A MULTILATERAL MR. BUSH

 Editorial de  “The Washington Post” del 23.01.2004

President Bush didn't expand, in his State of the Union address, on how he plans to promote democratization in the greater Middle East, beyond a worthy proposal to double funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. But the White House is considering several potentially important new initiatives. One envisions a charter for freedom for the Middle East -- a mutual commitment by countries in the region to embrace the principles and institutions of democracy, linked to a follow-up process. Another centers on a possible program by NATO to forge training and other security cooperation agreements with Arab states. A third would promote economic links between Middle Eastern countries and the United States and European Union. The ideas are nascent and face a few obstacles. But the fact that the administration is discussing them with key European governments is encouraging.

One important advantage of the initiatives is that they are based on democratization programs that proved successful during and after the Cold War in Europe. The Middle East freedom charter would build on the model of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, an East-West security agreement that formally committed the Soviet Union and its satellites to respecting human rights and provided for monitoring and follow-up diplomacy. The "Helsinki process" played a critical role in the rise of indigenous pro-democracy groups in communist states. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, NATO's Partnership for Peace program helped to reform the military and security institutions of the East Bloc and encouraged a transition to democracy. So did the economic partnership agreements negotiated by the European Union.

Unlike the war in Iraq or the transitional mission that has followed it, the democracy programs are designed to be multilateral and would probably attract bipartisan support in the United States. They envision the United States joining with European governments, including those that opposed the war, in a long-term effort to encourage change that would be conducted through transatlantic institutions -- which would be invigorated by a vital new mission. The White House did not cook up its ideas in isolation: Discussions about a Helsinki-like initiative in the Middle East or a role for NATO have been underway in think tanks and ad hoc groups for some time. Two weeks ago Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards proposed a similar set of ideas; other candidates, including retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, have endorsed the same principles.

At best, the Middle East initiatives could form the basis for a common European-American strategy for addressing one of the world's most serious challenges. For now, the White House's soundings of European governments have generated interest and skepticism. European policymakers tend to doubt whether Mr. Bush's goal of democratic government in the Middle East is achievable in the near future; they also point out that Arab governments might be reluctant to sign up for cooperation with NATO or pledge themselves to political change. Some European officials appear interested in pursuing a diplomacy toward the Middle East that is distinctly separate from Washington's. That would be unfortunate. It will be hard enough for Western governments working together to address the political and economic malaise that lies at the root of the Middle East's extremist and terrorist movements. The Bush administration's attempt to forge a policy that is both ambitious and multilateral is the right approach.