Mideast's new tower of Babel

Mideast's new tower of Babel
By DAVID HOWELL
The Japan Times: March 8, 2007

LONDON -- The turnaround in U.S. policy on Iraq is truly breathtaking. From firmly refusing to talk to Iraq's awkward neighbors, namely Iran and Syria, the Bush administration has suddenly changed its tack. It seems that talking to them -- without of course necessarily agreeing with them -- is now acceptable, and a meeting is now being structured to take place in Baghdad to bring all parties together.

The guest list to this party will also include Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, presumably Lebanon and maybe Kuwait. Whether it also includes some of the other bigger powers on the global scene, such as Russia, China and Japan remains to be seen. Certainly it looks like being a big affair.

But the very size and scope of the gathering, and the enormous number of interested parties in the Iraqi imbroglio, spell trouble. The prospect is of a great many different nations all gathered together but not really understanding each other -- more like the Tower of Babel than a purposeful conference aimed at solutions

The difficulties begin with the fact that the lineup is not just Islam against the West, or most countries against the much-criticized Americans, or reformers versus extremists, but also Sunni against Shiite, and some Sunni groups against others, and Shiite sects against each other and everybody else.

On the whole, Washington views the Shiite sects as the bad guys because Iran is predominantly Shiite. It favors the Sunni groups because Saudi Arabia is mainly Sunni.

But in Iraq it is the reverse. It is the Sunni jihadists who have inflicted by far the worst casualties on American and other allied forces and the Shiites who have dominated the governmental system which is just managing to hold Iraq together.

The situation inside war-torn Lebanon typifies and mirrors the larger confusion. There the enemy of Western influence and democracy is widely seen to be the Shiite Hezbollah movement, which has been openly backed by Iran and Syria, with both weapons and money. So America has put considerable resources behind the Christian and Sunni groups that support the elected government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

But some of the more extreme Sunni groups, while they may be bitterly opposed to the Shiites, also have ideological ties to al-Qaida, which straddles the Sunni-Shiite divide and has only one purpose: to rid the Middle East of all Westerners and carry Islam into the heart of the Western camp. This is a crusade in reverse, and a very dangerous one.

Then there is the topsy-turvy situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is still the main enemy -- and an unfortunately resurgent one at present -- but the Iranians are also strongly opposed to the Taliban and might well be able to help the struggling North Atlantic Treaty Organization and American troops in that country. In particular, Iran could probably provide considerable help in dealing with the problem of poppy cultivation in neighboring Afghanistan, and the huge drug trade which it feeds.

Which groups should Western policy back if the "enemy" is the Shiite "arc" in the Middle East, led by Iran, that undermines any remaining stability in Iraq? Which groups should Western policy back if the enemy is the Sunni extremists (and most Muslims round the world are, in fact, Sunni), that plays into Iran's hands?

An additional twist to the fiendish complexity of the situation arises from the fact that in Syria it is the Sunnis who are the subjugated majority and the Alawi group firmly on top and intending to stay there. Any sign that the West is leaning too much toward the Sunnis and against the Shiites would increase Syrian hostility to America and its allies even more.

A conference of all the opposing parties may be better than nothing. But if some of the participants are trying their best to undermine or destroy each other's governments, it stretches credulity that very much is going to be achieved. The clear message, if anything is clear in this maelstrom of conflicting interests, is that simplistic "good and evil" nostrums have no place in the Middle East, and that campaigns to impose Western values or "wars against terror" are going to end in worse confusion.

The one glimmer of hope could be that the great non-Western powers, such as China and Russia, and even rising India, may come to the rescue. Rather than stand by and enjoy seeing America bogged down, they may come to recognize that a chaotic Middle East is as much a threat to their own stability and prosperity as it is to the West's. In this strange new world all problems turn out to be globalized, rather than just "Western," and no major nation can now shirk its responsibilities.

Chinese pressure on Iran might do a power of good. The dream ticket would be for China, Japan and Russia to provide support for the beleaguered government in Lebanon (so that Siniora could no longer be accused of being an American "puppet"); for the Iranians to assist in Afghanistan, for Iran, Syria and other Middle East powers to help sort out Iraq; for Turks and Iranians to cooperate over their Kurdish minority problems; for the Saudis to carry on with their excellent work in bringing unity to Palestine and after that a serious negotiation with Israel; and for America and the West to adopt a lower profile and help where they can.

But since almost all these countries are at loggerheads it will all remain just that -- a dream. In waking, real life -- the nightmare of non-communication and willful misunderstanding -- will continue, at least for a while, and no conference in Baghdad or anywhere else, will smooth it away.
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords (howelld@parliament.uk, www.lordhowell.com).