BEIRUT — The Obama administration to date has given four early but mostly clear signs about its intended policies towards the Middle East — especially the Arab-Israeli conflict that remains the core issue in the region. All four signs suggest that the Obama administration will be both more activist and fairer to all concerned than the perpetual disaster-making machine that was the George Bush/Condoleezza Rice team.
The four signs are Obama’s inaugural address, Hilary Clinton’s confirmation hearing testimony before Congress, the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to Arab-Israeli peacemaking, and Obama’s remarks at the State Department Thursday.
Three of the four signs mainly reflect a softer and slightly more balanced tone on Arab-Israeli peacemaking, Iran, and general relations with Islamic societies. The fourth and most important signal — the appointment of George Mitchell — indicates the U.S. plans to be substantively involved in peacemaking, on a sustained basis, with direct support from the president. This was enhanced by the phone call to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Obama’s first day in office.
From his inaugural address pledge to “seek a way forward with the Muslim world” on the basis of “mutual interests and mutual respect” and to “work with old friends and former foes” to reduce the nuclear threat, Obama probably plans an early engagement with Iran, where the interests/respect balance is critical for success. Focusing on Iran and Arab-Israeli peacemaking simultaneously is a wise move, because these two issues impact powerfully on the entire region.
The Mitchell appointment is the most clear and positive sign of a sensible approach to the Middle East in the Obama administration. The most important aspect of it is that Obama did not appoint Dennis Ross to the position. Ross and his colleagues at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), along with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), represent the most extreme side of pro-Israeli lobbying and advocacy in Washington. They reportedly had been working overtime to get Ross appointed again as point man for Arab-Israeli issues. Appointing Mitchell is a positive sign that Obama seeks a more serious, fair, and credible Middle East foreign policy.
George Mitchell himself is a man of immense credibility, achievement and diplomatic diligence. His successful approach to peacemaking in Northern Ireland will assist him immensely in addressing the Middle East. Mitchell’s strong card is his insistence on bringing all legitimate parties into the negotiating process on the basis of renouncing violence, and crafting a resolution that responds simultaneously to the minimum and core needs of each side.
He will find that the United States is already locked into some positions that will hamper the search for peace, such as refusing to speak to Hamas and Hizbullah until they change their policies and behavior towards Israel. This is one of the legacies of the WINEP-AIPAC-Ross-influenced foreign policy-making process in Washington, which appeared usually to allow Israeli interests to drive U.S. policy.
Unfortunately for the pro-Israeli zealots and their front men in Washington, this approach has not worked, and has worsened conditions for Israel, the United States, the Palestinians and many others. A new approach is needed, and we may be seeing early hints of this in the Obama-Clinton policies that are slowly taking shape.
In the world of diplomacy, nuanced shifts, however small, are a form of body language that should be read correctly. Obama-Clinton will not make unilateral radical changes in the United States’ Middle East policies now, given the need to consult with the parties involved and other allies.
It is significant, though, that on his second day in office the American president publicly acknowledged Palestinian suffering in a way that virtually no other American politician has dared to do in the past month, and pledged to work for a permanent ceasefire that provides security for Palestine and Israel while also lifting the Israeli siege on Gaza and allowing a normal flow of commerce and aid.
Simply by articulating the core needs of both sides in the same statement, while repeating the standing positions on Hamas and pledging American humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Gaza, Obama signals a small shift in tone. The coming months will reveal if this presages a more balanced policy. I believe it is significant, especially when combined with Obama’s naming of Mitchell and repeating that the United States will be engaged in a serious and sustained manner, with his personal support.
This is as good a start as we in the Arab world could expect from the new administration in Washington. Obama asked the Arabs to put life into their 2002 peace plan, which he said has some positive elements. The Arab world has an opening here that it should exploit, by responding to Obama’s request. And they should also make a counter-request that Arab moves be matched simultaneously by Israeli and American moves.
The most important of which is to engage with all legitimate Palestinian leaders and deal with the Palestinian issue as one of national rights, not merely charity for humanitarian needs.
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 © 2009 Rami G. Khouri – distributed by Agence Global
—————
Released: 23 January 2009
Word Count: 834
—————-