Samir Kassir: Author, university professor and columnist for the Lebanese daily An Nahar.
What can Palestine after Arafat realistically expect in terms of domestic changes, particularly the emergence of a legitimate new leadership, internal unity and a stable domestic political order? How will this affect the ongoing fight against Israel? What can Palestinians expect in terms of international support in their claim for statehood and in terms of concessions, if any, from Israel?
The problem in Palestine is occupation, not the lack of democracy as George W. Bush has argued. True, there are some shortcomings in terms of transparency, but there is no problem of legitimacy, at least until Yasser Arafat’s death. That is why, and contrary to what is commonly said in the Western media, Arafat’s death does not provide an opportunity, but is rather a genuine loss that the Palestinians will only overcome with tremendous effort.
The Palestinian leadership has shown great maturity in managing a smooth transition, but that shouldn’t mislead anyone to assume that everything will be easy. Problems could well appear after the January 9, 2005 presidential election; despite the formal legitimacy the poll is likely to give to the favorite, Mahmoud Abbas. The real problem could be, once again, Israel’s refusal to give Abbas anything in exchange for his commitment to the peace process.
It is clear that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not ready to concede anything to the Palestinians. His plan for a withdrawal from Gaza is not linked to the Middle East “road map.” He is offering “Gaza only,” not “Gaza first.” And it is not likely that the Bush administration will stand by its commitment to the “road map.” The diplomatic efforts that followed Arafat’s death seemed to be more form than content, or rather it was a post mortem effort to prop up the lie that Arafat had been an obstacle to peace. In the end, I don’t think 2005 will be a crucial year unless there is fundamental change in Israel.
* * *
Chibli Mallat: Author, lawyer and law professor at St. Joseph University, Beirut.
How realistic is it to hope that Iraq will make, however tortuously, a successful transition to democracy and stability in 2005? What more needs to be done to win the confidence of all Iraqis that this mission is for the national good?
Beyond the elections of January 2005, the transition in Iraq will be defined by a new parliament, a new government and eventually a new constitution. What happens next year will depend on these three institutional pillars working out. The January elections are key: the configuration that emerges will face a number of constraints, some of them with deep roots in Iraqi history, others more recent.
The major problem in Iraq arises from its tripartite sociological division between Arab Shiites, who make up an absolute majority seeking power commensurate to their numbers, Arab Sunnis, who represent 15% to 20% of the population, and Kurds, mostly Sunnis, who represent about 20% and feel distinct from the Arab majority. Unless all groups are represented in government, Iraq will remain fragile. The secessionist trend amongst Kurds is real, and their accommodation will depend on their effective role in government and the resolution of potential conflicts in areas of Arab and Kurdish settlement, especially Kirkuk.
More difficult to solve is the issue of majority power in Baghdad among the Arabs, as the legacy of Sunni dominance is not easily jettisoned. For stability to be restored, a difficult combination is needed: reducing through force the armed resistance and politically co-opting Sunni leaders under a scheme where they no longer play a dominant role in national politics.
Ammar Abdulhamid: Coordinator of the Damascus-based Tharwa Project on minorities and currently a visiting fellow at the Saban Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC.
What role can Syria expect to play in 2005? Do you consider the current leadership capable of seriously moving forward on domestic reform, particularly political and economic reform; and if not, what alternatives does the future hold?
The year 2005 will be critical for the Syrian regime. Pressures on it from the US are likely to continue now that President George W. Bush has been reelected. Meanwhile, Syria’s presence in Lebanon will bring pressure from Europe as well, especially France. If Syria signs its association agreement with the European Union, this puts the regime under nonstop scrutiny and will test its ability to develop a serious program of economic and political reform. If it fails to do so, the regime will likely be seriously isolated internationally by year’s end.
Do the reform elements in the regime appreciate the seriousness of the situation?
Their previous record betrays a propensity for halfhearted steps and for backing down at crucial junctures. Meanwhile, Syria’s political opposition has so far proven unequal to the task of providing alternative visions that can allow it to negotiate a role in the decision-making process.
Independent civil society actors and organizations, therefore, seem to represent the only hope for change. But unless laws governing media and associational activities are liberalized, the ability of these players to have influence and to compensate for the regime’s and the opposition’s shortcomings will remain limited.
Michael Scott Doran: Author and assistant professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
Will Saudi Arabia seek to take advantage of the general letup in American displeasure (paralleled by an apparent cutback in terrorist actions) and seek to implement reforms and improve its political and economic transparency? If so, why? If not, why not?
The Saudi family will muddle through, avoiding all serious reforms. It is internally divided and incapable of reaching a consensus. The huge spike in oil revenue and the weakening of Al-Qaeda has taken the heat off, giving Riyadh non-reform policy options that few Arab regimes enjoy.
Politics is a contest between clerics and liberals, who are deadlocked. Traditionally, however, the clerics hold the advantage. In addition, they have helped to strengthen the government against Al-Qaeda. Riyadh, therefore, will appease them by refraining from enacting the liberals’ reform agenda.
Washington will do little to strengthen the liberals’ hand. With Iraq in turmoil, a nuclear Iran looming, and oil prices at record levels, the Americans will, as usual, opt for stability. Riyadh will throw them a bone by enacting meaningless reforms (the municipal elections), which it will trumpet as the bright dawn of democracy.
While the Islamists sometimes talk about transparency, they will be satisfied if the government merely places the liberal reformers on ice while continuing to direct resources to the clerics. Having said as much, the desire for significant reform is palpable. The belief that the status quo is untenable pervades many significant Saudi groups. Such a climate can generate unpredictable outcomes.
Michael Young: Opinion page editor at the Daily Star newspaper, Beirut
If we assume that the second Bush administration is in a position to seamlessly pursue it regional objectives, what changes do you expect to see in the region over the next four years?
The first matter at hand will be for the Bush administration to reaffirm what its regional objectives are. I continue to believe that Iraqi democracy, as a keystone of regional democracy, was a leading US ambition in the run-up to war in 2003, although the administration was too convinced that that justification wouldn’t hold water with the public to over-emphasize it. As the situation in Iraq has gotten worse, democracy is still on the priorities list, but has been kicked down several rungs in favor of Iraqi security. Yet for the US-led war to be meaningful, the administration must reassert the primacy of its democracy objective, on the sound grounds that Iraqi democracy is vital to spurring regional pluralistic impulses, which in turn would make the US safer by providing Arab populations an alternative to militant Islam of the sort that led to September 11.
That, of course, requires success in Iraq, which is still possible if there is patience and far less of the blundering that took place once the war ended in April 2003; it will also mean putting the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations back on track. Given the Palestinian leadership vacuum and Israel’s reluctance, I’m not optimistic, but the U.S. can no longer be seen to advocate democracy and liberty for some Arabs, but not for others. Four years is enough for substantial success in Iraq and progress on the Palestinian issue, but the administration will have to hit all the right buttons, which will depend on the bureaucratic give and take in Washington.
