Obama and the direction for Israel
Obama’s foreign policy agenda for his second term is clear. The nomination of Chuck Hagel as Defence Secretary confirms a pattern that has been evident for some time. America is not going to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons; it is unlikely to intervene in Syria unless chemical weapons become a danger; it will leave Afghanistan to its own devices after 2014; and it will be reluctant to become involved in more fruitless negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The main focus of America’s foreign policy is going to be on Asia. There will be attempts to engage with China and build up a good relationship but efforts will continue to forge an alliance of Asian nations to balance the rise of Chinese power.
Questions need to be asked about both the details and the overall strategy of Obama’s foreign policy.
War with Iran would produce little long-term gain although the threat needs to be kept on the table to encourage Teheran to negotiate. At the same time Western diplomats need to remember that saving face has been an important aspect of Persian culture for hundreds of years. For some time the outlines of a possible deal have been clear. As three experts on Iran wrote recently in the New York Times, Teheran would probably agree not to pursue nuclear enrichment beyond the needs of its atomic fuel plants if its legitimate right to enrichment under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty was recognised and if sanctions were lifted.
It is hard to see a good way forward on Syria. The present regime needs to go but the opposition does not inspire confidence. Syria’s Christians are justifiably worried about the future. Time is running out for a negotiated transfer of power, which is probably the best option, but diplomacy could still possibly pull this off with help from the Russians.
No one should be surprised that America wants to leave Afghanistan. The government in Kabul is corr upt and the Taliban continues to be able to infiltrate the Afghani forces. There is good reason for setting a deadline for American withdrawal. It should persuade the Afghanis to take responsibility for their country and their own security. Unfortunately it also sends a signal to the Taliban that if they hang on long enough victory could be in sight.
At present government forces are largely Tarjik, Uzbek and Hazara, with few members who are Pashtun. Pakistan continues to interfere and pursue its own agenda. The Americans have had some success in Helmand where 6,500 marines remain but there is a danger that the Taliban could be back in power once they withdraw.
Pessimists argue that victory in Afghanistan is impossible and that the best thing Western forces can do is to get out. But given the fact that the West has intervened it has an obligation to its allies in Afghanistan not to leave until they are able to secure their country. Do we want to see pictures of Afghan girls being whipped for going to school or ‘collaborators’ being beheaded?
The handover to Afghani leaders must be a viable policy for securing the country’s future, not an excuse for a hasty Western withdrawal.
Obama’s pivot to Asia is also not without its problems. China is at something of a tipping point. If it wants to develop a knowledge economy it is hard to see how it can do this without making progress towards greater freedom and democracy. But nationalism remains a potent weapon in the hands of those who want to preserve the status quo. Stirring up hostility towards foreigners is a good way to distract attention from censorship and other restrictions at home.
By giving the impression it is trying to encircle China, and above all by siding with Japan in its territorial disputes with Beijing, America could play into the hands of the nationalists. American support for the democracy movement in China can be portrayed as foreign interference by a declining power desperate to halt the dragon’s rise. There is even the danger that Washington could one day find itself at war over Taiwan or over some uninhabited rocky islands in the South China Sea.
Finally, Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia ignores the importance of the Middle East and its oil for this region of the world. America may be growing more self-sufficient in energy but this is not true of Japan or China. Middle Eastern oil remains essential to Asia’s economic growth.
This means that in the long run Obama cannot close his eyes to the long-term risk of instability in Saudi Arabia, where the days of the nonagenarian King are numbered, or to the challenge of getting Benjamin Netanyahu to adopt a realistic negotiating position with the Palestinians. There are choices facing Israel it does not want to acknowledge: it can remain a democracy as it is today or it can continue to expand into the West Bank either at the cost of becoming a democracy with an Arab majority or of remaining a Jewish state that is no longer a democracy.
Understandably, Netanyahu is not someone with whom Obama wants to spend much time but he would be ill-advised to ignore the problems of Israel and the Palestinians.