Daily Sun
February 24, 2013
M. Serajul Islam
In
the State of the Union address early in the month, President Barak Obama did
not leave anyone in doubt that his second administration would focus primarily
on domestic issues of deficit management, job creation, healthcare and
immigration. Although he spared some 15 paragraphs of his address on foreign
affairs, he made it more than abundantly clear that in his second term, he
would make America more insular than before and withdraw from involvements
overseas like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan under his predecessor George
Bush.
His
main focus in foreign affairs was upon bringing the combat troops back home
from Afghanistan by end of next year. Before this address, the US goals in Afghanistan were, first, to “disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat” Al Qaeda; second, to roll back Al Qaeda’s Afghan patron,
the Taliban; and finally, to ensure that the Afghan government after the
withdrawal of US combat troops would be capable enough to govern and well as
ensure the country’s security. The President through his address narrowed down
the goals to just one, namely, “disrupting, dismantling, and defeating” Al
Qaeda that the US has completed successfully and has abandoned the second and
the third goals to bring the troops back home to appease a domestic
constituency that has had too much of Afghanistan and not ready to let American
soldiers be lost there anymore.
The
President said that instead of direct involvement in overseas wars, the US
would henceforth be engaged in dealing with threats to the country from
terrorists by working with allies in places such as Yemen, Libya and Somalia
and as it has recently done successfully in Mali. In that context, the President said that
drones would play a major role in substituting the need to place US service personnel
in direct line of conflict in foreign soil. In view of the controversy that has
surrounded the use of drones particularly in Pakistan; the President stressed
the need of transparency in the use of this tactical weapon.
The
possibility of attacking Iran was a real one towards the end of the tenure of
President Bush. In President Obama’s first term, he was under pressure from
Israel for direct intervention in Iran to take out its nuclear capabilities.
The President ruled out such a possibility for his second term. He said in his
address that he would deal with the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea
through diplomacy. The President also placed the issues of more nuclear cuts; cyber
security and a trade agreement with Europe as the other foreign policy issues
for his second term.
Middle
East, once the major foreign policy focus of all recent US administrations
including President Obama’s first was mentioned towards the end of the 15
paragraphs that the President devoted to foreign affairs in his State of the
Union address. He spoke of USA’s determination to stand as an ally of all
struggles for freedom in all corners of the world and in that context mentioned
that his new administration would also stand for freedom in Egypt and in the
Middle East. He of course did not fail to mention that in the region, it is
Israel that will be his administration’s unflinching ally. He did not mention a
world on the need to carry forward the Palestine peace process that has
remained stalled for more than two years when the US efforts to jumpstart the
peace talks were derailed over Israel’s insistence to continue to illegally
build settlements on Palestine land. Nevertheless, the President mentioned that
he would visit the region next month to underscore his second administration’s
interest in the region.
Clearly,
the President’s second administration would not spend too much time on the
Middle East Peace Process going by what he happened to have said in his State
of the Union address. This is indeed sad
as all previous Democrat Presidents had made the resolution of the Palestinian
problem with a two state solution as the main focus of their foreign policy. In
fact, President Clinton who went the closest to resolving the ME Peace issue
during his term visited the region many times to settle o the problem.
President Bush was criticized during his two terms because he did not pay
adequate interest in the ME peace issue and instead took USA to war first in
Afghanistan and then in Iraq, a point for which President Obama also criticized
him. President Obama made a well publicized trip to Cairo in 2009
to give the Muslim world the message that USA wanted to reverse the impression
given during the Bush terms that USA was in war against the Muslim world and in
that context, reasserted the importance that the Clinton administration had
attached to the ME peace process.
If
the Palestinians are worried at President Obama’s lack of commitment for their
cause; they are more concerned with what former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann
said recently on reviving peace talks. Avigdor Liebermann’s ultranationalist
party Beiteinu allied with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likhud and won only 31 seats in
the 120 seat parliament yet won the nod to form the minority government because of the strange dynamics
of party system in Israel said recently that it will be “impossible” to solve
the conflict and that the parties concerned should instead concentrate to
“manage the conflict…to negotiate on a long term interim agreement.” The former
Foreign Minister who is now under investigation for corruption and hence unable
to join the Netanyahu cabinet made it
clear that the events in the region that have resulted from the Arab Spring
have strengthened the hands of the forces hostile to Israel. He therefore
strongly opposed re-starting the peace process. In fact he did not give it any
chance. Instead he supported the actions of the Netanyahu Government to
continue with new settlements illegally in West Bank, on territories that have
been forcibly claimed by Israel after the 1967 war.
Avigdor
Liebermann’s extremist statement poured cold water on the prospects of positive
developments coming out of the visit the US President is expected to take to the
region next month. The White House on its parts also made no statements either
downplaying Avigdor Liebermann’s statement or any of its own to cause any sense
of optimism in Palestine. The little hope strangely came from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said
that Avigdor Liebermann’s views were his own and not of the Israeli Government.
A spokesman of the Israeli Prime Minister said that the Netanyahu government
will “pursue secure, stable, realistic peace with our neighbors.” The Israeli
Prime Minister has committed his government to a two state solution to the
Palestine problem although he has been cagey on its borders and dismantling the
illegal settlements.
The
Palestinians who last year moved and got de facto UN recognition by becoming a
“non-member state” that annoyed the United States and Israel now find
themselves in a limbo. With the US lukewarm to move the peace process forward
and with Avigdor Liebermann in the coalition of the Israeli Prime Minister
whose personal equation with the US President is a bad one, the Palestinians
will not have much to look forward to in the second administration of President
Barak Obama. The US President who in this term would be looking for his place
in history would be belying the promises he had made in Cairo in 2009 if he
takes shield under his administration’s insular policies to leave the
Palestinians in the grasp of Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Liebermann. One must wait and see what happens in his
trip to the region to conclude whether the US President would utterly
disappoint the Palestinian cause that has unequivocal support of the Muslim
world as well as from most of the other countries of the world. If the US
President disappoints, his place in history would receive a major dent
undoubtedly.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador and Chairman, the Centre for Foreign
Affairs Studies, CFAS
No comments:
Post a Comment