Experts have been sidelined, says former US envoy

Dubai: Edward Djerejian, the Director of the James Baker III Institute for public policy at Rice University, has a career spanning eight American presidencies. He is the only US ambassador to move from being the ambassador in Syria to also serving in Israel. He has had a key role in various Arab-Western negotiations including the Arab Israeli conflict, Lebanon, and Iraq.

Djerejian is a senior advisor to the Iraq Advising Group and has been recently invited by former US president Bill Clinton to work on the Clinton Global Initiative.

I recently sat down with Ambassador Djerejian after he gave a special policy forum at the Dubai School of Government on global and regional developments and the implications of US foreign policy for the region. We discussed the current makeup of the US administration as well as the current role being played by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Here's what he had to say:

Gulf News: Early on in the 1990s there was a pulling out process of so-called "Arabists" from the US administration. What do you make of this notion?

Edward Djerejian: The word Arabist itself has become a buzz word. When people read or hear it, depending what their political inclinations are they draw immediate conclusions whether positive or negative. An Arabist is nothing more than a sinologist or a Sovietologist in the old days.

In my case, I was truly one of the first Arabists and the only one who went as the US ambassador to Syria to become the US ambassador to Israel. That raised a few eyebrows among people who defined Arabists as being "pro-Arab" and those who served in Israel as being "pro-Israeli".

What about today? Who is there to play that role or is there anyone?

Yes there is. Frankly, I think individuals in the US administration who were responsible for our Iraq policy in terms of the military actions and occupation policy early on were not the area experts. They were people who thought they knew something about the Middle East but they didn't. The experts were sidelined.

Why is that?

Because the neoconservatives basically didn't respect their points of view and didn't think their points of view were based on the best interest of the United States. So they deliberately sidelined them. Decisions were made by people who didn't have a real understanding of the region and of Iraq specifically.

To answer your question, of course there are experts in the US administration, State Department, and Foreign Service and in other agencies who know the languages of the region and who know the culture of the region. The issue is whether or not they are listened to. Yes the expertise is there but the real question is whether it is being listened to at policy deciding level and that can be problematic.

Yes or no?

Yes, what was recommended in the Iraq study group- was there be an international Iraqi forum or a conference in Iraq of all of Iraq's neighbours to get the neighbourhood to do what it should be doing to bolster the three major goals inside Iraq: security, governance and national reconciliation and controlling the borders. That is diplomacy and that's certainly what area experts recommend. There is some input that is getting to the top from the area expert.

I feel personally there is no communication taking place between the US leadership and those who either come from the region or even understand the region. Think Karen Hughes, or at this point US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The US is engaged in a process of constructing their own reality.

There is no question that in any administration, there is a competition for policy options and points of view. It's bureaucratic and political and goes on all the time. In real life, competition of ideas will always be in any administration. The question is what will prevail and who is the president and how knowledgeable are his aides. There is no easy answer to your question

Do certain voices get sidelined?

Yes in any administration. The best paradigm is when an American president stands tall and when he and his secretary of state have a close relationship and the Secretary makes sure the president is given a full range of assessment and policy options.

What is the case today?

I see more diplomacy now than at the beginning of this current administration. Condi (Condoleezza Rice) came into office and said this is the time for diplomacy. When I see her going ahead with the Palestinian- Israeli situation, she is advocating diplomacy. You could say, is it strong enough and is the president fully behind it? I hope he's still standing by his 2002 speech where he talked about the state of Palestine.

It's laughable for Condi to be frequenting the region so often. She is not taken seriously?

Condi has the ear of the president. That's very important. They have a close and confidential relationship and he listens to her. In the remaining few months ahead, she has an opportunity to move the Israeli-Palestinian situation forward, to get international engagement in Iraq and to deal with the Iranian situation hopefully by diplomacy and not resorting to military force.

Dick Cheney said recently the region was divided into either radicals or moderates. Spread of democracy is "wiped off" the US agenda?

Political stability in the Middle East region is no longer a negative phrase and I think I am an advocate of what I call dynamic stability of the Middle East, not stability of the status quo but where by the US uses its influence to encourage conflict resolution not just conflict management [when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian and Iraq and elsewhere] and political and economic reforms. It entails listening to the experts in the region as to how they can be carried out in each country. Each country is unique with different societal structure. That's what I mean by stability. I don't mean political stability or the status quo.

Should we forget about spread of democracy?

No.

Has it been forgotten?

Well I don't think the ideal goal of democracy promotion has been abandoned but there is a keener recognition that it is not as easy as some people thought and that certainly via military means, its extremely difficult constructing democracy in these countries that have their own cultural framework and political traditions. A lot of institution building has to be done. That's why I am an advocate of political and economic reform according to the culture of each country that you are dealing with.