“The Middle East should be neither a backdrop nor a projection screen”

What can experiences in the Middle East teach us about peace? Daniel Gerlach is an independent expert, historian and journalist, editor-in-chief of “zenith”, a magazine focusing on the Middle East, and director of the Candid Foundation gGmbH in Berlin. In his 2025 book “Die Kunst des Friedens” (The Art of Peace) he sheds light on a perspective that is often neglected in Europe: that of the Middle East being a place of historic peace agreements, political negotiation and strategic thinking. In our interview, he talks critically about why peace in the region is considered neither naively nor unrealistically, which is why European policies frequently fall short - and what is necessary to achieve robust cooperation. 

In your book “Die Kunst des Friedens”, you portray the Middle East not only as a crisis region but also as a place of historic peace agreements. What can we in Europe learn from this?

It shows that people in the Middle East are just as capable of resolving armed conflicts as we are in Europe. Or indeed just as incapable. The region is the point of intersection between Europe, Asia and Africa. Empires brought conflicts to the region from outside. As a result of this history, people in the Middle East have a far more geopolitical mindset than in other parts of the world and attempt to understand the global interactions. It also reveals a great deal of pragmatism. Those who campaign there for peace and dialogue are neither naive nor out of touch with reality, but acting in their own political interests.

You advocate taking a long-term view of peace rather than pursuing short-term crisis management. What form might such a policy take?

Some conflicts can be managed, but most can’t. People in Europe tend to focus their attention on the Middle East whenever terror, war, migration or energy crises flare up – like when the Islamic State group emerged or following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. When the crises recede into the background, interest evaporates again. The German Bundestag has its say in foreign policy but does not engage sufficiently, nor indeed competently enough, with the region. Good Middle Eastern policy requires continuity in terms of staffing to enable long-term ties to be built up between individuals. The European states must act jointly. And if this isn’t possible, then at least the four or five most powerful members of the EU should act together. There’s a lot of talk about this, but when things come to a head it sometimes happens that nobody answers the phone in Berlin, either.

How can Germany act credibly in the Middle East when at the same time it is confronted with geopolitical interests, security concerns and debates on values?

The region has no problem with interest-driven policies. However, the Middle East should be neither a backdrop to nor a projection screen for domestic policy agendas that have nothing to do with it. Especially given Germany’s policy on the war in Gaza, one has to go back to square one in many places before one can even enter into any discussion of values, or indeed norms such as international law . Germany has lost credibility, credibility that we could really do with in other foreign policy areas such as Russia or Iran.

What form should Germany’s Middle Eastern policy take in order to make a more lasting contribution to fostering peace?

When I said at the outset that local actors in the Middle East think in geopolitical terms on account of their experiences, this also applies in reverse. Geopolitical decisions must take the local, social and political realities into account. A whole series of instruments is available to foster peace, which will contribute to our security and prosperity. These include - depending on the country in question - good diplomatic relations, trade, economic cooperation, academic and cultural exchange; but also a judiciary, military and secret service that are vigilant and bring us respect. And, last but not least, civil society in the form of professional organisations that maintain dialogue and are not at the mercy of short-term agendas, legislative periods and the revolving door of ministry appointments. They have an institutional memory that government agencies sometimes lack.