H.E. Amre Moussa and
Secretary Robert Zoellick A few days before the World Economic Forum Summit at Sharm el Sheikh in May 2006, the World Economic Forum called me with a request. Would I moderate a dialogue between Deputy Secretary Robert Zoellick of the United States and Arab League Secretary General H.E. Amre Moussa?
The main plenary hall of the Sharm convention centre was quite packed for an event, which was organised at a relatively short notice. It was the end of the second hectic day of the WEF summit. When I met Secretary Zoellick and H.E. Moussa before the discussion, we joked if anyone would care to attend. When we entered the hall, it was flowing with enthusiasm. Such is the obsession in the Arab world with the role the United States plays there that a dialogue between the top diplomats was a must for tired conference participants.
I asked Secretary Zoellick to initiate the discussion. “The Declaration of Independence says that all people have equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What will it take for the United States to shift its engagement with the Middle East from the pursuit of power to the pursuit of happiness?” He argued that the US was not driven by the pursuit of power. The American policies were driven by a desire to spread freedom and development in the region. He cited the example of Iraq as the American commitment to promote freedom.
Secretary Robert Zoellick and H.E. Amre Moussa did not agree on the status of Iraq. If the former was satisfied with the progress that would lead to a bright future in half a decade, the latter was worried about the chaos arising from sectarian divide. H.E. Amre Moussa said: “I have not met anyone who is envious of the situation in Iraq.”
I asked H.E. Amre Moussa what the Arab world would do since they did not accept the American imposition of democracy from outside. He said that they had prepared a blueprint for reforms, which was endorsed at the Tunis Summit of the Arab League. It called for political, economic and social reforms. Secretary Zoellick retorted that the reforms were more a statement of intent than reflection of any real change on the ground. He also challenged H.E. Amre Moussa’s assertion that the resolution of the Palestinian problem was a precondition for reforms.
We turned to development. Secretary Zoellick provided details of the economic engagement between the United States and its Arab partners. I concurred with him that many good initiatives such as QIZ had a salutary effect for export environment. However, there were bigger problems. “Didn’t the American leadership show a lack of trust with its Arab partners when they had to take a view on a really big deal like the Dubai Ports case?” He agreed that it was bad for the US investment climate in general. But in his opinion it was a problem for the Arabs to sort out by containing extremism in their own countries so that they would win the confidence of the American leadership. I said that extremism was not just Islamic that was emphasised by the Americans. There was worse kind of terror and violence in Uganda, Colombia, Nepal, and other places. Secretary Zoellick argued that I was wrong in presuming that the US policy makers were not concerned about these other zones of terror. They were trying their best. It’s just that the rulers of Uganda were beyond persuasion.
H.E. Amre Moussa raised the question of double standards on the nuclear issue. The US was not willing to object Israel’s nuclear arsenals but Iran was another story. Secretary Zoellick made it clear that the Americans did not believe in common standards on nuclear issue or any other issues. Their approach was to have a customised strategy towards each country. If you did not understand such a customised policy it was your problem.
After 45 minutes of disagreements, I asked both the seasoned diplomats if they could identify at least one area where they could agree. The resolution of stalemate in Darfur, which was personally driven by Secretary Zoellick and supported by all regional forces, indeed provided a good example. The future of the relations between the Arab world and the United States would not be built on a strategic shift or disruption of underlying values on which countries operate but it would have a hope in the practical blocks of peace and cooperation. When we met at Sharm el Shiekh, it was Darfur that provided a good example. By the time we meet again at the Dead Sea next year this time, it might be Iraq. Who knows what can ever happen in the game of politics?
For a webcast of the plenary, please visit Middle East Freedom and Development |
