Western salt in an Eastern wound

If I was asked to endorse or support the article published in The Economist’s latest issue, entitled “The breakdown of Arab states: The war within”, I would not hesitate. It provides an accurate and objective diagnosis, which is not a strange matter for the oldest magazine in Europe. The article opens with:“When Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot secretly drew their lines on the map of the Levant to carve up the Ottoman empire in May 1916, at the height of the first world war, they could scarcely have imagined the mess they would set in train: a century of imperial betrayal and Arab resentment; instability and coups; wars, displacement, occupation and failed peace-making in Palestine; and almost everywhere oppression, radicalism and terrorism.”

This is the historical context for today’s predicament, where nations are collapsing and wars are raging. However the magazine blames the Arabs themselves for this. It reads: “All this is not so much a clash of civilisations as a war within Arab civilisation. Outsiders cannot fix it—though their actions could help make things a bit better, or a lot worse. First and foremost, a settlement must come from Arabs themselves.”

The writer of the article says we must “beware of easy answers” and points out four ideas considered to be dangerous mines that can further complicate matters in the Arab world and must be repudiated. First is the notion that redrawing the borders of Arab countries will create more stable states that match the ethnic and religious contours of the population. It argues that this is not the case as there are no neat lines that can be used to divide an area with various ethnic and sectarian groups into specific villages or streets. A new Sykes-Picot will risk creating new catastrophes and may even lead to more bloodshed in light of everyone seeking to impose their influence and control on the ground and eliminating rivals. On the contrary, what must be understood is that decentralisation and federalism offer better answers in a fragile and sensitive area, such as the Arab region.

The second idea, which the magazine believes to be destructive, is the suggestion that Arab autocracy is the way to fight extremism and chaos. In Egypt, Al-Sisi’s rule involves oppression, tyranny and economic incompetence, along with escalating popular anger. In Syria, Al-Assad and his allies are trying to portray his regime as the only party capable of controlling the chaos. However, the opposite is true, as Al-Assad’s violence is the main reason for the turmoil in the country. Arab authoritarianism is no basis for stability and that, at the very least, should have become clear from the uprisings of 2011.

The third idea that must be disregarded, according to The Economist, is that Islam is the reason behind the disarray. And if Islam is accused of being the problem, then which Islam would that be?  The Islam practiced by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who believes in beheadings, the revolutionary Iranian model, or the Islam advocated by the leaders of Ennahda in Tunisia, who now call themselves “Muslim democrats”? The only thing accomplished by the demonisation of Islam is strengthening the world’s Manichean vision of Daesh.

The last idea that should be removed from the next agenda to save the Arab world, according to the magazine, is that the US must completely stop its repeated interventions in the region’s affairs. It says that foreigners have often made things worse; America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 released its sectarian demons. But argues that the idea that the US should turn away from the region can be as destabilising as intervention, as the catastrophe in Syria shows.

The Economist believes that the solution for the Arab world’s crises requires the defeat of Daesh, a political settlement to give the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria all of their rights and an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia that puts an end to their disputes. The magazine also believes that reforms must be made in the countries that have survived the uprisings. The Arab countries must know that the old tools of power are no longer useful;  oil will remain cheap for a long time and secret policemen cannot stop dissent. It is also important for Saudi Arabia to help its society to open up and that it succeeds in its reforms to wean the country off of oil.

I will add one more point. A strong Western and Eastern stance against Israel in order to resolve the Palestinian conflict in a manner that satisfies the Arabs and Palestinians is key. This wound feeds other wounds in the body of a nation that feels offended after being torn apart by the Sykes-Picot agreement a hundred years ago.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.