Adjusting to a New Era of U.S.-MENA Relations
On May 27, 2021, GPII and the American University in Cairo (AUC) will co-host an online event, “What the Future Holds: A Discussion on US-Arab Relations.” This event represents the kickoff of an ongoing conversation series about the future of U.S.-Arab relations. Information about that event is below.
However, this discussion will carefully examine various topics and challenges in U.S.- Arab relations - evolving security threats, climate change, terrorism, trade and economic interdependence, education and cultural relations, the purpose of foreign aid, human rights and governance, and state-to-state relations. We expect this exercise will not only highlight how much the parameters of the Middle East have changed, but also offer prescriptions as to how policies should be adjusted in Washington and capitals across the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region.
It has been nearly 43 years since President Jimmy Carter brokered the Camp David Accords. The accords, that are in fact two separate agreements, outlined the contours of an Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement and addressed the Palestinian question. While the Palestinian agreement was never fully implemented, the accords themselves – and the era we will call the Camp David era – established the parameters of the modern Middle East and Washington’s role in it. What are some of these parameters?
- Prevention of a Large-scale Regional War Involving Israel
Camp David permanently ended the possibility of a large-scale war between the Arab states and Israel. Egypt was the largest and most formidable Arab army; without Egyptian involvement, any conventional Arab war against Israel was doomed.
- U.S. Support for Arab-Israel Peace Processes
Washington became the central player in brokering peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors. President George H.W. Bush restarted Arab-Israel dialog at the Madrid Conference in 1991. Washington had a hand in the 1994 Jordan-Israel peace treaty, a series of Israeli-Palestinian agreements, and bringing Syria and Israel together in ultimately unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a deal.
- Foreign Assistance to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan
While Washington doled out foreign aid to the region prior to Camp David, the amount of assistance escalated rapidly in the years since. Today, Israel receives $3.3 billion annually, and Egypt $1.2 billion. In 2020, Jordan received $1.5 billion in U.S. assistance. The aid has cemented Washington’s role in the region, but also created expectations about the policies of aid recipients.
- Israel’s Military Edge
Israel maintains the most powerful military in the region, with the United States providing massive amounts of foreign assistance – most of military aid – thus ensuring its qualitative military edge over any combination of Arab (or Iranian) armies. In practical terms, Washington guarantees Israel has access to technologically advanced American weapons systems; Arab allies usually receive less-advanced systems.
- Isolation of Iran
Just months after Camp David, the Shah fled Iran, leading to the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the hostage crisis, and decades of ill will between Washington and Tehran. A revolutionary “Islamic” republic, particularly a Shiite one, represents an existential threat to Gulf monarchies, Israel, and other secular Arab states.
- American Protection of the Persian Gulf
The threat of Iran and dependence upon Arab oil have led to increased U.S. security commitments to the Gulf. Carter issued the Carter Doctrine, which stated the U.S. would use military force if necessary to defend its interests in the Gulf. U.S. military involvement in the Gulf has remained constant ever since.
- Human Rights
President Carter made the promotion of human rights a priority issue in the American foreign policy. How exactly human rights applies to the Middle East has remained vague.
Each of these points, and many others not included, must be reexamined. Indeed, how Washington sees the region, how the region sees it, and how the region sees itself, is very different today than in 1978, 1998, or 2010. Some say the United States has two-dimensional policies for a three-dimensional world – that new approaches have not been adapted, embraced, or in many cases proposed.
Should the U.S. have a transactional relationship with the region? What does an “Asian pivot” mean for the region? What tools will Washington use to meet today’s challenges? Meanwhile, a decade after the “Arab Spring” protests, there is uncertainty as to where the MENA region is headed. What role does the Arab world expect Washington to play? How will Arab states interact with each other, the non-Arab states of the region, and the global community?
GPII looks forward to including UCF students and faculty, members of our community, and our MENA regional partners – especially at AUC – in this important discussion during the coming year. We hope you can join us on May 27, 2021 and please stay tuned for the next phases of this discussion and activities that spring from it.
– David Dumke, Executive Director, UCF Global Perspectives and International Initiatives
