Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue

Middle East was <strong>the</strong> right way to address <strong>the</strong> perceived threat.
When asked: “In <strong>the</strong> long run, will <strong>the</strong> US be safer from
terrorism if it confronts <strong>the</strong> countries <strong>and</strong> groups that promote
terrorism in <strong>the</strong> Middle East,” or “if it stays out of o<strong>the</strong>r
countries' affairs in <strong>the</strong> Middle East?”, 38% affirmed <strong>the</strong>
first option <strong>and</strong> 54% <strong>the</strong> second.
Iraq <strong>and</strong> Iran
Iraq represented <strong>the</strong> most obvious failure of dialogue in
2006-2007, both domestically <strong>and</strong> internationally. Successful
democratic elections in December 2005 gave rise to a new
government committed to national unity. But interest-conflict
within <strong>and</strong> among <strong>the</strong> Shia majority <strong>and</strong> Sunni <strong>and</strong> Kurdish
minorities, each with its own regional base of support,
prevented <strong>the</strong> implementation of effective political <strong>and</strong>
economic reforms. The bombing of <strong>the</strong> Samarra mosque
by Sunni extremists in February 2006 led to an escalation
of sectarian violence that fur<strong>the</strong>r deepened political divisions.
The US troop build up dampened <strong>the</strong> level of violence over
<strong>the</strong> course of 2007.
Dialogue among Iraq’s religious <strong>and</strong> political factions to
arrive at compromises that might ensure stability <strong>and</strong>
facilitate an eventual US withdrawal did not materialize.
Efforts at <strong>the</strong> level of civil society have also had limited
impact. The Iraqi Institute of Peace, forexample,is
working under difficult conditions to foster dialogue among
Muslims <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Christian minority <strong>and</strong> to engage <strong>the</strong>
media in an effort to streng<strong>the</strong>n civil society. At <strong>the</strong> level of
international diplomacy, effective dialogue <strong>and</strong> negotiations
have yet to take place. The Bush administration initially
rejected <strong>the</strong> recommendations of <strong>the</strong> December 2006
<strong>Report</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Iraq Study Group to bring Iraq’s neighbours
–Iraninparticular–intoadialogueabout<strong>the</strong>situationin
Iraq <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> region.
It was around Iran <strong>and</strong> its nuclear programme that <strong>the</strong> mix
of dialogue <strong>and</strong> confrontation with <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong> was <strong>the</strong> most
explosive in 2007. While <strong>the</strong> issues were international in
scope – for example, Iran’s obligations under <strong>the</strong> Non-
Proliferation Treaty – <strong>the</strong> major players were Teheran <strong>and</strong>
Washington. The Bush administration insisted that Iran halt
its programme <strong>and</strong> accept international controls as a
precondition for bilateral dialogue. Iran, under its President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pressed for talks without
preconditions.
In an open letter dated May 2006, Ahmadinejad invited
Bush into a dialogue based on shared Abrahamic principles.
“All prophets speak of peace <strong>and</strong> tranquility for man – based
on mono<strong>the</strong>ism, justice <strong>and</strong> respect for human dignity,” he
wrote. “Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in
<strong>and</strong> abide by <strong>the</strong>se principles, that is, mono<strong>the</strong>ism, worship
of God, justice, respect for <strong>the</strong> dignity of man, belief in <strong>the</strong>
Last Day, we can overcome <strong>the</strong> present problems of <strong>the</strong>
world – that are <strong>the</strong> result of disobedience to <strong>the</strong> Almighty <strong>and</strong>
<strong>the</strong> teachings of prophets – <strong>and</strong> improve our performance?”
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, noting that <strong>the</strong>
letter did not address key strategic issues dividing <strong>the</strong> two
countries, dismissed it as “very philosophical.” The
administration later criticized Columbia University for
inviting Ahmadinejad to speak on campus in October
2007, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> next month Bush evoked <strong>the</strong> spectre of
World War III if Iran’s nuclear ambitions went unchecked.
“Blending culture <strong>and</strong> religion
with diplomacy <strong>and</strong> conflict
resolution, while difficult, can
add to <strong>the</strong> power of dialogue.
And public dialogue can
sometimes, in a short moment,
have dramatic impact for
thous<strong>and</strong>s of people.”
Marc Gopin
Over this period, European efforts to advance dialogue
with Iran to help prevent a possible US-Iran war over <strong>the</strong>
nuclear question came to very little. In 2003, Iran had
cancelled its Comprehensive Dialogue with <strong>the</strong> European
Union in protest against efforts to advance human rights
within <strong>the</strong> country. Ahmadinejad’s subsequent references to
<strong>the</strong> destruction of Israel <strong>and</strong> his vocal denial of <strong>the</strong>
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>: <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on <strong>the</strong> State of Dialogue International Politics
33