Chris Patten is one of the UK’s leading foreign affairs figures. To my sadness, and despite the best efforts of Chatham House, Britain doesn’t really have much of an academic/expert foreign affairs community in the American style. Hilary Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice was an accomplished foreign affairs academic before entering the world of politics, completing her PhD in her 20s on Czech politics in the Soviet era. That she ended up directing US foreign policy, showed a willingness to have experts leading the external affairs policy and implementation of a government, and this policy was continued by Obama when he appointed Dr. Susan Rice as UN Ambassador, who carried out her doctoral studies in Oxford, and who’s dissertation was entitled “Commonwealth Initiative in Zimbabwe”.

Contrast this with the UK, where major appointments at ambassador level are career civil-servants, and where ministers who fill the ranks of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office often have close to zero experience on the world stage, let alone doctorates in international studies. Chris Patten is an exception. After 13 years in Parliament, he took to foreign affairs, taking over the role of governor of Hong Kong from 1992 until the colonial outpost was handed back to China in 1997. Since then he has become something of a foreign affairs academic, as well as an important figure in European foreign policy (having served as Commissioner for External Affairs for four years), and has written several books on Asia, British relations with America and on the changing landscape in foreign affairs.

The Guardian is carrying an interview with Lord Patten today, marking his visit to Gaza. He makes some interesting points, and reading the interview I am baffled as to why William Hague, a man with little foreign affairs experience and not much gravitas in the world (although he is highly educated, with an MBA from much-respected INSEAD in Paris as well as serving a stint at one of the world’s leading management consultancies), is our Foreign Secretary when Patten himself is a Conservative peer. If the world is to tackle and finally resolve the problems in the Levant, we need to be bold and put an end to this idea that we can simply isolate Gaza and allow Israel to continue the status-quo on the ground. It seems Lord Patten agrees, and he thinks Europe and European countries shouldn’t just wait around for America to fix the problem:

“The default European position should not be to wait to find out what the Americans are going to do, and if the Americans don’t do anything to wring our hands. We should be prepared to be more explicit in setting out Europe’s objectives and doing more to try to implement them.”

Patten went on to specifically criticise Israel’s Gaza blockade:

Patten, who found it “easier to get into a maximum security prison in the UK than to enter Gaza”, said Israel’s relaxation of its blockade had not gone far enough. “It’s moved from about minus 10 to about minus eight. It doesn’t do anything to help restore economic activity in Gaza.

And something you would hardly ever hear a leading Western politician saying, that the blockade of Gaza might not have anything to do with security but more to do with punishing Gazans and punishing Hamas:

“It’s difficult to understand what preventing exports has to do with security. It has everything to do with the view that Gaza should be collectively punished to discredit Hamas. Unfortunately there are some centuries, if not millennia, of history that show that does not work. Presumably the international community as well as Israel wants at some stage – sooner rather than later – to be able to persuade Gaza and its political leadership to take a course which will lead to reconciliation and peace and stability. It’s difficult to know how you accomplish that if you deny the people of Gaza any social or economic progress.”

Perhaps over the next few years we will start to see more of an effort to actually sit down and talk to Hamas leaders. The world made a very big strategic mistake after the 2006 elections which resulted with a Hamas leader of Palestine. To dismiss the result of a democratic election, no matter how unsavoury that result, was an insult to everybody in the Palestinian territories. Israel, Europe & America should have sought ways to engage with this group and try to bring them into the fold of moderate statesmanship. The only way the long-standing dispute in Northern Ireland was solved was to sit down with people on all sides. As Patten says:

“You don’t always agree with people you talk to – indeed sometimes you find them despicable – but you need to ease them out of the corners into which they’ve painted themselves rather than lay on the paint much thicker.”

And he goes on to explain how isolating Hamas & Gaza may be counter-productive in the medium-long term anyway:

“I think it’s wholly reasonable to say we couldn’t deal with Hamas unless they agreed to a comprehensive and complete ceasefire. But do we need to insist on them accepting all past agreements? Has Israel accepted all past agreements? If you simply isolate them, do you weaken them? You strengthen people who are even more extreme than they are”.

President Bush, in 1991 made a now infamous speech where he foresaw the coming of a “new world order” through which, and he quoted Churchill, “the principles of justice and fair play would protect the weak against the strong”. He was speaking at the end of the first Gulf War which saw the reversal of Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait. The President was laying out his vision for a peaceful Middle East, and more broadly a peaceful world where conflicts would be settled, the rule of law via the United Nations would be upheld and where economic development would be “fostered for the sake of peace and prosperity”.

In his speech, there was not a single instance of a loaded and now much-used and misused word: democracy. This is reminiscent of a time when the West, and America in particular didn’t openly push for democracy around the world. The “modus operandi” which the Americans preferred to deploy in previous decades of state manipulation was more likely to involve covert arms shipments to one or more sides of a conflict, the installation and support of undemocratic hard-men and attempts at assassination of specific political figures in different parts of the world.

As economic liberalism took hold, and globalisation slowly marched forward in the 1980s, economics became a tool in pursuing American foreign policy goals. The European Union placed the principle of a free community market unhindered by tariffs and barriers to the movement of goods and people, at the core of its mission to unite Europe. America, and later Europe, could use free trade with the largest markets in the world as a carrot in their efforts to bend certain states to their way of thinking and acting. The founding of the World Trade Organisation in 1995 underlined this principle, and if you look at the current map of WTO members, the vast swathes of land that are in the grey (non-members) are the least “democratic” countries in the world, with the exception of China and some Arab states.

The Middle East is often seen as a troubled part of the world. The 21st century’s largest conflict so far involved a theoretical clash of cultures: George W Bush & Tony Blair vs Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein. The “Christian West” against the “Islamic East”. After 9/11 in New York, the Western world woke up to reality of a body of people numbering more than 400 million, who to varying extents vehemently disagree with the way the United States conducts its foreign policy in the Islamic, and Arab worlds. This led not to a period of reflection in the American psyche, but to a period of extended and deep-felt insecurity and a desire on the parts of many to isolate, put up walls and back off from the world. The Arab was the other, the enemy; Islam was the evil octopus, replacing the Soviet Union as the straw man of choice for those who wanted to pursue war.

It doesn’t take much to pull down these psychological barriers that have been erected between these two important cultures. Spend some time in the Middle East, talk to Arabs, read and absorb media written from the Arab point-of-view and you will quickly realise that there’s not a lot to really separate us. Arab parents want to raise educated, well-rounded children, Arab graduates are looking for the best career opportunities in their chosen fields, Arab entrepreneurs want to build businesses and create jobs, and Arab media figures and artists want to express themselves and entertain their citizens. Religion is important, yes, but the most pressing concerns are around jobs, family security and economic prosperity. People don’t tend to concern themselves with politics as much as in the West.

This “economic happiness” and political disengagement of Arab citizens keeps repressive and undemocratic regimes installed from the kasbahs of Morocco to the beaches of Dubai.

Tunisia is a prime example of this point. This small Arab state at the tip of Africa, the launching point of the ancient Carthaginian Empire and beach destination of choice for tourists from the UK, France & Germany is one of the most economically prosperous countries in the Middle East and Africa. According to the World Economic Forum Tunisia is the most economically competitive nation on the African continent, and 36th most competitive worldwide (ahead of European nations like Portugal, Italy & Greece – 43rd, 49th & 67th respectively). Tunisian children grow up with good education, universal healthcare and the prospect of a good degree from one of the country’s respected universities. They’re promised stable and well paying careers in engineering, medicine or information technology. Year-on-year GDP growth in Tunisia has been impressive despite the global recession.

Tunisia however is run by a government that, according to Amnesty Interational, regularly and systematically abuses the human rights of its citizens. President Ben Ali came to power in November 1987 in a “medical coup” when, after just five weeks as Prime Minister, Ben Ali had President Bourgiba declared medically unfit to run the country. Since his ascent to power, the Tunisian constitution has changed several times to allow Ben Ali further terms in office. Most positions of military, political and business importance are filled by members of the President’s entourage. Major international businesses won’t invest in Tunisia because of alleged bribery by Ben Ali’s own family members. As in most Middle Eastern countries, the Tunisian state created and perpetuates a personality cult around the President; there is a poster of Ben Ali on every street corner and in every business up and down the country. The Internet is censored – on a recent trip to the capital Tunis I was unable to access either YouTube or Flickr as they are deemed a risk to national security by the regime. There is no real political opposition, and elections usually end with more than 90% of the vote going to the incumbent Ben Ali.

The Tunisian example is seen throughout the region. The trade-off between economic prosperity and a concentration of political power in a small elite can be witnessed in Morocco which is an autocratic monarchy disguised as a constitutional one, in Egypt which has been under a repressive “state of emergency” since the assassination of President Sadat in 1981, and in Saudi Arabia which has an aggressive religious police keeping its citizens in-check and following strict cultural & religious traditions. Many other Arab countries follow a combination of these models.

Morocco’s GDP growth last year was 5%, Egypt’s was 4.7% and Saudi enjoys lavish economic success based on its oil revenue. “Economic happiness” is present in all of these places and gives the repressive regimes in these and other countries a convincing answer when people ask why they aren’t more democratic and politically open.

In an age of growing economic insecurity around the world, and the openness of communication provided by the Internet and satellite television which is beamed from Hollywood throughout the Middle East, surely the days of repressive Arab regimes are numbered? It’s hard to say, although there are opportunities for change on the horizon. Morocco’s King Mohammad VI is a relatively young man at 46 and one can only hope that being of a younger generation he may be inclined to adapt a more open way of governing. Speaking recently to a British diplomat in the region, I understand that at the very least, being a relatively young King has led to a willingness to look at global best practice in various areas of society. Time will tell whether or not that will lead to real political reform.

Egypt is holding presidential elections in September 2011. It’s easy to forget that Ayman Nour, the candidate who ran against President Mubarak in 2005 was incarcerated just after the election and kept in prison for four years. This time around, the main opposition contender is Mohamed El-Baradei, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Organisation (IAEA), and a respected international diplomat boasting strong relationships with Western diplomats and leaders. It should be harder for the Egyptian state to crack down on a presidential candidate with such international credentials. El-Baradei has recently become a high-profile face of a large group demonstrating against the apparent murder of a young Egyptian man who posted a video online about aggressive police tactics, and this has resulted in the appearance at least of leading a movement for change in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, who ascended to the throne in 2005 is seen as something of a moderniser of Saudi culture. Last year he sacked the head of the religious police and appointed the first female minister in the Saudi cabinet, Nora al-Fayez as deputy education minister, pointing toward further reform and inclusiveness in the future.

Tunisia held elections last year, resulting in President Ben Ali’s fifth “mandate” to rule the country until at least 2014. Tunisians who are interested in politics wonder who will replace the ageing Ben Ali. The first lady of the country, Leila Trabelsi has been successful in harvesting her own personal power and fortune, and those of her children. Ben Ali’s son-in-law Sakher al-Materi has built an impressive business empire and was elected as a member of the Tunisian parliament last year. Being married to the President’s daughter has allowed him to create a power base of his own and he is widely seen as one of the most likely successors to his father-in-law’s throne. Perhaps there’s hope though, that when an opportunity for transition of power does come to Tunisia, the parties involved take a long hard look inside themselves and ask if perhaps the Tunisian people, a moderate, educated and forward looking people, might want a say in who runs the country and how it is run. This would send a strong signal to the rest of the region.

Economic prosperity is crucial in the global age. If somebody has a job, they have a stake in their future. If you have children, one of your main concerns in life is to ensure the career success and economic stability of those children. Until now, economic prosperity and relative political stability have helped keep a group of repressive leaders in power in an important region of the world with a massive amount of human capital ready to achieve its potential. It is time that the people of these countries are entrusted with their own destinies. The region will not in a fell swoop turn into a fiery anti-Western, Islamist melting pot if real democracy is “unleashed”, and this mustn’t be used as an excuse to keep the privilege of democracy from nearly half a billion people when we take that privilege so seriously here in Europe, America and in other democratic parts of the world.

As the Churchill quote goes, “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong”. In the case of the Middle East, the freedom of the many is put aside to benefit the few. Justice, fair play and democracy, coupled with economic prosperity, will protect the weak in the Middle East and will result in a self-assured, vibrant and successful Arab world. And that result will be good for the whole world.

I dusted off my old copy of Art of War, one of the most influential books ever written. Art of War, written by Chinese general and military philosopher Sun Tzu in the 6th century BC, presents what is thought of as a bible for military strategists and generals through the centuries. It’s an amazing book and its wisdom can be extended well beyond the military sphere – into business, personal life and work. It’s incredibly foresighted and complete.

General Stanley McChrystal is the American Commander in Afghanistan and therefore the most senior military person in the most important theatre of war the United States is engaged with currently. He recently gave a series of interviews with Rolling Stone magazine in which he is painted mocking his seniors in Washington and America’s partners in France, and questioning the American strategy in Afghanistan. In the world we live in, where media and perception and image are all so important in foreign policy and in war, the image portrayed that the American administration/military is divided plays right into the hands of its enemies.

Reading and hearing these reports made me think of Sun Tzu’s writing. The Art of War is full of wisdom, but this little nugget is a joy to read today:

"The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom."

McChrystal’s vanity knows no bounds. He is the military Commander in Afghanistan. He invited Rolling Stone to follow him for a month. Rolling Stone follows rock stars, not generals. McChrystal’s loyalty should be to his Commander in Chief and his country, not to his own reputation and fame.

This quote calls into question the American model of combining political leadership and military leadership in one, very interesting:

"He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious"

One other, not specifically about McChrystal but the war in general:

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."

Pay attention Obama. Show you’re a real military leader. It’s time to get rid of Stanley McChrystal, and time to find an appropriate end to this nearly decade-long war.