A rare apology in the Middle East. Cherish it.

Libyan leader Megarif apologizes to the world and the US for past and current actions. With so much invective and violence in the Middle East, the region needs the healing power of such humility and contrition.

Reuters
Libya's interim President Mohammed el-Megarif prepares to address the United Nations General Assembly Sept. 27. He offered an apology for the acts of the former regime of Muammar Qaddafi.

With Iran’s president speaking of “uncivilized Zionists” and the Israeli prime minister calling Iran “the most dangerous country in the world,” it may seem odd for one Middle East leader to stand before the United Nations this week and apologize for his country’s past violence.

Yet that is what Mohammed el-Megarif, Libya’s interim president, did on Thursday.

He actually gave two apologies on behalf of all Libyans for the actions of Muammar Qaddafi. One was for the late leader’s disrespect toward the UN Charter on rights. The other was for “all the harm, all the crimes committed by that despot against so many innocents ... for the extortion and terrorism he meted on so many states.”

Just days earlier, Mr. Megarif also apologized personally to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Sept. 12 attack in Benghazi that killed four American diplomats. (Details of that assault remain unclear.)

And perhaps in a sign of a trend in the Middle East, Yemen’s president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, also apologized – for an attack by a crowd on the US embassy over the anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

For Americans, who by now have seen waves of apologies from public figures like Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Tiger Woods, it may be easy to overlook this unusual contrition in one of the world’s toughest neighborhoods. Yet humility, vulnerability, and making amends is just what the Middle East needs to deal with its intense, long-lasting conflicts.

If apologies are heartfelt, they can have real healing power. They bring trust and honesty to a relationship, even if they are not made by the perpetrator but simply on behalf of a country or institution.

They can help prevent a repeat of an offense. And they are better still if they also come with some restorative justice. Libya’s leader, for example, promises to cooperate with the United States in bringing the embassy attackers to justice.

Postwar Germany set a high standard for the world in its apologies for Nazi atrocities. In 1970, German Chancellor Willy Brandt dropped to his knees during a visit to a memorial for Polish Jews killed during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943.

Many US presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, have apologized for current or past acts by the government. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has often accused President Obama of apologizing for past US deeds, mainly in the Middle East. (Mr. Romney’s 2010 book is titled “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.”)

While the word “apologize” or “sorry” wasn’t used by Mr. Obama in cases cited by Romney, the president has criticized the actions of his predecessor before foreign audiences, claiming they were not representative of American values.

Such domestic disputes over values may make Americans less sensitive to hearing important apologies like those of Libya’s Megarif. He even stressed his country’s “solidarity” with the US and that Libya’s future will be “chartered by people like Chris Stevens [the slain ambassador], not by people like his killers.”

Today’s apology culture in the US can sometimes be overdone. And detecting sincerity in a public figure’s utterance of “sorry” isn’t always easy. Yet Americans seem past the time when they will follow the advice of actor John Wayne who, in a 1949 western movie, said: “Never apologize and never explain – it’s a sign of weakness.”

So, thank you, Libya. Apology accepted. Let a new day dawn.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.