President Obama's speech (text here) on May 19 was billed as the announcement of a bold new strategy; when she introduced the President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton extolled an "innovative" new approach that would change American foreign policy in the region. What the President delivered was more a reaffirmation of past American policy, with a subtle shift in emphasis. Of course, it was also exemplary of Obama's unique talent to deliver an even-handed, considered speech that balances multiple contradictory interests, and somehow leaves everyone pissed off and disappointed.
The speech was not well received anywhere in the Middle East. In Israel President Obama's totally unremarkable (more on this later) reference to the 1967 borders as a basis of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations was described by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu as "indefensible." Palestinians were not pleased with Obama's speech either; Fatah leader and occasional negotiator Nabil Shaath remarked that it contained "little hope" for Palestinians. In the rest of the Middle East, reactions were subdued. Aside from the fact that they have more pressing matters to worry about in Damascus, Cairo, and elsewhere, the President just did not say much in the way of bold and new.
Unlike many other observers, I was not disappointed by President Obama's speech. Perhaps that is because I had somewhat low expectations, but I think in general it was neither a triumph nor an aberration. The President said what needed to be said and nothing more. In its present position the United States is forced to promulgate a cautious and inherently contradictory policy. President Obama has shown no desire to transcend these contradictions or to take any unnecessary risks in his approach to the Middle East, and so it was unrealistic to believe his speech would announce anything unconventional. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, too; as someone who believes that the rules of international politics have not changed much over centuries, I tend to view anything heralded as a major shift in foreign policy to be more comical than momentous.
Of course, the portion of the President's speech that has received the most attention was his reference to the Israeli borders of 1967 as the basis for a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is apparently the first time an American president has explicitly referred to the pre-1967 borders, but it is hardly a new idea (in fact, it is 44 years old). Furthermore, the United States has implicitly agreed to use the pre-1967 borders as the basis for peace by supporting and upholding UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in November 1967, and UNSCR 338, adopted in October 1973, not to mention every single Israel-Palestine peace plan endorsed by the United States ever. The hubbub around this is based on hype, not facts.
Ultimately, however, Israel-Palestine was a relatively minor topic of the speech, and one of less interest to the Middle East as a whole. The consequential news for the past five months has been coming from elsewhere in the region, and the Arab uprisings were appropriately the focus of President Obama's speech. While it did not announce any major shift in American policy, the President's speech did acknowledge that a course correction is necessary. President Obama came into office with the intention of "resetting" American relations with the Muslim world. This reset should have meant a new focus on eliminating the pathologies perpetuated by American foreign policy over the past generation -- a redefinition of how the United States would relate to the states of the Middle East, and an acknowledgment of the harm it has done both to its interests and to Arab societies by aiding and abetting the predatory and abusive rule of autocrats and despots without regard for the welfare of their people. Instead, it was a reaffirmation of such alliances, as political reform was thrown off the table in bilateral relations with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other American allies. The Obama administration was virtually allergic to democracy promotion in the region, until it became impossible to ignore this past winter.
The President admitted as much in his speech, though whether he means what he said is yet to be seen. Indeed, his words indicate that he realizes that the United States has been a part of the problem in Middle Eastern politics, but can still be a part of the solution. Furthermore, the speech indicated that he understands that the necessary shift in American policy is one of method, not of philosophy. Not only did he say that the United States will continue to pursue its interests, he correctly stated that American interests include meaningful political and economic reform in the Middle East.
In the short term, these remarks simply mean that the United States will continue its reactive, ad-hoc policy toward the Arab uprisings. This is not such a bad thing in itself -- it certainly could be bad, if the Obama administration uses poor judgment in its reaction to events in the region (I would argue that in fact this has been happening in at least Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen, but not to the extent that some Obama detractors would have you believe). While I would like things to be simpler and more clear cut, considering the inherent difficulties of protecting all American interests in the region at this time, ad-hoc reactions may be the best one can hope for.
In the end, the President's speech was typical of his leadership style. He remains cautious and risk-averse, interested in balancing between what he sees as conflicting goals in American policy. He willfully rejected the cause of political reform in the Middle East before, but now cannot avoid it. The events of the past months will not drastically alter his former approach the way the September 11, 2001 attacks did for George W. Bush. In the end, the President gave no indication that he intends to move beyond business as usual in the Middle East. It is a shame, but it seems that the Arab uprisings are being viewed in the American policy establishment as an obstacle rather than an opportunity. Still, it is clear as well that circumstances are forcing a change in perspective; one can only hope that this change will come quickly enough for the United States to have a more positive impact.
No comments:
Post a Comment