Securing Peace in the Middle East: A Modest and Highly Improbable Proposal

If I were in the position to broker a solution to the dreadful problems in the Middle East, this is what I would do.

Initially, I would establish that I am attempting to represent no one single party in the very complex struggle between the West and the Moslem world. I would attempt to convince everyone involved that I am attempting to be an honest broker. I would strive to assure everyone concerned that my sole intent is to work with all the parties, Moslem and otherwise, to find common ground that everyone can accept and then to develop more productive strategies for dealing with the areas of contention. My ultimate goal would be to fashion agreements among the parties that would begin to address the real underlying issues of the awful mess the world faces today.

Item One: I would recognize that the nations of the Middle East do not speak with a single, unified voice. Each nation in the region has it's own concerns and needs. Additonally, all of the religious groups in the region have their own concerns and needs. All these religious groups and nations also have issues of their own with regard to their relations ship to the nations of the West.

Item Two: I would also acknowledge that the nations of the West, have their concerns and needs with regard to their relationship with the nations in the Middle East. I would recognize that the nations of the West are especially concerned about the terrorist and nationalist groups who have intimidated their own people and exported terrorism and chaos to Africa, Europe, Indonesia, Somalia and the United States. I would acknowledge that concerns about a stable supply of oil to the West is a key factor in this discussion.

Item Three: I would identify the key players in the West, in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. I would open channels for dialogue to get a clear, unambiguous understanding of what each party needs to accomplish and to receive in assurances from other players for peace and resolution of problems to happen. In my dialogue with each party, I would make it very clear that what I need to know is what they, in fact, need, rather than what they desire and want.

Item Four: I would attempt to build a team of individuals of stature who would work with me to achieve my goals. I would form a council and we would prioritize the identifiable issues and identify the most critical and inflammatory issues first. We would divide into subgroups so that each group could begin to address a specific issue among the most critical issues.

Item Five: Once an issue has been identified, the strategy would be for each working ad hoc commitee to work to form a working committee that would include the nations that a particular issue impacted. That working committee would work to identify and address the specific concerns and needs of each of its members. The members of the working committee would establish certain understandings. It would be understood that the nations represented are sovereign nations and as such the just laws, values and customs of each country must be respected. It would be understood that when the citizens of one nation are present in another nation, that the laws, values and customs of the host country will be respected, so long as those laws, values and customs are generally recognized to be fair and just. It will be understood that the whole point of the work of the committee is to foster tolerance and respect among groups and nations. And it will be recognized that some existing supranational judicial body will be called upon to mediate when there is a disagreement as to what constitutes what is generally fair and just, if a law, cultural value or custom is brought into question.

Item Six: The group would approach an organization such as the United Nations to create a multi-national armed force to immediately step in to insure the peace while the working committees do their work. The Group would require each of the nations and parties which constitute each working group to sign an accord, agreeing not to resort to force in the case of disagreements among members, while the working committee is doing its work.

Item Seven: All parties involved in any of the working committees would be required to sign an agreement declaring that terrorism committed in order to further the goals and ambitions of any group or nation is unacceptable and criminal behaviour. The accord would declare that terrorism or intentional intimidation, either physical or psychological, of those who support the search for peace, will be viewed by all parties as unacceptable and criminal in nature. Each party agrees to enforce zero tolerance of terroristic acts and to be held responsible for suppressing it within the borders of that nation or within a given group. In short, terrorists, wherever they are, would have no place to hide and no place to feel safe.

This strategy... this arrangement has a major objective: to buy time so that problems can be worked out peacefully and not be sabotaged by those who would resort to destruction and terrorism to stop the process. This arrangement is structured so that a dialogue between the parties in a conflict can be established. There are a lot of people out there who want this as well.

If all those people and I could speak with one voice and one intention this is what we would be saying.
We want the guns to go silent.
We want the suicide bombers to find something better to do with their lives.
We want terrible despair that exists in so many areas in the world to be addressed, because out of this despair grows the the anger and pain that produces wars and terrorism.
We want to work for the possibility that peace between nations and religions can happen.
We want to work for the possibility that if we can achieve a measure or peace and mutual respect among peoples of the world, maybe we can then begin to address the real issues that confront all of us as a human species: hunger, disease, the ongoing damage to our environment, among others.

I am no fool, nor am I a hopeless optimist. However, the one thing that I do know is that the seemingly hopeless mess that we are witnessing today in our world is not going to get any better until nations and self-declared groups begin to listen to one another and talk to one another. That is why the United Nations was formed in the first place. That is the whole point of this idea: to get one set of people talking to another set of people and getting them to actually hear what the other has to say. It is impossible for two people... or two groups to talk to one another much less to hear one another, if they are just shouting at one another or brandishing dangerous weapons at one another. The idea is to encourage dialogue over using armed conflict and/or terroristic activities, to achieve one's goals.

A war is sure evidence that diplomacy has failed. At this point in human history, increasingly, failure is no longer a viable option.