BICOM

 

Key points

• The rapidly changing regional reality will pose new challenges for western countries seeking to navigate the changed landscape, and successfully maintain their strategic and commercial interests.

• Recent statements by British officials indicate a growing sensitivity to popular sentiments in the Arab world. One of the consequences for both Arab rulers and Western diplomacy is a heightened need to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more forcefully.

• Destabilisation in the region provides opportunities for extremist elements to spread their influence. Despite the testing diplomatic climate, Israel and Britain continue to share strategic concerns and maintain close behind-the-scenes cooperation in addressing these challenges.

• A strong UK-Israel dialogue that addresses common interests and threats remains the only viable way to harness the new regional reality to create positive momentum.

Introduction: A changing foreign agenda?

Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf last week illustrated how the shifting political realities in the region might also initiate a change in Britain’s foreign policy priorities. At present the UK is seeking a fine balance between advancing an economic and trade agenda in the region, combating security threats, while at the same time responding to increasing demands for democratisation and liberalisation in Arab states. In his speech to the Kuwaiti Parliament the Prime Minister addressed this fine balancing act: “Far from running counter to [Britain’s] vital interests of prosperity and security, I believe that political and economic reform in the Arab world is essential, not just in advancing these vital shared interests but as a long-term guarantor of the stability needed for both our societies to flourish.”

However, Western countries have traditionally engaged almost solely with a narrow ruling Arab elite. Internal domestic inequalities and the suppression of opposition forces were often sidelined by economic interests and strategic defence concerns. The new reality now emerging throughout North Africa and the Middle East suggests that a new tone will have to be struck, even if the fundamentals of Britain’s economic and strategic interests have not changed.

The Prime Minister sought to dismiss the assumption that “stability required highly controlling regimes, and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk.” However, Britain’s traditional allies in the Arab world are either experiencing a rapid change of regional political realities, or facing internal pressures that will influence their ability to ignore popular sentiments. Western officials will now be measured by their ability to speak to popular demands for democratic reforms and decentralisation, while maintaining a strong working relationship with military and economic elites. The outcome of this new reality may also pose significant challenges to Israel’s relationship with the EU and Britain in particular.

Responding to a changing strategic map

Compared with the high-profiled statements issued by British and EU leaders, officials in Jerusalem have remained largely silent since regional unrest broke out. The few statements that have been released, mostly by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, highlight the dangers posed by the uncertain and unstable situation. As a recent BICOM Analysis discussed at length, there is a sense in Jerusalem that until some stability in the region is regained, European pursuit of a final-status Israeli-Palestinian accord is unrealistic, particularly by the current deadline of September 2011.

Conversely, both Arab rulers and Western diplomats are facing a heightened need to be seen to be taking a proactive stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. British officials deny that the support of Britain, France and Germany for a UN Security Council draft resolution to condemn Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank is an expression of this public repositioning. Europe’s policy has indeed been consistent in its objection to settlements, but the Security Council vote indicates Europe’s impatience with Israeli policies and an increasing willingness to break with the traditional American leadership on this issue, thus­ promoting an increasingly independent, vocal policy.

During a tour of the Middle East in February, Foreign Secretary William Hague made the link between regional unrest and the stalled peace process. “Amid the opportunity for countries like Tunisia and Egypt, there is a legitimate fear that the Middle East peace process will lose further momentum and be put to one side, and will be a casualty of uncertainty in the region.” He later emphasised that the new status quo would “complicate the process still further” and stressed that it was time to “inject greater urgency into the Middle East peace process.”

It is important to remember that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict played a marginal role in popular uprisings in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia. Even so, the conflict is repeatedly noted by European officials as part of the current problem: It fuels extremism at a time when radicals have the opportunity to take advantage of destabilised regimes, and resurrect international terror networks that could potentially pose a threat to European national security. To the extent that Israel is currently and increasingly regarded as responsible for the failure to make progress in the peace process, this ­poses a significant problem for UK-Israel relations. 

Behind the rhetoric: Core shared interests?

Despite the dramatic developments in the region, European policymakers continue to grapple with ‘old’ problems. Trade, energy and immigration have featured high on Europe’s foreign policy agenda in North Africa and the Middle East. Similarly, the threat of international terror, Islamic radicalisation and Iran’s nuclear ambitions are unlikely to be brushed aside by domestic unrest in the region.

As UK policymakers assess the changes in the region, the traditional pro-Western alliance – which included Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia – seems significantly weakened. Underlying the public statements, therefore, is a reality whereby Israel’s strategic assets in containing ongoing threats become all the more important to Britain. Both Iran and Islamic terror were addressed by the PM during his visit to the Gulf. During a visit to Israel in November 2010, Foreign Secretary Hague convened a strategic roundtable discussion with a group of Israeli defence and security officials. A statement released by the British Embassy in Tel Aviv noted that “Israel and Great Britain maintain very close ties on strategic issues, especially Iran.”

However, the Middle East is a dramatically changed region. Sources working closely with EU officials in Brussels indicated that there is a growing realisation that Europe’s foreign policy priorities will necessarily need to be reconsidered. Southern-European countries like Italy and Spain have already intimated, for example, that the threat of mass migration from North Africa is now an acute risk and will ask for more EU resources to address the issue. In addition, the new regional order will require a reassessment of possible security and defence risks posed to EU states. Britain in particular will be monitoring the possible impact of the latest events on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as on Muslim communities at home.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Robert Kaplan suggested that “It is less democracy than the crisis of central authority that will dominate the next phase of Middle Eastern history.” Britain has played a key role in building Palestinian governance in the West Bank. This is a model of productive engagement that creates stable foundations of law, order and government. But this is an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary course: it offers long-term success, but equally requires long-term investment and patience to see these investments gradually reach fruition.

Conclusion

The changing political realities in the region will also redraw the strategic map of threats and interests for Britain and the EU. Within this new strategic landscape, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will undoubtedly continue to feature, though it is unclear at this early stage whether it will continue to be the defining factor of Middle Eastern politics. Arab countries are likely to place greater focus on domestic issues of governance and economic development, rather than, as PM Cameron noted while speaking in Qatar, use the Palestinian issue as a distraction away from internal unrest.

Israel will continue monitoring developments in the region with caution, but international emphasis on the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is unlikely to wane. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted earlier this week that international pressure, particularly against the construction of settlements, cannot be ignored. Recent reports suggest that the Israeli prime minister is currently considering possible routes that will enable the establishment of a Palestinian state with provisional borders. The Palestinians have dismissed interim solutions in the past and are unlikely to embrace the idea now.

The question remains how British and EU involvement helps the sides move forward, rather than inadvertently sustain the stalemate that currently exists. Britain’s foreign policy in the rapidly changing Middle East will be measured by its ability to balance new realities with existing threats. Despite the turmoil in the region, recognising the shared strategic interests, common threats and maintaining a strong dialogue with Israel’s leadership, remains the only viable way to harness the new regional reality to create positive momentum that serves Britain’s interests and those of actors in the region.