Why is development evading the Arabs?

East Meredith, New York

Arabs face stubborn obstacles to social change. They recognize their problems but do not settle on alternatives; and they are worried about replacing their autocratic political regimes. Change, they fear, may lead to even worse circumstances. Responding to the challenge, Arab scholars have collaborated over the past seven years in examining the causes of societal underachievement. They have studied a range of issues: governance, the economy, gender, poverty, education, environment, health, and conflict. Their conclusions, published starting in 2002 in successive UN Human Development Reports, under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program, have been seminal but also short on effective action for reform.

" Arab regimes are in constant search for legitimacy and do not receive much support from their peoples in this regard. Arab countries score low on political freedoms and high on corruption. Regimes threaten the security of their citizens " The UNDP reports have forecast continued deterioration in the wellbeing of the Arab community. The major findings of the 2009 report were released on July 21. The document revolves around the concept of personal insecurity. Its underlying thesis is that citizens facing intense personal stress can not change their circumstances for the better. The findings of the 2009 report spell danger and call for intervention. Arab regimes are in constant search for legitimacy and do not receive much support from their peoples in this regard. Arab countries score low on political freedoms and high on corruption. Regimes threaten the security of their citizens. The legal environment for non-governmental organizations is too restrictive. In six countries political parties are utterly forbidden. Emergency law is declared to justify police-state activities. Elections are predictable and manipulated. Rulers stay in office for long periods. The fertility rate in the Arab world has dropped in recent years, but it is still too high. Rapid population growth in the region is straining the provision of basic services. Today’s Arab population is 330 million, with 60 percent under the age of 25. In six years 400 million people will be sharing dwindling water and food resources. Desertification is eroding cultivable land. The desert has already “swallowed two thirds of the land.” Women deserve a better position both at home, in the work place, and in political circles. The law discriminates against them. Societal norms are gender prohibitive and economic and political opportunities are limited for females. Domestic violence goes unnoticed, while reporting abuse is discouraged. In low-income Arab societies, one of two adult women does not read or write. Children and other minority groups are poorly protected. The economies of the region are not diversified: oil represents 70 percent of exports, while GDP per capita grew by a negligible 0.5 percent between 1980 and 2004. Two out of five Arabs live in poverty, a trend on the increase despite vast oil wealth. Three trillion dollars have been invested in ways that have not created jobs and brought adequate returns. By the year 2020, 51 million new jobs will be required. Every other young man wants to leave for a better life abroad. Current unemployment is about 15 percent.

" It is true that all areas of reform are important and the approach must be comprehensive. But it is also true that governance impacts on all aspects of reform. Good government is a requirement for a multi-faceted program of social and political change. The report must give Arabs practical hints on how regimes can change " Oil, Israel, sectarian upbringing and competing loyalty to tribe and family make this region prone to political conflict and war. The Middle East suffers from several local and international conflicts. It has the largest volume of refugees and displaced people in the world, at 17 million. There is occupation in Palestine, foreign intervention in Iraq, and civil war in Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. Too many regimes depend on outside allies for security. Arab armies are mobilized to protect rulers rather than the ruled. Spending on defense is disproportionate. When it comes to solutions the latest human development report is timid. It calls on politicians and societies to respect rule of law, protect the environment, and diversify the economy. The report also calls for equal rights for women, and transformative education and health care as a right for all citizens. Finally, it calls for the use of effective ways to liberate the region from occupations and the enhancement of security for all citizens. The diagnosis of underdevelopment does not lead to strategic solutions. The four reports which preceded the latest one also lacked a pragmatic blueprint for action. For effective reform to occur two basic questions come to mind. The first is, where does reform start? Heads of Arab governments are not getting the message from these reports. It is true that all areas of reform are important and the approach must be comprehensive. But it is also true that governance impacts on all aspects of reform. Good government is a requirement for a multi-faceted program of social and political change. The report must give Arabs practical hints on how regimes can change. The second question is of a different order. Why is the role of religion in politics a relatively minor aspect of all five reports? Among the many causes freezing social and political reform in the Arab world is the dominance of religious authorities. Such authorities – through their pervasive institutions of socialization and their control over personal-status issues – strongly influence political identity, support tribal authority, define strict limits for women, and restrict intellectual inquiry. The UNDP reports should tackle the religious factor with more courage. Reducing the hold of organized religion on politics and social change – and I do not mean inhibiting faith or spirituality – will have a multiplier effect on reform. Arab societies that give strong leadership roles to religious authorities face more difficulties in state-building than those societies that limit clerical power to spiritual matters. If this generalization is empirically substantiated it should lead us to forceful conclusions for reform. Might the next annual report focus on ways to effectively approach regime-change and liberation of political systems from religious authority? In the Arab world the ruler is the pilot and the cleric is the co-pilot. * Published in Lebanon's THE DAILY STAR on August 17.

Allow Obama to lead the peace process

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz
August 3, 2009, 2009

East Meredith, New York



President Obama is heroically facing domestic and international challenges on many fronts. On the issue of peace, oOur President is working on promoting a lasting security for Israel through a peace deal with the Arabs. But he is
willing to risk political capital by promoting peace. He is also showing great courage in health reform. Simultaneously, Obama is seeking universal health coverage for Americans and working on promoting lasting security for Israel through a peace deal with Arabs.

Just as Obama is meeting stiff resistance from misinformed politicians who confuse universal health care with communism he is facing hurdles from politicians who misconstrue justice-based peace with one-sided advocacy.

Defending Israel, overprotective legislators are trying to slow the growing momentum for a promising Middle East peace process. Last week, Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and James Risch (R-ID) circulated a letter to fellow senators for joint signatures. The letter asks President Obama to lean on Arab states to show "dramatic gestures” toward Israel.
The letterIt requests Arab leaders to open new borders, expand cooperation and improve rhetoric toward the Zionist state. Strangely, this legislative move did not include any reciprocal obligation to stop the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. The senators from Indiana and Idaho should realize that the Arab states are not in a position now to make new promises beyond the 2002 peace plan which in itself was a far reaching and dramatic offer.

On the surface, the senators’ letter looks fair and balanced; it demands all sides to work for peace. But the pivotal message of the letter is that Arabs states are not doing their best for peace, whereas Israel is. The circulated document also gives the false impression that Obama is rushing for peace before asking the Arab states to commit to normalizing relations. This is not true; moreover unilateral letter it threatens to undermine is threatening the orchestrated team work on the peace process which is now operating on a covert level to Locally, the Obama team is covertly working to make all sides as flexible as possible in preparation for end-game negotiations.

In fact, the Bayh-Risch letter is counterproductively serving to strengthen Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line posture. The Prime Minister considers freezing expansion of illegal housing as an admission of guilt. NetanyahuThis Israeli leader resents the challenge to his unfounded belief that settlements exist for Israel’s security and he . Netanyahu viewssees the willingness to freeze settlements as a one-sided concession. Settlements, for him, are bargaining chips.

The letter is problematic from another angle. The senators from Indiana and Idaho should realize recall that the Arab states are not in a position now to make new promises beyond the 2002 peace offerplan which still stands today, stipulates a . This seven-year old peace offer is game-changing and dramatic. In this two-state scenario, in which Israel will beis allocated 78 % of the disputed land between the east bank of the Jordan river and the Mediterranean and while the Palestinian state is will be allocated 22%: the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Twenty-two Arab states have pledged to normalize relations with Israel. This pledge implies willingness to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. What more “dramatic steps” should Arab States be offering, in response to the letter?

To implement the 2002 peace plan of the Arab states will require hard work, reconciliation and forgiveness from each side. Progress at the negotiating table is bound to generate good will and improve Arab–Jewish relations.

Once allowed to unfold, the peace process is expected to generate the “dramatic gestures” the senators anticipate in their distracting letter. Dramatic improved relations will emerge when refugees accept compensation for loss of land and when Israel accepts a shared Jerusalem.

More drama anticipated? The parameters of this peace process are aimed at making Hamas accept Israel and, in turn, making Israel change its tone of communication about Arabs.

More reconciliation required? Progress in negotiations is expected to make Arabs recognize the suffering of all Jews, including those who have emigrated under pressure from the Arab world. Movement in negotiations would lead Israelis to admit the suffering they caused in displacing Palestinians.


Is theThe letter is asking for the products of peace prematurely.? It is tThrough negotiations that, Arabs and Israelis willould stop their mutual demonizing. The breakthrough in peace will come when Arabs and Jews commit to working together to deal with poverty, water shortages, ecological threats, health hazards and minority rights.

US Congress could separately send a pastoral letter praising the peace process and asking the Arab and Jewish communities to facilitate the peace process through their media, their schools and their religious institutions.

The Bayh-Ricsch letter is based on a misconception that in rushing to appease Arabs, President Obama is ignoring basic security needs of Israel. The Senators who will sign this letter are not serving the long term interest of Israel. Both sides are about ready to start the talks on a game changing peace product.

Published by Search for Common Ground News Services

Obama wants peace, but will Congress pressure Israel?

President Barack Obama is investing a good measure of his political capital in the Middle East without receiving, so far, much support from the United States Congress. Last week, the president’s special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, was in Israel to work toward reaching a better understanding over limiting Israeli settlements. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor James Jones were also in Israel to offer assurances of continued American loyalty. But will Obama be pressured to slow down peace promotion by Israel’s supporters in the Congress?

Observe Senators Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, and James Risch, an Idaho Republican, who recently asked their colleagues to sign a letter to Obama to lean on Arab states to show new “dramatic gestures toward Israel”. The senators expect the Arabs to suddenly improve their ties with Israel, including expanded economic cooperation and improved media coverage. Their initiative does not mention any reciprocal obligation of Israel to stop the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Obama was urged by Bayh and Risch to pressure the Arab states into being friendlier toward Israel. In their appeal, the Arabs are asked to take new conciliatory steps after Israel occupied their land, annexed territory, built (and still builds) illegal communities, strangles the occupied territories with a massive security infrastructure, particularly the separation wall, and responds to local insurgencies with devastating wars. The two senators implied in their letter to Obama that the president was being harsh on Israelis – by asking them to stop illegal acts – and was being soft on the Arabs – by not asking them for more concessions.

Equating the Israeli land-grab with Arab diplomatic defensiveness is confusing apples with oranges, if not confusing cause with effect. This is not to deny that the Arab states have contributed to the misery of Palestinians. However, to expect the White House to lean on Arab governments to improve their relations with Israel at this time is a case of asking Barack Obama to add insult to injury.

The Bayh-Risch measure feeds the defensive posture of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu fears that stopping the building of settlements would be an admission of guilt, an admission which may lead to the unraveling of a massive economic project. The Israeli prime minister sees Obama’s call for temporary compliance as an end to the myth that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem exist to enhance Israel’s security. He sees any willingness to freeze settlements as a one-sided concession by Israel.

The senators should realize that the Arab states are not in a position to add substance to the historic 2002 Arab peace proposal made to Israel. The offer, which Israel has so far shunned, is both generous and dramatic enough. In the two-state proposal, one designed to lead to the emergence of Israel coexisting alongside a Palestinian state, Israel is allocated 78 percent of the land and the Palestinian state is allocated 22 percent – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Twenty-two Arab states are willing to forget the past and absorb millions of Palestinian refugees.

What more dramatic gestures should the Arab states be offering at this juncture? The Arab peace plan will require hard work, reconciliation and forgiveness from each side. Progress at the negotiating table is bound to generate goodwill and will result in the improvement of relations between the sides in the conflict.

The “dramatic gestures” the senators anticipate would naturally materialize through progressive steps of reciprocity. Dramatic results in improved relations would emerge when refugees accept compensation for loss of land and when Israel accepts a shared Jerusalem. The gestures would surface once Hamas accepts Israel and once Israel changes its negative attitude toward Arabs. The gestures would appear when Arabs recognize the suffering of Jews, including those who emigrated from the Arab world under pressure, and when Israelis admit the suffering they inflicted upon Palestinians they displaced. Nothing would be more dramatic than for Arabs and Israelis to stop demonizing one another, or for both sides to commit themselves to working together to solve mutual problems such as water shortages, ecological threats, health hazards and the curtailment of minority rights.

Bayh and Risch would do better to mobilize their bipartisan energies to promote justice and reconciliation. Only by helping push the peace process forward could the senators expect goodwill on all sides.

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz is an Arab-American commentator. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.