Davos people envisage for the Middle East. But it should be, even from a purely selfish point of view. Look at what Sudan, with its expanse of arable land, can offer at a time of worldwide food shortage. But let's set Sudan aside for a moment and focus instead on the area that extends from the eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf. Here, one finds a myriad of troubles waiting to flare up, from Iran's nuclear programme -- which is part and parcel of its radical regional ambitions -- to an interminable crisis in Iraq; then to Lebanon, that powder keg primed to set off a regional conflagration. The picture is so grim that one is justified in wondering whether economic solutions can do anything at all. Another crisis of an equally complex nature is that taking shape in Palestine. As Israel celebrates its 60th birthday, and the Arabs commemorate their sorrows, or "catastrophe", a dual Palestinian-Israeli crisis is forming. In Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinians are so divided that they have formed two rival "cantons", one of which is edging closer towards the radical axis of Syria, Hizbullah and Iran. What is particularly alarming about these crises is that they are increasingly interlinked and not heading to a solution anytime soon. It is now clear that the promises President Bush once made about bringing about progress in peace talks before leaving the White House have come to nothing. Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is in Israel to prepare for the immanent visit of President Bush, seems to have given up. Our region has taken to hosting the annual conference of the World Economic Forum, but it has to think beyond economics for now. Everything around us tells us that we're in for more turbulence, if not a devastating war. Actually, the only guarantee we have left against a major war in the region is that everyone knows how terrible it may turn out to be. With multiple flashpoints everywhere, the Middle East feels like a volcano on the verge of eruption. And even if the eruption doesn't start in Lebanon, plumes of smoke are sending a dark shadow over the region and the world. Imagine a scenario in which the escalation of Sunni-Shia sectarian rivalries reaches a point allowing Al-Qaeda to set up shop in Lebanon. You may have heard Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman El-Zawahri, waxing lyrical about Lebanon in one of his recent tapes. He called Lebanon a "front position for the fighters of Islam", promising that it would have a "pivotal role in future battles against the Crusaders and the Jews". It is no secret that Al-Qaeda tried to get a foothold in Lebanon before, and was only thwarted by Lebanon's moderate Sunnis. But what Hizbullah did in the past few days may turn the mood. Perhaps some Sunnis may decide that Al-Qaeda could be a good buffer against the ambitions of well- armed Shias. The Americans may turn a blind eye as Al-Qaeda sets up facilities in Lebanon, in the hope that it would present an antidote to Hizbullah, exactly the same mistake they once committed in Afghanistan. Should this happen, the world, not just the region, would suffer. We may end up in a situation where the world's greater power doesn't want to assume responsibility for addressing the region's crises. Meanwhile, the economic wheelers and dealers, soon to gather in Sharm El-Sheikh, are not in a mood to tackle the situation. The regional picture is admittedly grim, but it can be brightened a little. Any progress, nonetheless, will have to happen in the political realm first, not the economic one. To be more specific, we need serious progress in resolving the issue of Palestine. Such progress would weaken Hizbullah and its allies, change the balance of power in Lebanon, and force Hizbullah to show more flexibility in resolving the Lebanese crisis. Progress on the Palestinian track would also deprive Iran from one of its major, if not its strongest, bargaining chips. Iran is offering its radicalism and nuclear programme as the only way of confronting the US-Israeli scheme in the region. It has succeeded in turning that resistance into a deity, something above reasoning or discussion. By doing so, Iran has managed to lure the sympathies of a large section of the region's public, while blackmailing and maligning its opponents -- even those who don't differ much from Tehran in their attitude to Israeli policies. What, if I may ask, is the use of seeking economic remedies for political illnesses? Economic measures can only help if combined with progress on the region's political troubles, especially the Palestinian issue. This is something I hope participants in the Sharm El-Sheikh event consider. Some of them have spoken of turning the West Bank into a model of prosperity, just to show how superior the policies of the Palestinian Authority are compared to those of Hamas. A year has passed by since this idea was first put forward. A year has passed since Hamas took over Gaza. But instead of improvement in the West Bank, the economy there has shrunk by over 10 per cent and unemployment is rampant. Things are much worse in Gaza, of course, but what kind of consolation is that? * The writer is an expert at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
