The Middle East - Freedom's unsteady March

>> THE MILITARY COUP IN EGYPT MAY BE SEEN AS A FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY OR A SIGN EGYPTIANS ARE STILL LOOKING FOR THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT THEY WANT. WHAT THE U.S. MAY DO TO FURTHER ITS AGENDA IN THE MIDDLE EAST, NEXT ON "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES." >> THIS IS "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES," WITH PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING COMMENTATOR JOHN BERSIA. >> WELCOME TO "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES." WHAT'S IN A NAME? JULIET'S ROSE MAY SMELL AS SWEET, BUT CAN THE SAME BE SAID FOR A MILITARY COUP? WHEN EGYPT'S MILITARY REMOVED THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT, MOHAMED MORSI, FROM OFFICE, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT CALL IT A COUP. A COUP WOULD HAVE MANDATED AN END TO U.S. AID TO OUR ALLIES IN THE EGYPTIAN MILITARY. ONCE IT WAS CLEAR THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE TO CALL IT, THE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED A PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF THE AID. OUR GUEST TODAY, TAMARA WITTES, DIRECTOR OF THE SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON WHAT SHE CALLS "FREEDOM'S UNSTEADY MARCH IN THE ARAB WORLD" AND CAN HELP US SORT OUT THE IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS ON AMERICA'S STANDING IN THE MIDDLE EAST. HELLO, TAMARA. WELCOME TO THE SHOW. >> THANK YOU. IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE. >> YOU WERE ACTUALLY BORN IN WHAT CAN BE DEFINED AS THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST? >> ABSOLUTELY. MY FATHER WAS A U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, SERVING IN ANKARA, TURKEY, AND SO, THAT'S WHERE I MADE MY APPEARANCE. I GUESS I'VE HAD IT IN THE BLOOD. >> SO, DID YOU EVER ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WOULD BE SPENDING A GOOD PART OF YOUR CAREER ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON THE REGION? >> ACTUALLY, WHEN I WENT TO GRADUATE SCHOOL, AND I WAS GETTING TO WORK ON WHAT WOULD BE MY DISSERTATION TOPIC, I THOUGHT I WOULD TRY TO GET AWAY FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AND WORK ON SOME OTHER PART OF THE WORLD. BUT IT JUST KEPT DRAWING ME BACK. >> SO, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY HAS BEEN YOUR MOST MEMORABLE EXPERIENCE THERE, GOOD OR BAD? >> SO MANY GREAT MEMORIES AS A CHILD, SPENDING SUMMERS IN TURKEY, IN SAUDI ARABIA, WITH MY DAD, STUDYING IN ISRAEL. I THINK I'LL PROBABLY NEVER FORGET WALKING THROUGH DOWNTOWN JERUSALEM WITH A FRIEND WHO WAS LISTENING TO HIS RADIO THROUGH AN EARPIECE. THIS WAS AUGUST 1990. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, HE STOPPED DEAD IN HIS TRACKS, AND HE SAID, "SADDAM HUSSEIN INVADED KUWAIT." AND THAT MADE THE REST OF MY TIME IN ISRAEL, WHICH LASTED ANOTHER FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS, AT THAT POINT, VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I EXPECTED. >> SEEMS IN MANY WAYS, THAT WAS SORT OF THE STARTING POINT FOR A LOT OF THE NONSTOP ACTIVITY AND FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE EAST THAT WE'VE HAD FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF DECADES. IT WAS SUCH A DEFINING MOMENT IN TERMS OF THE REGION AND THEN THE RESPONSE TO IT, AS WELL -- A VERY UNUSUAL COALITION OF PARTIES THAT PARTICIPATED EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO PUSH SADDAM HUSSEIN OUT OF KUWAIT. AFTER THAT CONFLICT WAS OVER, DID YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A FLOWERING OF THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS, AS WE DID, OR WERE YOU MORE RESERVED? >> YOU KNOW, IT WAS A UNIQUE MOMENT IN HISTORY IN SO MANY WAYS. THE BERLIN WALL HAD FALLEN. THE SOVIET UNION WAS DISINTEGRATING. AND AMERICA REALLY WAS UNCHALLENGED IN THE WHOLE GLOBAL ORDER. AND SO, THE INCREDIBLE COALITION THAT WAS ASSEMBLED ULTIMATELY IN THAT IRAQ WAR I THINK WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE AT ANY OTHER MOMENT. AND SIMILARLY THE STANDING OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WAKE OF THAT WAR TO PUSH SADDAM OUT OF KUWAIT ENABLED IT TO SET SOME EXPECTATIONS FOR SECURITY IN THE GULF, TO SET SOME EXPECTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN, AND TO SET SOME EXPECTATIONS, ALSO, FOR THE ARAB/ISRAELI PEACE PROCESS. NOW, IT DIDN'T EXACTLY PLAY OUT THE WAY THE UNITED STATES HAD PLANNED. THE MADRID PROCESS, THAT WAS LAUNCHED WITH SUCH FANFARE, IS NOT WHAT PRODUCED AN ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN AGREEMENT. IT WAS ULTIMATELY A BACK-CHANNEL NEGOTIATION. BUT I THINK THOSE BROADER GLOBAL TRENDS WERE WHAT CREATED THE ENVIRONMENT THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE. >> AND THEN IT ALL CAME TO AN END ALMOST AS QUICKLY AS IT HAD STARTED AND WITH A LOT OF PIECES UNRESOLVED, AND WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THOSE TODAY. WERE YOU AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE END OF THAT PERIOD OF PROGRESS IN MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS, WERE YOU OPTIMISTIC THAT THINGS WOULD RESUME? >> THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE REAL HUMAN BEINGS, ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS ON THE GROUND, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COMPLICATED AND ENTANGLED AND DIFFICULT AND EMOTIONALLY LADEN. AND SO, INEVITABLY, RESOLVING THIS CONFLICT HAS BEEN AND WILL BE A TORTUOUS PROCESS, PAINFUL FOR BOTH SOCIETIES. AND YET THEY KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN LIVING TOGETHER, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO LIVE TOGETHER. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT REMAIN FROM THE OSLO DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES FROM THOSE AGREEMENTS THAT CAN NEVER, I THINK, BE TAKEN AWAY -- THE PLO's RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST IN PEACE AND SECURITY, ISRAEL'S RECOGNITION OF THE PLO AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. THESE THINGS STILL STAND. AND BOTH SIDES CONTINUE TO EMBRACE, BOTH AT THE GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL, BUT ALSO AMONGST THE PUBLIC, CONTINUE TO EMBRACE BY MAJORITIES A TWO-STATE SOLUTION. IT'S HOW WE GET FROM "A" TO "B" THAT'S STILL AT ISSUE. AND SO, I'M HOPEFUL THAT BOTH OF THESE SOCIETIES RECOGNIZE THAT THE WAY THEY CAN LIVE FOR THEMSELVES SUCCESSFULLY, WITH STABILITY, WITH PROSPERITY, IS TO ACHIEVE THAT HISTORIC PEACE, ALTHOUGH IT WILL BE PAINFUL. >> SINCE THAT TIME PERIOD, IN THE MID-'90s TO THE PRESENT, WE'VE HAD 9/11, WE'VE HAD TWO MAJOR WARS, AND NOW THE ARAB SPRING PHENOMENON -- SO, A LOT OF CHANGE AND TUMULTUOUSNESS IN THE REGION. HOW HAS ALL OF THAT AFFECTED THE PROSPECTS FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION AND OF OTHER THINGS? WILL IT ULTIMATELY BE EASIER, OR HAS IT MADE THINGS INFINITELY COMPLICATED? >> HONESTLY, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE EITHER WAY. YOU COULD SAY THAT THE ISRAELI LEADERSHIP AND THE PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP, LOOKING AT THE TURMOIL ALL AROUND THEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD SAY, "WHY ON EARTH IS THIS A GOOD ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO TAKE THE KIND OF RISKS WE NEED TO TAKE FOR PEACE? WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THOSE WE NEED TO SUPPORT US WILL BE WITH US, OR WHETHER THEY'LL BE DISTRACTED BY SOME OTHER CRISIS. WE'RE NOT SURE IF THOSE OTHER CRISES MIGHT POUR ACROSS INTO OUR BORDERS." LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE SYRIAN WAR ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, YOU CAN MAKE THAT CASE THAT THIS IS THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME TO TRY AND ACHIEVE A TWO-STATE SOLUTION TO THIS CONFLICT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN A REGION BESET BY SUCH TUMULT AND VIOLENCE AND UNCERTAINTY, ALL OF THE ACTORS IN THE REGION AND THE UNITED STATES ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS THAT THEY CAN ANCHOR STABILITY IN THE REGION. AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN PEACE WOULD BE A POWERFUL PUSH IN THE DIRECTION OF REGIONAL STABILITY. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT EGYPT. EGYPT WAS THE FIRST OF THE ARAB COUNTRIES TO ENTER INTO A PEACE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL AND HAS BEEN SEEN AS PART OF THAT STABLE SYSTEM WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO CREATE. BUT THE EGYPT OF TODAY IS NOT THE EGYPT THAT ENTERED INTO THAT AGREEMENT, AND THERE ARE SOME IN EGYPT WHO SEEMINGLY WOULD MOVE AWAY FROM THAT. >> WELL, LET ME SAY FIRST THAT WHILE THE PEACE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL HAS NEVER BEEN POPULAR IN EGYPT, I THINK EGYPTIANS KNOW, AND CERTAINLY OLDER EGYPTIANS KNOW, THAT THEY FOUGHT WARS WITH ISRAEL IN 1948, IN 1956, IN 1967, 1973. AND THAT PEACE AGREEMENT HAS SAVED MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF EGYPTIANS FROM THE SCOURGE OF WAR. IT HAS ALLOWED THEM TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY COULD FOCUS ON THEIR OWN INTERNAL SOCIETY AND POLITICS AND THEIR OWN NEEDS. AND SO, I THINK EGYPTIANS KNOW THAT THIS PEACE IS IN THEIR INTERESTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NEVER LOVE ISRAEL. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. NOW, AS FOR EGYPT'S FUTURE ITSELF, IT'S A VERY UNCERTAIN PATH. THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT BEFORE THE REVOLUTION BEGAN WAS BESET BY SOME REALLY DEEP-SEATED ECONOMIC CHALLENGES, SOCIETAL CHALLENGES -- ILLITERACY, POOR QUALITY OF EDUCATION, EDUCATION THAT DIDN'T MATCH THE NEEDS OF THE LABOR MARKET. AND YOU COMBINE THAT WITH THE FACT THAT 20% OF THE POPULATION WAS LIVING ON LESS THAN $2 A DAY, WITH THIS RISING GENERATION OF EDUCATED UNIVERSITY GRADUATES WHO COULDN'T FIND JOBS AND HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TAKING SOME JOB PUSHING A STREET CART OR DRIVING A TAXI OR LEAVING THE COUNTRY THAT THEY LOVE, WHERE THEY WANTED TO SPEND THEIR FUTURE. ALL OF THAT WAS A BACKGROUND TO WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 25th. NOW, WOULD THOSE SOCIOECONOMIC PRESSURES HAVE PRODUCED A REVOLUTION IF THERE HAD BEEN A DIFFERENT KIND OF GOVERNMENT, A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD MADE THOSE ECONOMIC ISSUES A PRIORITY, A GOVERNMENT THAT HADN'T REPRESSED THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS TO THE DEGREE THAT THE MUBARAK REGIME DID? I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED A REVOLUTION. BUT EGYPT TODAY IS TRYING TO BUILD A NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM WHILE IT'S STILL DEALING WITH THAT TERRIBLY DIFFICULT SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT. IT'S A VERY PRESSURED ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO MAKE BIG DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THE STATE WILL BE GOVERNED AND WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES IT OWES TO ITS CITIZENS. SO, I THINK THIS IS GONNA TAKE A LONG TIME. I THINK IT'S GONNA BE VERY CONFLICTUAL BECAUSE EGYPTIANS ARE QUITE DIVIDED ABOUT WHAT KIND OF FUTURE THEY WANT. BUT I THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T WANT. THEY DON'T WANT ANOTHER AUTOCRATIC REGIME. THEY WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT IS RESPONSIBLE TO THEM AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THEM. AND SO, I THINK EVENTUALLY THEY WILL FIND THEIR WAY THERE. >> AS THE OVERTHROW OF MORSI WAS DEVELOPING AND THEN HAPPENING, WHAT WAS YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH? DO YOU THINK THAT AS A GROUP, THE MAJORITY BELIEVED THAT THE NEW GOVERNMENT WAS SIMPLY MOVING IN AUTHORITARIAN DIRECTION THAT WAS GOING TO BE JUST A DIFFERENT VERSION OF WHAT THEY HAD HAD, AND IT WAS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS TO REMOVE IT BEFORE IT GOT TOO ENTRENCHED? OR WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE AT PLAY? >> THE THING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO DISCERN IS WHETHER THIS BROTHERHOOD-LED GOVERNMENT WAS DRIVEN BY IDEOLOGY, OR WHETHER IT WAS JUST ACTING THE WAY A LOT OF NEWLY ELECTED GOVERNMENTS IN POST-AUTHORITARIAN CONTEXTS ACT, WHICH IS THAT IT GOT INTO POWER, AND IT WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT COULD STAY THERE. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTIONS THAT THAT GOVERNMENT WAS TAKING, THERE'S NO QUESTION THERE WERE REAL RED FLAGS THERE FOR ANYONE CONCERNED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION -- NOT ONLY THE EXTRAJUDICIAL DECREE THAT MOHAMED MORSI MADE IN NOVEMBER OF 2012, WHEN HE DECREED HIS ACTIONS ABOVE THE LAW AND PUSHED THROUGH A CONSTITUTION OVERRIDING ANY SEMBLANCE OF COMPROMISE, BUT ALSO THE LAWS THAT HIS PARTY WERE PUSHING IN PARLIAMENT -- A LAW TO CONTAIN AND RESTRICT PUBLIC PROTESTS, A LAW TO EVISCERATE THE JUDICIARY, A LAW TO CLAMP DOWN ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND EGYPT'S VIBRANT CIVIL SOCIETY. THESE ARE MARKERS OF A GOVERNMENT THAT'S TRYING TO IMPOSE CONTROL OVER THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF ITS CITIZENS. AND, OF COURSE, THAT WAS OF CONCERN. >> DO YOU FEEL THE UNITED STATES RESPONDED IN THE RIGHT WAY? >> I THINK THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF SIGNS EARLY ON THAT THE MORSI GOVERNMENT WAS HAVING TROUBLE LIVING UP TO THE PROMISES IT HAD MADE TO EGYPTIANS ABOUT WORKING IN AN INCLUSIVE WAY, ABOUT FINDING COMPROMISE WITH THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS. AND I THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD HAVE DONE MORE EARLY ON TO SAY, "YOU'RE NOT LIVING UP TO THE PROMISES YOU HAVE MADE TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE" AND ALSO TO NOTE WHERE THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD LAID OUT BY WHICH IT SAID IT WOULD JUDGE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT. SO, I THINK THE U.S. WAS A BIT SLOW PERHAPS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS GOVERNMENT WAS ON THE WRONG PATH. BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK YOU DID SEE CRITICISM, STARTING AROUND JANUARY, FEBRUARY OF 2013 -- CRITICISMS OF THE MORSI GOVERNMENT, OF ITS ACTIONS, OF ITS PRIORITIES AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEED FOR BARGAINING AND COMPROMISE. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT'S CLEAR IN RETROSPECT THAT THE MORSI GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER REALLY INTERESTED IN FINDING A COMPROMISE WITH ITS POLITICAL RIVALS. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FUTURE HOLDS? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE'LL BE MOVING BACK ON THE PATH OF DEMOCRATIC REFORM IN EGYPT, OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A LONG PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY? >> WELL, I FEAR THAT IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME FOR EGYPT TO GET BACK ON THAT PATH. THE TRANSITION ROADMAP THAT'S BEEN LAID OUT SINCE THE MILITARY TAKEOVER, I THINK, DOESN'T PROMISE A DEMOCRATIC PATH. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF EGYPTIANS FEEL THEMSELVES EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROCESS. THEY FEEL THAT THOSE IN POWER DON'T WANT THEM IN THIS PROCESS, AND I THINK THAT THEY HAVE SOME GROUNDS FOR FEELING THAT WAY. SO, YOU CAN'T HAVE A PLURALISTIC SYSTEM WHEN THERE'S A LARGE CHUNK OF THE POPULATION THAT FEELS NO STAKE IN IT AND THE SYSTEM FEELS NO STAKE IN THEM. >> AND NOW WE HAVE, IN SOME WAYS, AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM TAKING PLACE IN SYRIA. ONE OF THE ENDURING TRUISMS OF THE MIDDLE EAST ALWAYS WAS THERE'S NO WAR WITHOUT EGYPT AND NO PEACE WITHOUT SYRIA. AND THAT WAS IN THE ARAB/ISRAELI CONTEXT. BUT NOW IT SEEMS THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR SYRIA TO DISRUPT THE ENTIRE REGION IS GREATER THAN EVER. AND THERE WERE SOME WHO THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS INTERNAL, THE BEST APPROACH WAS TO SIMPLY LET IT BURN ITSELF OUT. BUT IT'S NOT BURNING ITSELF OUT, AND THE IMPACT THAT IT'S HAVING, AS IT SPILLS OVER INTO ALL THE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES, SEEMS TO HAVE PUT THE REGION IN ONE OF ITS WORST CRISES IN YEARS. >> I THINK SYRIA HAS BECOME A CRUCIBLE FOR A LOT OF THE FAULT LINES THAT EXIST ACROSS THE REGION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, AND VERY SADLY FOR THE SYRIAN PEOPLE, IT'S BECOME A PROXY WAR FOR A LOT OF THE FORCES IN THE REGION WHO ARE ARGUING OVER WHAT THE FUTURE SHAPE OF THE MIDDLE EAST SHOULD BE. AND SO, YOU HAVE IRAN AND HEZBOLLAH ON THE ONE SIDE BACKING UP BASHAR AL-ASSAD IN HIS BRUTAL ASSAULT AGAINST HIS OWN CIVILIAN POPULATION. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU HAVE THE SUNNI STATES OF THE GULF SUPPORTING MILITIAS WHO HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT BUT I THINK IN MANY WAYS A VERY DARK VISION FOR SYRIA'S FUTURE THAT IS ALSO EXCLUSIONARY AND WOULD ALSO REST ON A DEGREE OF COERCION, I THINK, TO ENFORCE A SORT OF SUNNI PRIMACY. IF IT WERE JUST A CIVIL WAR, THAT WOULD BE TRAGIC ENOUGH. THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT ENOUGH TO RESOLVE, AND IT WOULD HAVE TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF REFUGEE FLOWS AND SO ON FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT IT'S NOT JUST A CIVIL WAR. IT'S A PROXY WAR NOW. >> AND SOME OF THOSE COUNTRIES THAT ARE INVOLVED ARE U.S. ALLIES AND VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN THE UNITED STATES ACTING WITH A GREATER SENSE OF URGENCY AND MORE AGGRESSIVELY TO CONFRONT THIS PROBLEM. BUT COULD IT HAVE ACTED IN ANY OTHER WAY, OR IS THIS THE BEST THAT CAN BE DONE? >> YOU COULD PROBABLY DRIVE YOURSELF CRAZY WITH COUNTERFACTUALS ABOUT WHAT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT HAVE DONE ABOUT SYRIA AT AN EARLIER PHASE OF THIS CRISIS AND HOW THAT MIGHT HAVE PLAYED OUT. BUT ONCE WHAT HAD BEEN -- AND I HAVE TO SAY HAD BEEN A VERY DISCIPLINED, PEACEFUL CIVIL-RESISTANCE MOVEMENT IN SYRIA, BEGINNING IN MARCH 2011, LASTING WELL INTO THE YEAR. BUT ONCE THAT PEACEFUL CIVIL RESISTANCE MOVEMENT WAS OVERWHELMED BY AN ARMED REBELLION THAT EMERGED IN THE FACE OF ASSAD'S VIOLENT REACTION, THEN I THINK IT BECAME VERY DIFFICULT TO SETTLE IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN VICTORY. MOST CIVIL WARS DO NOT END THROUGH SOME SORT OF PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT. MOST OF THEM END ULTIMATELY THROUGH VICTORY BY ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. THAT'S JUST HISTORY. AND WE HAVE TO LEARN THOSE LESSONS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD JUST STEP BACK AND LET IT BURN ITSELF OUT, SO TO SPEAK? NO. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CONCLUSION BECAUSE LETTING THAT HAPPEN, FIRST OF ALL, CARRIES A TERRIBLE HUMAN COST. BUT IT ALSO CARRIES A TERRIBLE DANGER FOR JORDAN, FOR TURKEY, FOR LEBANON, FOR ISRAEL, ALL OF WHOM ARE STATES IN WHOM THE UNITED STATES HAS A STRONG INTEREST. SO, I DON'T THINK THE U.S. CAN JUST SIT THIS ONE OUT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ITS INTENTION. BUT THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS REGIONAL PARTNERS ON SYRIA IS THAT THE REGIONAL STATES ARE WILLING TO INVEST IN THE OVERTHROW OF BASHAR AL-ASSAD. THAT'S HOW THEY'D LIKE TO SEE HIM LEAVE. AND THE UNITED STATES WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE HIM LEAVE BUT THROUGH A NEGOTIATED POLITICAL SETTLEMENT. >> WELL, LET'S PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING FOR A MOMENT. >> [ Laughing ] GOD, NO! >> AND I KNOW THERE ARE NO EASY SOLUTIONS TO THIS, BUT WHAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD DO IMMEDIATELY TO START MOVING THIS TOWARD SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION? AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE SOME INTERMEDIATE AND LONGER-TERM STEPS THAT YOU WOULD CONTEMPLATE -- THINGS THAT WOULD REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? >> HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE I HAVE A GOOD ANSWER TO SETTLING THIS FIGHT RIGHT NOW, GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED, GIVEN THE INVOLVEMENT OF THESE OUTSIDE ACTORS AND THE WAY THEY ARE SUSTAINING THE CONFLICT. BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S MORE THAT COULD BE DONE TO CONTAIN THE IMPACT OF THE CONFLICT, TO CONTAIN THE RISK OF BROADER INSTABILITY IN THE REGION. NOW, THE U.S. IS ALREADY DOING A LOT TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF REFUGEES WHO HAVE FLED SYRIA TO NEIGHBORING STATES. IN FACT, THE UNITED STATES IS THE BIGGEST DONOR IN THE WORLD TO HUMANITARIAN RELIEF FOR SYRIAN REFUGEES. BUT THAT'S ONLY ONE PART OF AMELIORATING THE IMPACT OF THIS CONFLICT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU ALSO NEED TO DO MORE IN TERMS OF INTELLIGENCE, MORE IN TERMS OF BORDER SECURITY, MORE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO HALT THE FLOW OF THE WORST KIND OF EXTREMISTS, ON BOTH SIDES, WHO ARE FIGHTING IN THIS WAR -- MORE TO BE DONE TO HALT THE FINANCIAL FLOWS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THOSE EXTREMISTS AND GENERATING A JIHADI THREAT THAT COULD BLOW BACK ON THE REST OF THE REGION AND AND ON THE UNITED STATES. >> ARE YOU HOPEFUL THAT THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS AMONG INTERESTED PARTIES TO WORK TOGETHER ON RESOLVING THIS? WE SEEM TO BE AT ODDS WITH SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES. SAUDI ARABIA HAS AN AGENDA. IRAN HAS AN AGENDA. RUSSIA HAS AN AGENDA AND SO FORTH. AND IT SEEMS TO GET MORE COMPLICATED RATHER THAN LESS AS TIME GOES BY. >> I THINK IT'S TRUE THAT THE GROUND IS SHIFTING ALL THE TIME BETWEEN THE ACTORS -- BOTH THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING THE WAR AND THOSE IN THE REGION WHO HAVE A STAKE IN THE WAR. AND THAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO ARRANGE A SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION. TYPICALLY, IN CIVIL CONFLICTS, YOU CAN'T GET A NEGOTIATED SOLUTION TO GAIN TRACTION WITH THE PARTIES UNTIL THEY'VE CONCLUDED THAT THEY'RE IN WHAT'S CALLED A HURTING STALEMATE. THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO ADVANTAGE THEMSELVES ANY FURTHER ON THE BATTLEFIELD, AND A STALEMATE IS COSTING THEM EVERY DAY CONTINUES. THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE READY FOR PEACE NEGOTIATIONS. I DON'T THINK THE PARTIES IN SYRIA ARE CLOSE TO THAT YET, AND I'M WORRIED THAT IT MAY TAKE THEM A LONG TIME TO GET THERE. >> HAS THE REMOVAL OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, IN TERMS OF POWER IN EGYPT, BEEN BENEFICIAL OR NOT BENEFICIAL TO THE SITUATION IN SYRIA? >> HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD BEING IN GOVERNMENT IN EGYPT HAD ANY IMPACT ON THE SYRIAN CONFLICT. AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE REGION FEELS THE LACK OF THE EGYPTIAN PRESENCE IN DEALING WITH ALL OF THESE REGIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. EGYPT'S BEEN SUCH AN IMPORTANT ACTOR IN ARAB POLITICS OVER SO MANY YEARS. BUT I DON'T THINK EGYPT IS GONNA BE ABLE TO PLAY THAT ROLE EFFECTIVELY UNTIL ITS INTERNAL HOUSE IS IN ORDER. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LONG-TERM ROLE SHOULD BE FOR THE UNITED STATES IN THE REGION? THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE INCREASING PETROLEUM PRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DECREASING DEPENDENCY ON MIDDLE EAST OIL, PRESUMABLY, OVER TIME, THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD START WITHDRAWING FROM THE REGION. AND THEN OTHERS ARGUE THAT WE HAVE MANY MORE INTERESTS THERE THAN OIL, AND WE HAVE TO THINK IN TERMS OF THE BIG PICTURE. >> EVEN IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OIL, I THINK THE UNITED STATES STILL HAS INTERESTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE U.S. MAY NOT BE DEPENDENT ON OIL COMING OUT OF THAT REGION, EUROPE IS. INDIA AND CHINA ARE. AND THE U.S. ECONOMY IS INTIMATELY BOUND UP WITH THOSE OTHER ECONOMIES AND WITH THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. WE CAN'T SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD, DESPITE HAVING OCEANS ON EITHER SIDE. OUR WELFARE IS TIED UP WITH THEIRS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK THAT THE FUTURE OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE LONG TERM IS ONE THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON. THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THE REGION HAVE AMBITIONS FOR THEMSELVES. THEY HAVE AMBITIONS FOR THEIR SOCIETIES. THEY WANT TO BE CONNECTED TO THIS GLOBAL ECONOMY THAT THEY SEE AS SO DYNAMIC ALL AROUND THEM. THEY WANT TO BE INNOVATORS. THEY WANT TO BE ENTREPRENEURS. THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE WORLD THAT MY COLLEAGUE BOB KAGAN CALLS "THE WORLD AMERICA MADE" -- THAT WORLD OF OPEN SOCIETIES AND OPEN MARKETS THAT THE UNITED STATES HELPED ESTABLISH AFTER WORLD WAR II. AND SO, THE U.S. CAN PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN MAKING THAT POSSIBLE, IN REACHING OUT, AND IN HELPING CREATE A REGION IN WHICH THOSE YOUNG ARABS CAN REALIZE THEIR AMBITIONS FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR SOCIETIES. AND I THINK IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN THERE IS A VERY BRIGHT FUTURE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE MIDDLE EAST. BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND THE CHAOS AND TUMULT OF THE PRESENT DAY AND PLAN FOR THE LONG HAUL. >> THANK YOU, TAMARA WITTES, FOR JOINING US TODAY. >> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN GREAT TO BE WITH YOU. >> AND THANK YOU. FOR "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES," I'M JOHN BERSIA. AND WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.