DALE: 100-day peace plan?

OPINION:

OP-ED:

T’is the season to be thinking about the Middle East. For Christians the particular part of the Middle East to be celebrated of course is the birthplace of Jesus in Bethlehem, and Jews commemorate the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. It is a time when the eyes of the world again are turned towards this cradle of civilization.

Not that every day does not give reason to contemplate this central hot spot on the globe. For the incoming Obama administration, which will take office next month, the region is clearly a top agenda item. But if the incoming president-elect is aiming to achieve Middle East peace, he may soon find that he has rushed in where angels fear to tread. The two presidents before him saw their ambitions founder on the rocky human relations and treacherous political shoals of the Middle East.

President-elect Barack Obama is, however, wading in without hesitation. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last week, he announced that within his first 100 days in office he may deliver a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital. Mr. Obama told the Tribune that he wants to take advantage of this “unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular.” It is no secret that the said image could use some burnishing, but Mr. Obama’s proposal raises far more questions than answers. You have to wonder why the rush when the range of issues involved is so complex. For the Muslim countries this could be a public and diplomatic bonanza. For the citizens of Israel, however, it could well be a reason to worry deeply.

There’s the war on terror, which Mr. Obama has promised to pursue uncompromisingly, and the ideological chasm between Western democracy and Islamic fundamentalism and authoritarianism. There’s Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama has promised to pursue the war by increasing U.S. commitments and intensifying our efforts. There’s Iraq where progress is being made well because of the troop surge that Mr. Obama opposed. There’s Lebanon, which remains a very fragile democracy. And there is of course the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which continues to defy solution.

The choice of venue and location for a major speech by a U.S. president would speak volumes, symbolically, about his intentions. Speculation has centered on Cairo, the capital of a U.S. ally (of sorts). Were that to be the choice, the signal would be support for President Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic style of government. Morocco has been mentioned as a possibility, a gradually emerging democracy, but certainly not in the heart of the Middle East.

Istanbul has also been mentioned as a possibility, particularly as the United States needs to show support for its long-standing ally Turkey, a rare example of Muslim democracy to boot. However, as Turkey is widely disliked throughout the Arab world, where memories of the Ottoman Empire are quite fresh, this choice might not do much good. Saudi Arabia would be a very bold choice and very controversial, given its ruling family’s history with Wahabi fundamentalism.

Perhaps the best Mr. Obama could choose would be Qatar, a small state and a friend of the United States, which has the advantage of being home to the Al Jezeera network, which dominates the news throughout the Arab world.

Then there’s the small matter of the message of such an address. President Bush has been derided and attacked for his intentions to bring democracy to the Middle East, to the point of being the target for flying shoes during a news conference in Iraq during his final visit. But is there any other or better message that a new president could bring to the Middle East? Democracy, rule of law, political and religious freedoms, respect for human rights are in huge deficit in many of the nations of the region. As a consequence religious fanaticism thrives. Could an American president travel to the Muslim world to simply ask, “Can’t we all just get along”? That is hard to imagine.

And ultimately, Mr. Obama’s oft-stated campaign pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq will have as much to do with U.S. standing in the Muslim world as any statements he could make. In this part of the world, tribal societies still flourish, monarchical or authoritarian rule is the order of the day and strength is respected and feared. A United States turning tail will see any semblance of respect evaporate; no matter how elegant and eloquent its new president may appear.

Helle Dale is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.