|
The Middle East has and will always be a major hard rock to all American administrations... be it republicans or democrats. As the hub of strategic American interests, the region has also been witnessing complicated conflicts and issues that no US administration has been able to end decisively. On the contrary, the challenges have accumulated both in quantity and quality in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iran, in addition to the limping peace process and the failure of most democratization processes; called for by the former US administrations after September 11.
Feeling the heat of those challenges and distress of being unable to settle most of the problematic open files had its toll on the US influence that has almost been solely dominating the region after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
When Barak Obama took over the Presidency after a long and eloquent debate about the ''change '' in the United States and probably the whole world, he was not an exception in facing the same challenges like most former US presidents. But, Obama was different not only because he embraced the slogan of change but also because he is the embodiment of that motto through his very special and well-known experiment
.
However, what has been his very special boon has also been the very same element that complicated his task. Obama has to remain faithful to the principles which he believed in, lived under its umbrella and brought him to the top post in the world sole superpower. Such an experiment calls for carrying out the message of freedom, democracy and change throughout the world. Yet, the new president has also to grasp the lessons learned the hard way by the Bush administration which carried the banner of - changing the unchangeable- in the Middle East. That practically means that Obama has to prove himself to be idealistic and a realist, a dreamer yet pragmatic, soft and strong, diplomatic but decisive, sponsor of change but preserving the status quo ...all at the same time. But, how would anyone be able to gather all the pieces of contradictions and embrace all options in one go.
It is beyond doubt that the popular Obama speech at Cairo University, which addressed the Islamic world, has put the major and general guidelines of the US strategy for the few years to come. But, it has also raised many questions and challenges that went beyond the issues and the magnificent political language used by the president. The spirit of Obama performance will almost certainly crash with the complicated and also contradicting facts of the Middle East till it is translated into well-defined policies.
On one hand, the issue of 'addressing Muslims throughout the world' is obviously based on a language of conciliation especially when the president differentiated between Muslims in general and the violent Islamic groups, meantime skillfully avoiding the use of the word 'terrorism' that labeled the Islamic world after September 11 and the debut of the 'war on terror'. But politically, it is more complicated. What has been said brings to the fore religion as the reference which is though important in itself it assumes that the Islamic world is one uniformed piece. The fact is that, with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the world war one, the Muslim world had paid farewell to the satellite states of the Islamic empire and launched a new era of modern national state. At that point, the Islamic world and despite of the success or failure in its attempt to establish the national state, has become more defined as 'moderate' and 'radical' states. Arab societies, in turn, have been witnessing major differences between those who opened their doors to the west that believes in modernization and the separation between religion and the state and those who abhor and resist such concepts. Those differences are echoed throughout the map of political powers inside the Arab societies where you will find political powers rejecting the gesture of being dealt with on the basis of a religious reference while others can not accept any kind of exchange but on that base such as the political Islamic powers and movements of both the Sunnis and Shiites, like the Muslim brothers, Hamas, Hezbollah...etc
On the other hand, the US position on democratization is more complicated. Although Obama stressed his administration's commitment not to interfere in other states' internal affairs, respect its sovereignty and its right to choose the social and political system in accordance with its special experiment and that ''No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other''. That stand can only be understood on the basis of the harsh criticism directed against the former administration and the fruitless attempts of establish democracy in the region. But as a believer of democracy Obama had to assure that his ''commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people ...'' will not be less, because the values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, ''Are not just American ideas; they are human rights and that is why we will support them everywhere.'' And therefore, he had to add that, ''The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.''
It is certainly a different approach to the issue of democratization whereby if it is practically difficult to achieve, then there is no need to upset he regimes. That approach shows that the Obama administration has given priority to cooperating with the governments to secure the American interests in the regional files as means to avoid the complications and the distress undertaken by the former administration due to its tensed ties with the regional regimes. That stand is based on views promoted by many American analysts who believed that the democratization process has only empowered political Islamic groups like Hamas which won 2005 elections in Palestine.
However, with the debut of Obama administration, the region has gone in the opposite direction where the elections in Lebanon has not brought Hezbollah automatically to the ruling palace but the most moderate powers and that was also the case in Iran where a popular and solid opposition to the radical approach of Ahmadi Nijad took an unprecedented direction.
That situation might have disturbed several assumptions that were earlier promoted, which explains the delayed reaction of the American president on Iran's popular uprising. That delay was due to the gap between what Obama committed himself to (not using democracy as a tool against the regimes) and his commitment towards democracy as a value in itself supported by the US worldwide.
That was also the case with Hamas when the president described its success in the parliamentary elections as being due to the Palestinians ''trust and support'' which practically means that he approved the election results though it raised controversial views in the Arab world and became one of the major points of criticism to the Bush administration. Yet, he added that ''there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.'' That was a subtle criticism to Hamas performance which staged a coup against the Palestinian National Authority in less than two years of holding power which might also be the case with other Islamic groups that embrace the same ideology.
And finally, the turn of the Arab- Palestinian- Israeli conflict had come. The political speech given by Obma in describing the Palestinian sufferings and their right to establish their independent state is certainly unprecedented. That was also the case with his stand when it comes to rejecting Israel's settlement policies. He had also denounced the Palestinian-Israeli mutual violence and therefore the resumption of the peace talks became his priority.
However, Obama stressed the fact that the supporting role played by the Arabs through the Beirut initiative launched in 2002, should be the beginning and not the end. The Obama administration is understandably expecting mutual steps from the Israelis and the Palestinians as well as the Arabs. It is more of a comprehensive package. Thus, speaking of settlement freeze does not mean that the US will flex the muscles of the Israelis as expected by many Arab actors. But, a unified stand that brings Fattah and Hamas in the context of a comprehensive deal creating a real negotiating partner to Israel is expected from the American side. It was also expected that Hamas ''put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist''; and that was frankly stated by Obama.
Therefore, Arabs, especially moderate states should develop their initiative as means to assist the two sides and should not 'wait' for a full withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 to normalize their ties with Israel.
In that context, one of the main challenges to Obama's approach is obviously the right- wing Israeli government lead by Benjamin Netanyahu who believes that any positive response to the American pressures in this regard means the collapse of his government coalition which supports settlement expansion. Moreover, the role of Israel's lobby, which plagued the US congress, will have its impact on Obama's approach as well.
Although the Obama approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict sounds new, yet the framework is more of a recycling of the same proposals since the Bush (the senior) administration that has been recently propagated by US think tanks and writers like Thomas Friedman. The latter wrote under the title of 'Five-state solution' that the two major negotiating partners (Israel and the Palestinian) will negotiate within a five- year time table, working closely with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan; the sponsors of security, political aspects and also the financers of the talks, while the US will become the arbitrator that oversees that each and every partner is fairly committed to the process.
So, there is something new proposed by Obama though it is not exactly new. Much of the detailed plans, earlier stated, in addition to the ''the two- state solution'', which was adopted for the first time by the former Bush administration, were very much available on the table. Yet, where should he start? How could he render those views and visions into practical steps on the ground? That is the hard task for Obama. He succeeded to please all the contradicting parties in his Cairo speech ... those involved in the peace process, in the democratization both the regimes and democracy advocates, praising the Islamic values meantime confronting those using the same values for completely different ends, Using Islam as a reference while targeting political Islam ...and much more. But, to carry out a critically balanced policy where all the threads are kept in his hand and reaching a tangible result is the hard task for the American president to accomplish.
|
