His Highness Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa,
Crown Prince of Bahrain
Your Highnesses, Your Excellencies – distinguished guests. It is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you to Bahrain for what has become the primary security forum for the Gulf. So many eminent participants from the security establishments of the world are rarely seen together. And your expertise has rarely been so needed.
But let us approach our deliberations with a degree of modesty because – as we all know – an expert is someone who gets things just as wrong as the rest of us – but for more complicated reasons.
I would like to begin with a heartfelt thanks to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This is the third time the IISS has hosted the Regional Security Summit in Bahrain. We call it also the Manama Dialogue. And now, more than ever, dialogue is needed in our region. It is the cradle of civilisation. Yet every day millions live under the shadow of extremist violence, territorial disputes and the risk not only of an arms race – but a nuclear arms race.
Dialogue means that, when you disagree with someone, you try to persuade them to change their minds – by starting a conversation, not a war. It’s easy to score debating points over your opponents. But isn’t it better to build bridges than to blow them up? No-one gains from a toxic blend of rigid mindsets, warlike words and hasty actions. They create a cycle of hostility in which each side exaggerates the aggressive intentions of the other. And by preparing for the worst - they risk getting the worst. It doesn’t have to be like that. The several Great Divides between nations that threaten the peace of our region can be bridged. That’s why we are here, together.
To our guests from outside the Middle East, let me say with respect that too many Westerners simply don’t realise that we have just as much diversity as Europe or Asia. We all share the heritage of a region that gave the world some of its greatest advances in literacy and mathematics - and great faiths. But we are not identical.
However different our traditions and cultures and histories, what all of us concerned with the Middle East need now is objective analysis and clear thinking. Based not on fantasy, but on fact. Often, leaders and their citizens have only news headlines as an indicator of what other people think. More often than not, the headlines reflect actions of an extreme few and are not an accurate reflection of general opinion. That’s why I want to share with you some of the findings of the largest survey of Muslims ever undertaken. It was carried out by Gallup, the international polling company. They have surveyed opinion among more than a billion Muslims from around the world. Although some of the findings are quite startling, the most encouraging finding is that Muslims, just like non-Muslims, want better relations. Another key finding is that most Muslims support freedom of speech, religion and assembly, and women’s rights. Thus we in Bahrain have just held elections on a full franchise, with a vastly higher turnout than you get in some of the more developed countries in the West.
Our task at this summit has been made more complex by the explosive growth of new channels of communication, especially the electronic kind – think of how much we all use emails, websites and video. When Wellington won the Battle of Waterloo, it was two weeks before everyone in the more remote parts of their lands learnt who had won.
Now you can witness a car bomb in Baghdad or a rocket hitting a Lebanese school in real time – with an inflammatory interpretation of the incident flashed round the region within seconds. This electronic revolution is one new variable which has empowered extremists and sometimes widened the gap between those who are fluent in this medium and others who have yet to adapt fast enough.
Another has been interventions across national borders that, however well intentioned, can seem more like occupation than cooperation. Outside intervention has sometimes inadvertently provoked guerrilla groups to rise up – and sometimes deliberately encouraged them, as proxies for external powers.
We have been discussing six elements in the regional equation in our plenary sessions. They are, as you know:
· the US and Gulf security
· Regional perceptions of Gulf security
· The Gulf and the East
· Iraq
· The Gulf and Europe
· Iran and outside powers.
I would like to say a little about each. First the United States. Its voters have recently delivered their own verdict on how things have been going. I am more optimistic however, because I agree with Winston Churchill when he said: “The United States invariably does the right thing – having exhausted every other alternative.”
Like it or not, we can’t overcome the threat from extremism without America’s constructive engagement. But I am deliberately talking about the “threat from extremism” –not “the war on terror”. We are not fighting a conventional war against a conventional enemy. If we are to manage the threat, we must first assess it accurately. Nor would America lose by seeking just a little more insight into other hearts and minds. For example, many people would accept a lead from America who will not accept their unilateral dictation. Leadership takes account of the views and interests of others. America’s friends such as us – having exhausted the other alternatives – look to it to renew its faith in the value of partnership, which has served it and its allies so well in the past.
Now regional perceptions of Gulf security. Destabilisation and the arms race concern us all greatly – more about them later. Yet it is the seemingly more local issue of Palestine and Israel that transcends regional politics. It is a meta-issue because it is the perfect excuse for those who wish to destabilise the region. Extremists everywhere use it as fuel to flame the passions and threaten the peace.
It is a situation where intractable interests are in conflict. And it is one also where our region’s Doomsday Clock is moving towards midnight. Midnight will strike when, and if, the Israeli settlements in Palestine become so numerous and so deep rooted as to destroy the possibility of an independent Palestinian nation-state.
If a settlement were thus made impossible, peace would be impossible. The consequences would be felt far beyond Ramallah and Tel Aviv. That is why I believe we have to have world engagement in finding a solution. Not an occasional glance at a “road map” but a concerted, continual effort till a just solution is found.
This requires Palestinian leaders to help themselves by sinking their differences and forming a genuine government of national unity. Mahmoud Abbass must be permitted to negotiate on their behalf. They must renounce violence and they must accept the two-state solution. The rest of the Arab world has a duty to take the lead in facilitating the peace process. I am glad that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE are active in this cause.
The natural basis of course for this process is the King Abdulla Arab peace initiative of 2002. It remains as valid now as it was then. From our Americans friends, we need a willingness to be engaged and
even-handed.
And we need an end to the American sanctions against the Palestinian people just because they voted for Hamas. Do you believe in democracy – or only when your side wins? Do you win hearts and minds by stopping nurses and teachers and policemen from putting bread on their family’s table?
As for Israel, it must reverse its policy of creating what President Jimmy Carter has recently called an “apartheid state”. This is a blunt but accurate description of the desire of a minority of Israelis to colonise land that belongs to Palestinians. If the Israelis are to retain a portion of the West Bank, they must accept in return the ceding of a corresponding amount of land elsewhere. Palestine has a right to a contiguous and viable state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
Historically, we in this region have focused our attention primarily on the West. Now it is time we also focus on the new reality of the resurgent East. China, India and Pakistan in particular are rising superpowers. We look forward to building new bridges with them.
Next, Iraq - a catastrophe growing worse before our eyes. The worst calculation is that two thirds of a million have died since the invasion – men, women, children. The most optimistic – if that’s the right word - is that tens of thousands have been killed. The violence is increasing. Not decreasing. Some talk of the “Lebanisation” of Iraq – that is, a long and bloody civil war. Others talk of breaking the country in three, along ethnic lines.
We can safely say neither of these extreme outcomes was in the minds of those who launched the invasion, without a proper plan for the post-invasion. Is there another road to travel? What has happened in other countries when dictators have been defeated in war and their countries reduced to near collapse? There is no exact parallel. But perhaps we can learn a lesson from the aftermath of World War Two. When the victorious allies took over Germany and Japan, they had the confidence to stand back relatively quickly and encourage new, indigenous governments to emerge. The longer this is delayed in Iraq, the more insurgency, the more civic collapse, the more violence there will be. Self-government will be very painful initially. It is the worst option – except for the others. Iraqi self-government is the only way forward.
In present circumstances, the freedom of action of the Iraqi leadership is more limited than they would wish. Nevertheless, I would urge them, and I stand by them, in their attempt to solve four difficult but necessary steps:-
First, to reverse some of the excessive deBaathification that robbed Iraq of too many professionals it really can’t manage without. Second, to decide – one way or the other – what sort of federalism is wanted. Third, to deal firmly with the militias because they will destroy Iraq unless they are stopped. Finally, to sort out, in a fair and transparent way, who gets control of the oil. Don’t forget that Iraq’s oil gives it the potential to be one of the world’s most prosperous countries.
Now let us look at Iran. Iran engages our anxious attention because of its nuclear strategy. The strategic imbalance in the region is already serious. It would be made much worse by a even just the perception of a nuclear armed Iran. That is why a nuclear Iran is different in kind to a nuclear North Korea. North Korea is a small, impoverished country surrounded by powerful neighbours such as China, Japan and South Korea. Iran, by contrast, is a major regional power in military terms - even without nuclear weapons. Its oil resources make it a world power in energy terms. Iraq’s eclipse means that the natural balancing power has gone from Iran’s western flank.
How do we help Iran to see things differently, to feel that it can safely limit its ambitions to a defensive strategy? We need a continuous dialogue with Iran – not an occasional one - and a unified voice, so there is no doubt or ambiguity about our intentions. We need to widen the nuclear focus from just Iran to include the entire region. Our goal should be to make the whole of the Middle East a nuclear-free zone – Israel included. That way, Iran can achieve much of what it says it wants to achieve, without going nuclear.
Be in no doubt that the alternative to a nuclear–free Middle East is a Middle East arms race, with nuclear weapons as the goal. All of us in the region know what we should do in relation to the arms race. But we can’t do it alone. This is not because we don’t want to. But we have a history of mutual mistrust. And we are locked in one of those tragic situations where legitimate interests are in conflict. When that happens, it takes a third party to get involved – if the knot is ever to be untied.
So we need an outside body, a trusted third party, to mediate. The most obvious is the United Nations – the most obvious, but, alas, not the most effective. So this brings us to the remaining plenary topic: the Gulf and Europe. A more realistic alternative mediator, I suggest, is the European Union Three – the EU3 of France, Germany and the UK. They have demonstrated what they can do in negotiating with Iran in a principled and constructive way. The EU has an unmatched track record in supporting reform in Spain, Portugal, Greece and the post-communist states in eastern and central Europe.
But for this wider task the EU3 needs to be expanded and strengthened, with participation also from the post-election USA, from Russia, from India and perhaps China. We can all cite obstacles to a widened EU3 initiative. For example, will the EU itself choose instead to look inward and focus on Fortress Europe? But there are bigger obstacles to every other alternative - and we need to find a solution while we have time. Only by adopting a unifying, global response can we ever have success – failure, and a nuclear arms race, we daren’t have.
Our region, then, has several different problems. But they all interlock. We can’t unlock one in isolation from the others. Conversely, if we make progress on one, we create momentum for the others. Palestine should be an early priority because it powerfully influences how we in this region see ourselves and others. An enlarged EU3 should be an organisational priority because we need a process to turn the conceptual into the concrete.
In closing, I have focused today on our challenges. I don’t want you to ignore our opportunities. We are, in our many different ways, carrying out reforms and improvements in the Gulf, to build a better world for our young and ambitious populations. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do – but also because the sharing of prosperity and progress is the best antidote to the appeal of the extremists.
We are, and will stay, true to our traditions and our faith. But remember the message that our Great Prophet delivered was one of moral accountability and social justice – which it is our duty to reinterpret in ways that make life better for our people today.
Yes, we have strategic challenges. Dilemmas. Dangers. But we have great opportunities too. Provided, that is, we listen to each other and learn from each other. If we do, then things that now seem impossible will become merely improbable and finally – if we stay the course – they will become inevitable.
Thank you.
