“Change” is the catchphrase of this American presidential election, repeated endlessly in candidates’ stump speeches. Behind the scenes, think tanks in Washington D.C. are already adding substance to this mantra by developing suggestions to reformulate the American role in the Middle East. Many analysts are betting that whoever takes office in January 2009 will be open to new ways of thinking about foreign policy. While much of this change will focus on Iraq, Lebanon could be swept up in a grand attempt to rethink all of the present administration’s policies.
Think tanks provide a reservoir of and ideas and talent for any new administration. “[They] are places where people who are influential in policy circles, but are not in power, wait for the political climate to change,” said Andrew Tabler, editor-in-chief of Syria Today and an outgoing fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Current World Affairs. Members of the party out of power often hone their skills at think tanks, acting as a kind of shadow government until the day that their party regains control. Major Bush administration aides, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were involved with the hawkish Project for the New American Century during the lean years of the Clinton administration. Richard Holbrooke, frequently mentioned as a possible Secretary of State in a Democratic administration, is on the board of directors for the Council on Foreign Relations.
The imminent end of the Bush administration has opened the scope of discussion to America’s broad role in the Middle East. “Think tanks right now are thinking about… what kind of strategy the United States should employ to achieve its national security and regional interests,” stated Tabler.
Nevertheless, think thanks do not operate in a vacuum. While a new administration may come into power ready to implement a large stack of policy papers, they soon find themselves at the whim of the wishes of their donors, other influential policymakers in Washington D.C. and the reality on the ground.
This is what many conservatives believe will happen if a new President attempts to shift America’s Syrian policy. “The President will try to engage the Syrians, then after a year and a half or two years they’ll realize it actually can’t be done,” said Lee Smith, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. By issuing executive orders which place sanctions on high-ranking Syrian government officials and businessmen for their support of al-Qaeda in Iraq, President Bush is “locking in” American Middle East policy. This makes it difficult for a new Administration to affect a 180-degree reversal.
The Carnegie Report
The first salvo in this debate was launched in late February, when the Carnegie Center for Middle East Peace released its controversial report titled “The New Middle East.” This report was a wide-ranging criticism of the Bush administration, arguing that the American government’s confrontational approach had “negatively affected” the entire region. Along with calling for fundamental changes in Iraq and Iran, and towards Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the report advises the United States to move towards a ‘compromise’ solution in Lebanon, which will “entail an armed Hezbollah and continuing Syrian influence.”
This report took a look at the big picture of American policy, and debated concepts behind America’s goals in the Middle East. Carnegie’s policy recommendations, however, seemed to fly in the face of conventional thinking and the apparent desires of the people of the region – especially in Lebanon, where the report was received with sentiments ranging from skepticism to dismay.
“One of the discussions we had was whether we should call for a moratorium of the United States’ efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East,” Dr. Marina Ottaway, one of the report’s authors, told NOW Lebanon. While this idea was eventually abandoned, the report remained skeptical of democracy promotion.
“The Bush Administration has given democracy promotion a bad name in the Middle East,” Ottaway claimed. “Maybe everyone should step back for a moment and take a deep breath and let some time go by,” Ottaway said.
Quite how this will sound to those gearing up to remember March 14 is anyone’s guess. The report has been read with alarm by many pro-independence Lebanese politicians, including Boutros Harb, a March 14 Christian MP and formerly one of the movement’s leading presidential candidates, who took issue with the Carnegie report’s declarations that there has been no “successful democratic revolution” in any Middle Eastern country and that “democratic openings” have only resulted in greater sectarian divisions. The Cedar Revolution, Harb argued, “was a huge step towards restoring sovereignty and giving our nation its right of self-determination.” If international support for the March 14 movement diminishes, Harb said, “it will decrease our possibilities. It will give us less strength” to transform Lebanon into a true democracy.
Also part of that “deep breath” was the recommendation that the United States accept several ‘realities.’ The primary example among these is that, “there is no way in which US policy could negate Syrian influence in Lebanon completely,” Ottaway stated. The report argues that the United States should assume a less aggressive role and fully support the negotiation efforts of its Arab allies. “It’s difficult for me to envisage a form of confrontation that would lead to a positive outcome for Lebanon,” Ottaway claimed.
But conservative think tanks are not conceding the policy debate. Those hoping for a victory by Republican presidential contender John McCain have attacked the Carnegie report as offering a recipe for American retreat from the Middle East. “This is realism?” asked Smith. “Arguing that Washington should just roll over? Admitting that Syria and Iran are too tough, and we just can’t take them on?”
No doubt, other think tanks will follow with their own suggestions for the next administration. The Council for Foreign Relations, for example, is preparing to release a paper on engaging Syria.
Reactions
“If the US does step back, the opposition, I’m afraid, and Syria behind it, will interpret this in the wrong way,” stated Oussama Safa, head of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies in Beirut. “I don’t think they will stop there, at just having a national unity government. They will want to creep more into the system.”
For the Carnegie Center’s recommendations to work in Lebanon, Safa argued, a desire for détente would have to be present on both sides. “The other side of the coin is that the opposition is not really willing to be met halfway,” Safa stated. “I doubt that the compromise should come from the loyalists only.”
These policy debates are not only important for the future but are having an impact now. From the Syrian vantage point, there is no point in cutting a deal with Bush if they may receive a better offer from the next administration – a major obstacle to resolving the Lebanese crisis, obviously, and one many critics of the Carnegie report feel that its authors have played directly into. Whichever group of experts has an inside track to the offices of the president and his aides can greatly influence the future of America’s involvement in the Middle East. “Change” may be the slogan of the presidential campaign, but when it comes to actual policy, a different rule holds sway: Ideas matter.