The NATO-Med dialogue: An initiative that must succeed

  Mohammad K. Shiyyab

In the coming years, extra-regional powers, above all the United States, will retain a large stake in the Middle East and Mediterranean security. American and European institutions have profoundly impacted the development of the modern Middle East, and, for better or worse, they will continue to play an integral role in the region. Hard and soft security issues in our region will be difficult, if not impossible, to address without engaging these extra-regional actors.

The NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue was launched in 1994 and thus far includes seven countries in the North Africa and Middle East region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. One of the main objectives of the dialogue is to foster practical cooperation on issues relating to security, areas where NATO has a recognized comparative advantage. During the last decade, discussions have focused mainly on peacekeeping issues, arms control, small arms and light weapons, environmental protection, civil-military cooperation for civil-emergency planning, crisis management and military cooperation. For all that, however, the dialogue is still far from realizing its full potential.

Unfortunately, NATO has a poor image in many of the dialogue countries, stemming from a lack of trust and communication that ultimately hinders cooperative efforts in the region. This is extremely important because many observers in the dialogue countries fear NATO plans to create an intervention force basically aimed at their dialogue partners. It is incumbent upon NATO therefore to provide the political elites and opinion-makers in the dialogue countries with a better sense of the organization's true goals and purposes.

Because the MENA region faces many uncertainties, it is vital that the dialogue succeeds. Serious attempts should be made to reconcile a history of mistrust between the region and the West. The goals of the dialogue must be clearly defined to serve the needs of both sides. In this context, inviting Libya, Syria and Lebanon to join the dialogue should be considered. Libya seems to have moderated its international behavior and made positive progress toward normalizing its relations with both Europe and the United States. Syria also is a member of the Euro-Med partnership and could be a potential candidate down the road. The same is true for Lebanon.

In addition, the NATO-Med dialogue should focus on establishing effective confidence and security building measures to enhance peace and stability in the Mediterranean region. Further, it should implement measures to deal with and eliminate the root causes of instability and terrorism. NATO needs to promote democracy and respect for human rights. It should also enhance dialogue toward a better mutual understanding of cultures, religious interfaith and civilizations of the people of the Euro-Mediterranean region.

Finally, in the face of current security threats, it is clear that conflict prevention is a far wiser strategy as well as less costly in human and material terms than conflict management and the inevitable consequences. No one in the two regions is immune to the strife and turmoil that much of the Med-basin lives under. The question then becomes, is NATO willing to marshal the adequate resources to make this policy option more appealing to the governments of the partner states? - Published 17/2/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org

General (rtd.) Mohammad K. Shiyyab is director general of the Cooperative Monitoring Center, Amman.