Home » Politics & Society » Middle East Politics » Non-Diplomacy in the Middle East

Non-Diplomacy in the Middle East

© lawhawk

Funny what a week's events will do to international relations. Last week relations between Israel and pretty much the rest of the world reached new lows following a series of scandals and blunders by the Netenyahu government. This week, it would seem as though there has been some moderation as to how other nations are perceiving the situation in the Middle East.

Canada, which only two weeks ago recalled their ambassador to Israel because of revelations that Israeli secret service agents may have used forged Canadian passports to enter Jordan to assassinate the leader of the group Hamas, sent their representative back to Israel with little fanfare. It doesn't make much sense for a country to cut off diplomatic relations when it is in their best interests to talk through disputes. That said, there are some countries who appear to think that it is far better for them to use military force than use diplomacy to achieve their goals.

The continued actions by Iran and Turkey against Iraq, in addition to the continued stalemate in the peace process, suggests that there is a deeper underlying problem brought about by lack of diplomatic skills of the countries in the region. What sets this region apart from other parts of the world that have continued strife and conflict? Is/Are there some factor(s) or preconditions that hinder peaceful resolution of disputes in the region or are the countries of the region simply acting as countries normally do under similar circumstances?

There are those theoreticians and politicians who see Middle Eastern politics as no different than those that occur elsewhere. They are not entirely wrong in trying to extend theories that work elsewhere to the region, but the only theory that appears to work for all regions and situations is a power politics analysis, first proposed by Hans Morgenthau and the realist school of political theory.

Other theories, including bureaucratic politics and personality driven theories to explain situations in the Middle East, do not really address the underlying issue in the region. Once you get past the religious connections to various lands, it comes down simply to who controls the land. Group A or Group B? No matter how much people think they have gotten past the need to control land, it is still the most essential thing that a person and a people need.

As I have argued previously, power politics seems to be the overriding priority among nations and the driving force behind relations among nations of the Middle East. Watching Israel over the past several weeks, you can see the combination of veiled threats and overt use of power politics and actions to achieve goals. Similarly, Turkey and Iran are using power politics and armed force to act against Iraq and try to contain a perceived threat from the Kurdish people. If there is a solution to the situation, it involves being able to allow the sides of the conflicts to show to their respective power bases that they have gained more than they have given up. This is the most difficult thing to accomplish in negotiations. Perhaps when skillful negotiators are involved, they can sell it to their respective clients as a major victory. This is what is needed.

The copyright of the article Non-Diplomacy in the Middle East in Middle East Politics is owned by . Permission to republish Non-Diplomacy in the Middle East in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.