US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s “hello to the Iranian foreign minister and her brief “businesslike meeting with the Syrian foreign minister Thursday at the international conference on Iraq in Egypt have generated considerable international attention. I join those who see these two gestures as small but significant steps towards a more rational American foreign policy in the Middle East. It is important to acknowledge when the United States does something sensible in the world, because this happens relatively rarely in the Middle East. In this case, Washington is showing important new strains of maturity, realism and composure that have long been absent from its arsenal. Whatever the reason for the slow revisions in American policy, the change is to be welcomed. Those to whom the US says hello should respond with a “and hello to you too, Ma’am, so that simple courtesies can quickly move towards serious dialogue leading to meaningful diplomatic negotiations for mutually satisfying policy changes on all sides. The real significance of Rice’s assorted interactions with the Syrians and Iranians is not mainly related to their impact on Iraq, but rather in their affirming – in this case, at least – the futility of boycotts and sanctions as serious foreign policy tools. The change of policy toward Syria and Iran only highlights the continued nonsensical American-Israeli-European policy toward the elected government in Palestine, which has evolved into a unity government of Fatah, Hamas and some key independents. Rice met with the Palestinian finance minister in Washington a few weeks ago, but that was not a real change of policy; it was merely a conjurer’s trick that did not change reality. The continued boycott of that part of the Palestinian government led by Hamas achieves nothing useful, and only makes things worse for all, as pressures and resentments build up in Palestine and the tenuous ceasefire with Israel slowly collapses. One country that has gone against the prevalent Israeli-American-European trend of boycotting the elected Palestinian government is Norway, which has maintained contacts with Hamas and the entire Palestinian government for years. Norway is a very sensible place, run by thoughtful, reasonable people who are not prone to extremes in any direction. So I thought it was worthwhile finding out more from knowledgeable Norwegians, in and out of government, about their experience with the Palestinians and Hamas, and why they have remained in touch with Hamas and the elected government. Several relevant points emerge from the Norwegian experience and perspective. In principle, the Oslo mindset says, contacts should be maintained with all relevant parties in a dispute, other than out-and-out criminals such as Al-Qaeda. Political groups who use violence but also represent real political constituencies should be engaged with a view to changing their policies – as Norway has done, for example, in mediating between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lanka government. Boycotting eliminates the possibility of prodding militant groups to evolve politically, and thus is not useful in principle. In the case of Hamas and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is also the issue of balance in the demands of both sides. It is reasonable to ask the Palestinians to end the use of armed resistance, political violence and terror against civilians, but such an approach is not very credible or effective if it only punishes the political violence on one side. In practical terms, the boycott of Hamas and the Hamas-led coalition government has failed, the thinking goes among Norwegians who follow this closely and know both sides intimately. The boycott has destroyed Palestinian institutions, increased poverty and hopelessness, radicalized elements of the population, badly damaged the internal Palestinian security situation, and made the ceasefire with Israel more vulnerable to breach and collapse. The boycott has steadily undercut Palestinian moderates, and is likely to fuel further extremism. The integrity and credibility of the Palestinian government as a whole has declined, but Hamas as an organization remains strong, and may have become stronger in the past year, especially since forming the national unity government that it had called for immediately after winning the elections in early 2006. Those in Norway who support the policy of engaging the Hamas-led government also sense that Hamas officials have moved forward in the past two years, towards an ultimate possible recognition of Israel, but this tentative trajectory would not continue if Hamas were boycotted totally. It would also move more quickly if Israel made reciprocal moves toward recognizing a viable Palestinian state, rather than only recognizing the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Finally, some Norwegians question the appropriateness of the United Nations’ boycott of the Hamas government via adhering to the boycott by the Quartet (the US, European Union, Russia and the United Nations), given that the UN Security Council did not take this up, or make relevant demands of Israel to balance the demands of the Palestinians. The Norwegian position is all the more useful to learn from in view of the slow shift in American policy towards speaking with Syria and Iran. Rami G. Khouriis published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
Why not adopt Norwegian pragmatism?
