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.

The Middle East is a region so important to Britain’s strategic interests that HM Government’s choice of ‘Minister for the Middle East’ or in its long form, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), Middle East & South Asia, is crucial to this country’s effectiveness in pursuing its diplomatic and commercial aims from Morocco to Iran.

The FCO’s official Twitter feed piqued my interest this morning when it announced that Britain’s new Middle East Minister, Alistair Burt, was on his first official visit to the region, in San’a, Yemen. I take a keen interest in the issues of the Middle East & South Asia, in fact I’ve done work there, and so I was curious about the background of this man who now represents us and our interests in a region of more than 400 million people, with its array of social, cultural and economic challenges, and indeed opportunities.

A quick look at Alistair Burt MP’s Wikipedia page shows no particular background of work or engagement in the Middle East except for one role: “leading officer” of the Conservative Friends of Israel, one of the best connected and most effective pro-Israel lobby groups in Westminster.

I don’t have a problem with lobbyists or groups of people who come together to push for their side of an argument to be looked at more closely or to ask for particular concessions or directions in policy. I do however think that in a region as sensitive as the Middle East, where Britain needs strong relationships with all 20 Arab nations, whose population totals more than that of the United States and from which much of the conflict of the 21st century has so far originated, we need to make the right choice of Minister.

David Cameron must carefully consider potential conflicts of interest and issues of perception when deciding who walks down the steps of the FCO’s Dassault Falcon in Beirut, Cairo, Damascus & Riyadh and bats for Britain’s corner in diplomatic & commercial dealings. Of course Britain is a friend of Israel – that is settled policy and we will always support Israel’s right to exist, hopefully sometimes being a critical friend where the Israeli government crosses the line or when we feel they are acting against their own interests or those of the greater good.

But perception and paranoia are key considerations in a region which often feels, rightly or wrongly, that it is treated unfairly by, or is under attack from, the West. Choosing a leading pro-Israeli lobbyist, a man who clearly is not impartial when it comes to the dispute in the Levant, is a strategic mistake in my opinion, and sends a negative message to the rest of the Middle East.

There is a wider issue here about what kind of people get ministerial posts. Sadly, in our parliamentary system, all too often very important portfolios and departments with budgets in the billions, are handed to MPs with zero experience in that particular field and often in any field at all apart from politics. Nicolas Sarkozy made an inspired choice for his foreign secretary, Bernard Kouchner, the man who founded Medicins Sans Frontieres, with vast experience of the issues facing the world, with no doubt an amazing network of contacts spanning the globe. Britain’s Prime Minister should have the luxury of appointing experts to some of the big strategic ministerial posts – it would make the work of each government much more effective.

In the meantime, perhaps the PM might consider that his choice of Middle East Minister might just work against as well as for, Britain’s interests & aims in the region. If Britain’s Minister for the Middle East was a staunch pro-Arab/pro-Palestine lobbyist then I have no doubt that Israeli diplomats and ministers would feel cause for alarm – the same logic works the other way round.

In the early hours of this morning, in international waters in the Mediterranean sea, Israeli naval commandos stormed boats forming the flotilla that left Istanbul last week carrying humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip. Of course, it was always clear that the flotilla was making a political point out of its actions, they wanted to humiliate Israel – but the bottom line is they were delivering things like wheelchairs and building supplies to the Gazan population, who have been living under embargo for years.

Reports are suggesting that so far up to 19 protesters and aid workers on board various vessels have been killed by the Israeli commandos. Whatever your view on Israel, and it is an emotive and complex issue, it’s never okay to use such cold-blooded tactics to shut down a humiliating protest. I don’t know what the intentions of the Israeli Defence Force and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were in authorising this action, but it will only serve to weaken Israel’s already testy moral authority on the world stage.

The use of such heavy handed tools resulting in the deaths of innocent people is unacceptable regardless of any factor, domestic or international, that has led to a long-term feeling of insecurity of a state. What’s more, the attack of civil ships in international waters is an act of piracy. And even if the boats were in Israeli waters, there’s still no grounds for the use of deadly force on unarmed protesters.

We haven’t yet heard statements from the major Western powers. It’s unlikely, to be clear, that Hillary Clinton or William Hague will use tough rhetoric in their statements. Israel, despite all of its recent actions which go against the grain of international cooperation and the efforts of the world to seek a peaceful settlement in the Levant, is still an ally of the West. But the more we see actions like the widespread destruction of humanitarian infrastructure in Lebanon in 2006 when Israel was fighting with Hezbollah, the inhumane treatment of civilians in Gaza and the use of falsified British and other Western passports to assassinate Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai at the start of the year, surely the more tone-deaf the West will become when Israel has a real need for international support.

You can’t use a sledgehammer to break open a walnut. If you do that you’ll smash the walnut. Israel has a strong basis for moral support from the West, but there’s not a lot of goodwill left following a list of shocking actions on behalf of the Israeli state over the last few years. The country is heading for pariah status – perhaps that’s what Israel needs to wake up a desire for change throughout the Israeli population. If there’s no real change in the near future, there will be no goodwill left at all, and it’s Israel which will suffer because of that.

–

One final point: let’s not make this an issue of anti-Semitism. You can quite easily criticise the actions of Israel even if you’re a staunch Zionist. There’s no moral or ethical reason to support any and every action carried out by a country you believe in.

–

UPDATE: William Hague has issued a statement, calling for Israel to open its blockades of the Gaza Strip and deploring the loss of life on this morning’s raids: http://tinyurl.com/2u66snp.