Raghida Dergham
Al Arabiya News
Whoever wins the US presidential elections next week will immediately have to consider the kind of partnership they want on the international level, given that both John McCain and Barack Obama have rejected isolationism and that each has spoken of a kind of partnership that suits their thinking. The implications of the global economic crisis will force the new US president back to the strategic drawing-board. The Republicans have spoken of bilateral, international and regional partnerships, and of reinforcing traditional partnerships. The Democrats, on the other hand, have spoken the language of global partnership in a workshop to formulate a new order, one that would include new security arrangements in the Middle East. Since relations with numerous countries under current president George Bush have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, restoring the balance of trust will require profound strategic thinking, one that would take into account the consequences of the Iraq War as well as those of the recent economic crisis.
The Neoconservatives waged the Iraq War for many reasons, among them the destruction of the old regional order and bringing down the governments of countries that have had well-established historical ties with the US, under the pretext of spreading democracy from Iraq. Their strategy has been based on undermining stability in the Gulf region to promote the rise of a new regional order that would eliminate Iraq from the strategic formula of the Arabs with Israel, and would allow Iran to emerge as a regional power that challenges traditional Arab powers such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Their "preemptive" ideology has crippled relations with European countries such as Germany and France, but more importantly, it has induced countries such as China to seek their oil interests wherever and at whoever's expense they may be. Nevertheless, after the Neoconservatives and the hawks of the ruling administration began to fall apart with the outbreak of anger over the Iraq War, George Bush tried to correct the course of foreign relations and policies, reaching a "middle-ground" which will benefits the new president coming to the White House, whoever he may be.
A week after the election of the new US president, a high-level conference will be hosted at the UN's New York headquarters, attended by kings and presidents under the slogan of "Interfaith Dialogue". Aside from being the result of an initiative by Saudi monarch King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, the conference will be an uncommon political gathering, aimed at attracting an effective participation from Muslims to establish a qualitatively new form of relations between religions.
A few days later, Washington will host an economic summit of great consequence for the G20, which will include the leaders of the G8 as well as twelve other leading nations, among them the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, home to the world's largest oil reserves.
The coincidence of the two events with the election of a new US president provides a valuable opportunity, one which should be exploited, not just to take pictures but also to carefully listen to what King Abdullah has to say, especially as he was behind the Arab Peace Initiative which offered Israel full recognition and normalization in return for ending its occupation of the Arab territories of 1967, paving the way for realistic and practical modifications to such an all-encompassing peace. It is an opportunity to give and take within the framework of King Abdullah's understanding of the goals and perspectives of his "Interfaith Dialogue" initiative, especially as he holds the title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, the most sacred religious shrines for Muslims of the world, and as he has taken a qualitative leap forward in expressing respect for the Jewish faith, and not just for Christianity. This is also an opportunity to look at what Saudi Arabia is doing with regards to the issues of Pakistan and Afghanistan, at how it sees its role towards Iraq in the future, at whether it has formed an image of how its future relations with Iran might be, at what will motivate its relations with Syria particularly over the issue of Lebanon, and at how it would develop a partnership with the US and European countries, in light of the Georgian crisis with Russia, as well as the economic crisis and dwindling oil prices.
Many of the Democrats who have awoken to the tragedies of the Iraq War have decided to deliberately avoid closely evaluating the consequences of the Iraq War in the region, such as the emergence of a victorious Iran. Indeed Iran has benefited from a war that has overthrown its archenemy Saddam Hussein and has brought a Shiite government to power, not to mention how it has benefited from another US war, one that has toppled its other enemy in Afghanistan, the Taliban regime. The only thing these Democrats have bothered to concern themselves with is criticizing Bush for the Iraq War, instead of assessing the policies and strategies necessary to stop the regime of the Mullahs in Tehran from pursuing its nuclear adventures, from supporting militias and organizations that aim at obstructing the rule of the state in Lebanon through Hezbollah, and from preventing peace through negotiations with Israel by financing Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority.
The fact of the matter is that there are highly significant developments at the level of Israel's perspective on the Arab Peace Initiative, which Barack Obama and John McCain may find useful to take into account when forming bilateral and regional partnerships. Recently, explicit statements and implicit messages, attitudes and innuendoes have emerged from several of Israel's leaderships, including President Shimon Peres, Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, indicating their willingness to accept the Arab initiative put forth by King Abdullah, which had been unanimously adopted by the Arab League Summit in Beirut six years ago.
This is a major development because it constitutes a new platform for implementing the choice of a Two-State solution, Palestine alongside Israel, in return for the Arabs recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with it. This has all been previously and repeatedly expressed to Washington and to world leaders by Jordan's monarch King Abdullah II. However, Israeli leaders were not willing to allow George Bush and the US Congress to embrace such an offer. Today, however, there are signs of such willingness for the new US president, and it is of the utmost necessity to seize such signs and to build on them, especially as the other side of the work, with the Saudi leadership, pertains to the necessary results of the Interfaith Dialogue, which include weakening the forces of terrorism, mobilizing the Islamic popular base behind dialogue, as well as recognition, normalization and peace with Israel. It is noteworthy that Peres and Livni are competing over who will represent Israel at the high-level Interfaith Dialogue UN summit. There are also reports of the possibility of announcing the new Israeli position on the Arab Peace Initiative at the UN General Assembly, in the presence of the Kings of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain, as well as the Emir of Kuwait and other Islamic leaders, and in the presence of the current US President, George Bush.
Responding positively to new initiatives and stances such as these must lead the new president to reconsider the character of the team which he will entrust with this issue. There are reports that Senator Barack Obama has determined to assign the file to Dennis Ross, the Middle East peace process coordinator under President Bill Clinton. This may not be a wise decision, as Dennis Ross has had his name associated with the longest period of failure of US policy towards the Arab-Israeli issue, one which lasted seven years. He is the man who laid the blame on Palestinian President Yasser Arafat alone, while completely absolving Israel of any blame or accountability. Dennis Ross is burdened with the past, and Barack Obama needs to apply the principle of "change" in this issue more than in others.
Change is also required with respect to relations with governments in the Gulf and the Middle East. Everything is moving now towards preparations for and securing positions with the new president and administration. Nevertheless, there are matters that remain constant. Iran, for instance, will most probably adapt to new developments in the region. However, this does not affect the Islamic Republic's broad policies and long-term strategies, in terms of possessing nuclear capabilities or of retaining the instruments of regional hegemony. Iraq, for example, has become an arena of influence that Tehran will not be willing to give up. However, growing Iraqi opposition to Iran's hegemony, as well as Tehran's clear inability to control a united Iraq, is leading Iran's leadership to return to a basic rule in its strategy, which is to divide Iraq.
Similarly, when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia's role enjoys a significant margin in bringing things under control or in mediating negotiable solutions. With respect to the issue of Syria and Lebanon, on the other hand, Saudi Arabia stands in the camp of moderation against the camp of extremism, on the side of international law, the tribunal, transparency, and against political assassinations. Any other talk is purely the figment of imaginations. Hence, the new president, especially if it is Barack Obama, must ask his advisers to present him with a clear position on a very simple formula: what does the US want in Lebanon, regardless of Israel and Syria, and of the Golan? And is an Obama presidency willing to turn a blind eye to political assassinations simply to reach a deal in the name of dialogue and political realism? Obama's promises are supposed to not be "business as usual", but rather be based on political, moral, and legal values and principles, as that is said to distinguish him from others if he were to be elected president of the United States.
As Barack Obama speaks a language that places moral and legal principles above all other considerations, it is only natural for him not to accept what has taken place in the issues of Lebanon and Syria, to ensure support for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to try those implicated in political assassinations, and to reject political bargains. Barack Obama, despite the prevalent impression, does not differ radically from John McCain when it comes to defending US interests anywhere in the world. They both want a militarily superior America, and they both agree not to remove the military option from the negotiation table on any issue. The difference is that Obama wants to start from scratch, to engage in dialogue, negotiate and practice diplomacy, whereas McCain wants to avoid getting stuck in vicious circles of buying time, as he believes these are part of the strategy of states such as Iran and Syria. However, when closely considering the issue of Sudan and Darfur, it seems that Obama is ready to impose a "no-fly zone", which implies the willingness to destroy the Sudanese military air force in the name of moral responsibility towards Darfur. It also implies that Obama can think like a hawk when he deems it necessary.
Today, and at this fork in the road, there are opportunities to form new relationships, partnerships and strategies, for which a fresh start is important. As the "Interfaith Dialogue" coincides with the economic summit as well as with the victory of one of the two presidential candidates, it seems only natural for the relationship with Saudi Arabia to be among primary concerns in the framework of this new perspective. Indeed, Europe needs Saudi Arabia and is considering reformulating its relations with Russia, as a result of the tension caused by the Georgia crisis and by Ukraine joining NATO. Europe may also need to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia, as relations with Iran are expected to deteriorate, especially considering that, in times of recession, there is a need for energy to support investments, and this is where oil prices become important.
No comments:
Post a Comment