Friday, October 22, 2010

The Levantine Union

The peace negotiations in the Middle East are not progressing with much promise, and it seems that a completely new approach is needed.

The Middle East is a name referring to a location relative to Europe; it should perhaps have its own name to create an image of independence. The Levant is a name by which the region has been known for centuries, and which implies the rising sun. It is also flexible in that it can include any number of countries.

Peace treaties have never lasted very long throughout history. They were broken for different reasons, but usually it was a matter of power and the monarch’s ego. The general population had no say in the decisions, but was persuaded to follow the leader. Immanuel Kant, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and before them Charles de Montesquieu thought that peace could not prevail in a monarchy. They said, that only when the people become “citizens”, that is when they have a democratic right to participate in the national decision making processes, would it be possible to achieve a lasting peace.

I am suggesting that the troubles of the Middle-East could ultimately be resolved by the formation of a Levantine Union, similar to the European Union. In principle, the Levantine Union would be a society of peoples that has formed a social contract for their co-existence.

The American socio-political philosopher, John Rawls, suggested a way how populations could form a society of peoples. He suggested that this could only happen between “well ordered” peoples, which means that they are liberal, democratic, pluralistic, and just. To start with, using John Rawls’ classification, there will be ‘‘well-ordered peoples’, plus ‘outlaw states’ and ‘peoples burdened by unfavourable conditions’. The well-ordered peoples will fit immediately into the requirements that can fulfil prerequisites for entry into a ‘social contract’ between them in the formation of a society of peoples. For the remainder, it will require time and eduction to bring them along towards adopting the principles of human rights and tolerance that will ultimately allow them to qualify for participating in the society of peoples. An important point in the considerations by the society of peoples for dealing with a rogue state is that there must be a distinction between its leaders and officials on the one side and the civilian population on the other, as the latter will usually not have the power to influence the leaders’ actions.

Going back to the example of the European Union. The EU was an attempt to break the cycle of bitter hostilities in Europe between historically bitter enemies . They were brought together by three men: the French member of Parliament at times prime minister or foreign minister, Robert Schumann, the Belgian politician Paul-Henri Spaak, and the German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. These men where visionary leaders with persistence and courage. All of them changed the path of history towards peace.

On a smaller scale, there were other countries, bitterly divided, where men with vision and great ethic managed to create peace.

The division and hatred in Ireland was after centuries of bloodshed brought to a situation of consensus by Tony Blair and a dedicated team from both sides. The division and hatred that had beset South Africa as a result of the policy of apartheid was brought to a peaceful consensus between the opposing sides by Albie Sachs, judge on the Constitutional Court, and Nelson Mandela.

The Levant cannot expect to achieve a lasting peace treaty, because the entrenched political views resist any sacrifice towards peace that would diminish the autonomy of each state. In all of the above historic cases the situation was one of continuing disasters, and the peoples were ready for drastic action. I believe that the majority of people in the Levant want peace, and would welcome a new approach to achieve it.

To form a Levantine Union would first of all require an influential, visionary leader that understands the politics and culture of the peoples involved (and I have at least one such person in mind). Then the following guidelines would have to be followed:
• The negotiations must take place on the basis of “communicative action” (Jürgen Habermas), where all participants are equal, and where financial or military power is ignored;
• All participants must be willing to negotiate for the common good;
• All nations must be willing to give up some of their autonomy, which will then be pooled to achieve a common constitution;
• Voting will be on an equal basis per nation, not influenced by the number of the population;
• Each people will be able to have its own laws, subject to an overriding constitutional law of human rights.
The advantage of this to all participants is their greater international voice, their sharing of wealth, retaining their individual history, language and culture, and of course, peace.

Rawls’, concentrating on the political aspects of such a society of peoples, talks of an overlapping consensus” as a result of successful political, social and philosophical discourse through communicative action taking place in the formulation and interpretation of laws. This relies on faith in reason, and would, in my opinion, only be a first step towards true consensus, which requires the removal of those irreconcilable clauses in comprehensive doctrines, both religious and secular, that would otherwise remain as an underlying cause of friction. This can only take place if those clauses are modified to conform with the UN charter of human rights. It is matter of give and take for the common good.