When Global Ordering and Peacemaking Leave the U.S. Behind

"A Scholar's Take" in white text above a white pen outline

When Global Ordering and Peacemaking Leave the U.S. Behind

The deal in Doha has diminished US influence in Lebanon and, by empowering Hezbollah, has also hurt US interests. Above all, Doha has sent the message that US diplomacy is not always indispensable.

We live in an era of global governance. Through a complex network of international organizations like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Court of Justice and the World Trade Organization, we have succeeded in creating a pattern of governance without government at the global level. Much of this global order was created under the leadership, the financial assistance and the persuasive powers of the United States. It all began with the vision of President Woodrow Wilson to create a League of Nations.

For six decades, since the end of World War II, the US has been the primary mover behind the emerging global order, as well as its main underwriter. But for a while now, experts of international relations have been wringing their hands wondering what would happen to this Wilsonian World once America’s global prominence and leadership declined. If the US turned its back to the global order and refused to sustain it, or lost the capacity to do so, would it collapse?

A possible answer has come from tiny Qatar.

Qatar is a tiny oil rich emirate in the Gulf and quite comparable to the State of Delaware. Qatar has a population of about 950,000 and Delaware is about 850,000. Qatar’s GDP [the size of its total national income] is $67 billion and Delaware, which in 2007 had the highest per capita income in the US [of $59,000], is about $63 billion.

Last month, the Delaware of the Middle East, stepped up to the plate and pulled of a coup in diplomacy and peacemaking. It resolved a conflict between feuding Lebanese factions that was threatening to break out into another civil war with the dangerous possibility of embroiling Iran, Israel and the US.

Lebanon had been politically unstable since Israel’s devastating invasion in 2006. Its US-backed government had become dysfunctional with the withdrawal of the opposition, the position of the President remained vacant and attempts by the pro-US government to limit Hezbollah’s influence had backfired resulting in the Iranian backed group’s takeover of Beirut and its defeat of pro-US militias. As violence escalated and the death toll reached 65, a civil war seemed inevitable.

Usually in such circumstances, the US would intervene by sending a prominent Ambassador or the Secretary of State to conduct shuttle diplomacy, and resolve the conflict. But not this time. President Bush, who just last week described himself as a “man of peace”, abstained from taking any peace initiative.

Even if the US had sought to address the crisis, it would have failed. As has been the case in recent years, the US found itself aligned with one side – the government and Sunni Muslim leaders, and not on talking terms with the other side. The “we talk only with those who agree with us” policy has disabled US diplomacy. The world’s most powerful player is finding itself on the margins of peacemaking.

Tiny Qatar moved into the leadership void, hosted all the conflicting parties at a conference in its capital Doha and five days of intensive negotiations later, they all came out with a peace deal. Lebanon now has a President, a new electoral law, a functioning government and above all, Hezbollah has withdrawn its fighters and peace prevails.

Qatar has shown that with the decline of the US, regional players who enjoy the respect trust and confidence of all parties can play the role of peacemakers in the absence of the super power. Perhaps it is trust not power that is the currency of peacemaking. The deal in Doha has diminished US influence in Lebanon and by empowering Hezbollah the deal has also hurt US interests. Above all, Doha has sent the message that US diplomacy is not always indispensable.

Across the region we now see players stepping up to fill the diplomatic leadership gap. Turkey has taken the initiative to open indirect talks between Syria and Israel. For several months the two countries have been talking to each other through Turkey despite Washington’s passive-aggressive response. Even the warring Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, have launched their own effort towards a rapprochement. Pakistan has begun a complex effort to make peace with Taliban and its allies. All of these initiatives are without America’s blessings.

Clearly all the above are small initiatives with limited scope but full of promise. No single nation, or a coalition of nations has so far emerged that can play the role of the US to sustain our global order.

But tiny Qatar, with one giant step, is showing the way. Perhaps other regional players like India, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the European Union can combine to give the US a much needed staycation from global intrigue.

The world has benefited from the US sponsored global order; it is time for others to share its burden even as they enjoy its fruits.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is a Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is also Assistant Professor at University of Delaware and a Nonresident Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of Jihad for Jerusalem [2004] and most recently Islamic Democratic Discourse [2006].

This article was originally published by AltMuslim on June 22, 2008.

ISPU scholars are provided a space on our site to display a selection of op-eds. These were not necessarily commissioned by ISPU, nor is their presence on the site equal to an endorsement of the content. The opinions expressed are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISPU.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap