BEIRUT — The appointment of Hillary Clinton as the next American secretary of state has generated much discussion and debate, most of it focused on personality and based on speculation and entertainment. The Obama team’s policies will speak for themselves in due course, which is how this administration will be judged.
Political election campaigns and running an administration are two different things. Politicians are not normal human beings, and do not respond to standard ethical values that define the rest of society. Like Shakespearean actors, they enjoy a mandate from the rest of us to perform on a large stage, to entertain, to exaggerate, dance, perhaps even occasionally to enlighten and move us emotionally. They make promises they do not expect to keep, and adopt some positions that they know they will reverse in office.
We should enjoy this for the good things it offers — like leadership anchored in the legitimacy of the consent of the governed — while noting the intemperance and expediency of politicians who can also embody the clarity and decency of ordinary Americans.
When she was a citizen and not a politician, Hilary Clinton came out strongly in favor of the rights of the Palestinian people in 1998, when she said that Palestinians should have a state of their own — years before this became an accepted position in the United States. Once she became a senator from New York State, though, she donned the politician’s hat and espoused fiercely pro-Israeli positions. In the presidential election campaign, she embraced every Israeli position on issues like Iran and Hamas. Speaking before the maniacally pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC in June, she said, “The United States stands with Israel, now and forever.”
To be fair, every other presidential candidate said virtually the same thing. But this is now in the past, and can be largely ignored. Henceforth, foreign policy-making will reflect the collective views of the national security-foreign policy team led by Barack Obama — one which is impressive for its sobriety and experience.
National Security Adviser James Jones, for example, has on-the-ground experience in Arab-Israeli issues. He will bring knowledge to this arena in Washington that is usually driven heavily by a confluence of ignorant and electorally vulnerable politicians who succumb to the dictates of pro-Israeli lobbyists. Other experienced men and women who are loosely associated with Obama, like Brent Scowcroft, also bring realism rather than rabid zealotry to the task of formulating foreign policy.
A crucial early sign of how Obama will proceed in the Middle East will be the key personnel who will be appointed to handle core issues, like the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran, and counter-terrorism. If someone like Dennis Ross, for example, is named to handle Arab-Israeli issues, that would be a bad sign. Ross has been a dedicated public servant, but his record in and out of office is widely perceived — even by those who worked with him — to be more pro-Israeli than even-handed. His association with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a key player in Washington’s pro-Israeli lobbying universe, is a powerful sign of his political position.
There is nothing wrong with being associated with WINEP, AIPAC or any other pro-Israel group, other than that this should automatically disqualify such a person from a mediating position in Arab-Israeli issues (as, of course, also applies to anyone associated with pro-Palestinian groups in the United States). Ross’ track record is also one of consistent failure in terms of brokering Arab-Israeli peace. This reflects the weaknesses and biases of the administrations he has served, to be sure, but might also mirror his own shortcomings as an unbiased mediator in some cases.
The experience of people like Dennis Ross should be tapped by the Obama team in new councils that include pro-Israeli, pro-Arab and impartial Americans who enjoy both experience and credibility. Any officials who try their hand at mediation, however, must start off with the critical virtues of impartiality and trust. Appointments to come soon will reveal whether the Obama team really seeks to bring change to foreign policy, or will be happy to retreat to comfortable old positions and personalities that are largely driven by pro-Israeli interests and a quiet disdain for Arab rights.
This is crucial because the Arab-Israeli conflict remains the oldest, most destabilizing force in the Middle East, touching now on Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, and other issues of tension and confrontation. Moving quickly to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in a fair manner that ensures the equal rights of Israelis and Arabs would be the most effective way to reduce tensions and reconfigure alliances throughout the entire Middle East, and thus serve American national interests.
The right mix of effective policies and credible personalities for the Middle East has eluded the past four American administrations of Clinton and Bush. We will soon find out if more sensible minds now prevail in Washington.
Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.
Copyright © 2008 Rami G. Khouri – distributed by Agence Global
—————
Released: 03 December 2008
Word Count: 808
—————-