The new but somewhat battered and confused White House flack, Jay Carney, has assured one and all that The Great Orator Of The Oval will be making a "major" address regarding "the Middle East and US policy in the Middle East" in the near future. Well, it is about time considering more than a few important developments have taken place in the region in the past few weeks.
One can be excused for harboring fugitive fears that once more Mr Obama will genuflect before the overarching totem of Islam and accompany this deep bow with apologies for real or invented sins of omission or commission on the part of the US. If the upcoming speech is a replay or a riff from the Cairo Address, it will be an insult to both residents of the region and Americans alike.
There is a real need for a clear statement of declaratory policy for the region. The reality is that a declaratory policy which is unmistakable in nature and character is long overdue. A companion reality is simply that without such a statement there is no reason for any government or citizen in the Mideast to consider the US relevant to the challenges currently confronting them.
Several themes suggest themselves for incorporation in a unitary statement of American declaratory policy. These themes are central to the needs of the region--and they are of a nature such that effective action can be taken so as to turn rhetoric into practical effect.
The first of these is the centrality of Israel to American policy. This is needed for several reasons. First, it is an essential clearing of the diplomatic decks. All hands in the region as well as those outsiders who involve themselves in regional dynamics must know that the US has a deep and abiding alliance with Israel which is predicated upon both coinciding national and strategic interests and shared values, norms, and aspirations. It is essential that both the realpolitik and idealistic nature of the relationship be clearly put forward.
By putting the pragmatic and the idealistic on an equal footing, the nature of the US-Israel relationship will be more accurately appreciated by Arab leaders--and by Israelis generally. Israel is currently embarked on a dangerous voyage in the rough waters of religious zeal, and it is critical that Israelis understand that shared ideals, values, and norms are at the foundation of our relations. These shared factors were created during Israel's long years of Zionist socialism, years which emphasized democracy, tolerance, open and free speech, law which, while congruent with deeply held Jewish precepts, was nonetheless not religious in nature.
By putting the subject of the American-Israeli alliance front and center, Arab leaders can be assured that US policy is constant. The tacking and yawing of the Obama administration on Israel's domestic actions, particularly the settlements question, over the past year and a half served only to enhance Arab doubts about the consistency and predictability of American policy. If we could, as it appeared, feed Israel to the wolves over the settlement question, we could not be relied upon in other, more salient matters such as firmly opposing Iran's hegemonic and nuclear ambitions.
In the context of American-Israeli relations, it will be possible as well to make it clear that the US was not going to carry water for either Israel or Palestine in the "peace process." While we would do what we could in conjunction with other members of the Quartet to facilitate the process, when night falls it is essential that Israel and Palestine talk directly and meaningfully.
This implies that it is requisite for the American president to take a firm position on the new "unity" government invoked by the Palestinians. The presence of Hamas complicates the search for a meaningful and comprehensive agreement with Israel, but only with the inclusion of Hamas would any final understanding be binding on both major wings of Palestinian politics. A clear statement of what the US will accept would provide the necessary impetus for (1) Hamas making the choice between being a real government or continuing as an exponent of violent political Islam and total irredentism regarding Israel; and (2) giving the Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority pause for thought regarding the pragmatic wisdom of the reconciliation agreement.
Next, the US will have to take a position finally on the "Arab Spring." This is much more difficult than dealing with Israel and the "peace process." No matter what stance the US adopts in its declaratory policy, some important constituency will be offended.
It is easy and very attractive to argue as so many well informed observers have that the US must come out four square for democracy. Making this approach even more appealing is the simple fact that not only do most people around the region expect the US to do so but most Americans tilt that way as well. Certainly the US cannot come out as a pillar of support for authoritarian regimes--even under the less than plausible euphemism of being in favor of "stability" or "order."
At the same time it is most inadvisable for the US to alienate the oil shiekdoms of the Gulf Co-operation Council. The members of the GCC are already suspicious regarding the steadfastness of the US given the way in which the administration pulled the throne out from under Hosni Mubarak's rump. It must be borne in mind that several of the GCC have already sought reinsurance to balance the potential loss of American patronage.
One alternative to the false dichotomy of democracy or authoritarianism is economic liberalization. Close examination of the causes of the revolts of the ""Arab Spring" shows that politics per se was less of a factor by far than was the combination of poverty, lack of economic opportunity, maldistribution of wealth, corruption, and governmental domination for personal benefit of the economy. All of the featured countries--even Syria--exhibit all the negatives of economic stagnation, corruption, and wealth skewing in favor of an elite joined hip and shoulder with the authoritarian regime.
An American declaratory policy--particularly if followed by convincing actions including development assistance (which, of course, will be opposed by the woolly mammoths of the Republican Party) will go a very long way to addressing the root causes of popular political disaffiliation in the Mideast and North Africa. It might be noted in this connection that should the US not take this route, the Trolls of Beijing will--and they can point to the success of their efforts in fostering prosperity without bringing the specter of democracy into the foreground.
Finally the president needs to address violent political Islam. Our position should be simple and easily understood. The US will use all of its instruments of soft persuasion to encourage governments to live up to all the requirements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example. We will not, however, use force in this area. How countries and their people choose to order their internal affairs is their concern, not ours. We may deplore restrictions on religious practices, or subordinating women, or criminal justice systems which exact inordinate punishments, but we will not be sending Predators or the Marines to indicate our displeasure.
Should a government give refuge or support to a group practicing violence which harms us, our national interests, or those of our allies, then we will use all necessary force to abate the threat. There is no justification for violence, for attacks on civilians, for terror. No excuses. Zero tolerance. In the event that a terror attack can be traced to a particular government, then the US reserves the sole right to act. The bright, shining line is violence directed against civilians outside the country of terrorist origin. The US is indifferent as to motives, unconcerned as to ideological or theological rationales--only the act.
Three major points is enough for any speech, no matter how long. While there are many other matters of US policy in the Mideast which deserve clear declaration, these should wait a future moment. Carving out three clear areas and then following up on them with action is challenge enough for any administration, any country.
Or the president can just say we are sorry for whatever and go off for another round of golf. That would be easier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment