A peace that responds to the interests and needs of all parties in
the Middle East has gained wide acceptance, despite the many ups
and downs of official peace processes seeking to reconcile those
differences. Since the 1991 Madrid Conference, an increasingly
large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
individuals have been working together at the regional level to
create a better atmosphere for peace. These activities take many
forms, yet they all represent efforts to increase mutual
understanding and to provide new ways to share information and
experiences on topics of common interest. In many cases, they also
involve shared projects that lend a relatively small yet
increasingly significant counterweight to the pessimistic views on
official interactions by leaders and negotiators.
Regional cooperative efforts originate from many different sources,
both local and international. Third-party organizations, most often
from outside the Middle East, have played an important role by
providing venues where experts and like-minded actors can come
together to tackle many of the most difficult issues facing both
the region as a whole and individual countries. While the ongoing,
active participation of those from the Middle East reflects the
importance and value attached to the various issues, the presence
of outside organizers, who at least initiate the framework in which
meetings take place, also reflects the sensitivities and limits of
cooperative work.
In addition to providing opportunities for discussion of important
regional subjects, non-governmental activities in the Middle East
are seen as having multiple effects beyond the actual topics at
hand. When participants from different countries meet their peers
on a regular basis, a sense of trust and open communication can
develop that helps to overcome stereotypes and negative images - in
a sense humanizing the "other."
Track II Diplomacy
Some activities dealing with security issues, for example, are
intended to provide informal settings in which hypothetical
situations may be introduced in a manner that would be impossible
in official discussions. These informal discussions - so-called
Track II diplomacy - can then be relayed by participants to their
governments and may feed into the official processes. More
commonly, the workshops, seminars, conferences, training sessions,
joint projects, and other activities at the regional level are
instrumental in developing networks of common interest and shared
experience.
As this issue of the Palestine-Israel Journal reflects, the
range of subjects addressed by regional activities is quite broad,
encompassing such areas as the environment, security, media, water,
civil society, health, development, religion, and others. Although
these activities tend not to be highlighted in the media, the
benefits derived from them are unmistakable. At the same time, as
discussed below, there are limitations to their impact and
effectiveness as well.
Benefits
The impact of non-official activities can be beneficial on a number
of levels, particularly with regard to the development of empathy
and understanding among participants. In a study of the authors'
organization, Search for Common Ground, Nathan Funk of the American
University in Washington, D.C., has found that sustained Track II
efforts in the Middle East have had profound effects on long-term
participants.
Funk discovered during his research that the opportunity for the
participants to have direct contact with current and former
antagonists has catalyzed real changes in their perceptions and
attitudes at the personal level. This has led to the establishment
of new relationships that have become the vehicle for working
together toward common goals and for empowering them to take action
within their communities.
Beyond the personal level, non-governmental regional cooperation
also provides tangible examples of the benefits of peace to each
society. While political leaders may regularly expound their
commitments to peace building, the fact that influential people
from outside the government are working together for peace -
however controversial such a position may be in the short term -
provides real alternatives to those who would maintain
long-standing patterns of antagonism. In addition, with the
possibility for completing final-status peace agreements on the
horizon, many perceive an absence of messages that articulate a new
era in regional relations. The regional work of NGOs can catalyze
the development of a culture of peace to articulate new visions of
the future.
Filling a Void
The experience of the Gulf 2000 project, based at Columbia
University, provides an excellent example of how trust is
established and mutual understanding develops as a result of a
non-governmental initiative. Under the direction of Prof. Gary
Sick, the project has sought both to create a community of scholars
from the Gulf States where none had previously existed, and to
provide them (and others) with a forum to exchange information and
discuss issues of mutual concern.
The initial meetings to establish the community in 1994-5 brought
together a small group of scholars from throughout the Gulf region.
In addition to their substantive themes, these meetings also helped
the participants overcome regional animosities to create a dialogue
of mutual respect based on their shared professional interests.
Most significantly, the project has linked this group in an
"electronic community" through the Internet to create an ongoing
forum for sharing information and perspectives. This two-pronged
approach by Gulf 2000 has not only helped fill a crucial void in
the diplomatic/scholarly world, but has also established a pattern
of civil discourse and mutual understanding that has had an
influence far beyond its relatively small group of 500
members.(1)
Limitations
The political mood in the Middle East plays a significant role both
in NGOs' decisions to organize regional activities and in the
decisions by individuals to participate. While the increase in
communications and cross-border contacts during the last decade has
made such cooperation more common than ever, participation in this
work remains tied to the perceived state of overall relations in
the region.
There are a number of parties that have chosen not to participate
in official or unofficial multilateral exchanges as long as
bilateral negotiations have not been concluded. Syria and Lebanon
have officially taken such a stance. Beyond this, the presence or
absence of Israeli participants is a significant determinant of
attendance as well.
Even the important elements of empathy and understanding can have
limits, as Nathan Funk suggests. While he points out the positive
impact that meetings organized by Search for Common Ground have
had, his research also reflects that the personal empathy developed
in those gatherings (i.e., understanding an individual) does not
always catalyze understanding of the shared cultural meanings
within each society that are at the heart of the region's
conflicts.(2)
Terminology can also be an impediment to cooperation. The Toda
Institute of the University of Hawaii discovered this when
organizing what became the International Commission for Security
and Cooperation in West Asia, a Track II effort focusing on
security issues in the Gulf region. The participants come from the
eight littoral states of the Gulf plus the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council. Those from Arab states were unwilling
to participate if the term "Persian Gulf" was used to identify the
region, while Iranians objected to the term "Arab Gulf." Agreement
was eventually reached on the use of "West Asia."(3)
The role of outside organizers and funders can also be problematic.
Julia Pitner, the director of Search for Common Ground's regional
office in Amman, explores some of the responses to international
NGOs and funding agencies in an article in the Spring 2000 issue of
Middle East Report. Remarking on the recent trend toward greater
scrutiny of non-governmental organizations by many Middle East
governments, she notes:
A prime focus of governmental attention is the relationship of
local NGOs to international NGOs (INGOs), particularly in relation
to foreign funding. Governments wish to preserve the right to
approve or prohibit such formal partnerships between NGOs and
INGOs.(4)
Ms. Pitner also points out that the funding priorities of Western
funding agencies, such as USAID and the European Community, may
derive from foreign policy objectives that are not necessarily
aligned with local needs, which can create misperceptions and
feelings of inequality on the part of Middle East partner
organizations.
Looking Ahead
Although there are some drawbacks and problems, as mentioned here,
non-governmental regional cooperation clearly helps to build a
constituency and environment for peace by illustrating the
constructive possibilities that can develop in the aftermath of
conflict. Such activities - despite continued opposition by some -
provide an alternative vision of the future that may become
increasingly important as the region moves into a new era in
Arab-Israeli relations.
(1) Gary G. Sick, "Gulf 2000: The Digital Peacemakers,"
21stC: The World of Research at Columbia, Fall 1995, and Lawrence
G. Potter, "Bombers and Scholars: Gulf/2000 Responds to Conflict,"
21stC: The World of Research at Columbia, Spring 1999, .
(2) Nathan C. Funk, Theory and Practice of Track II Diplomacy:
Impact and Dynamics of the Search for Common Ground in the Middle
East Initiative. Ph.D. dissertation, American University,
Washington, D.C., 2000.
(3) 3. Majid Tehranian, "Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Triple Track
Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf," Peace & Policy, Volume 4, Nos.
1-2 (Fall/Winter 1999), pp. 3-11.
(4) Julia Pitner, "NGOs' Dilemmas," Middle East Report, Spring
2000, pp. 34-37.
