webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Tue Jan 11 2011 - 02:20:58 EST
REWARDS / THE ECONOMIST ( A MUST READ )
| Etiquetas: Middle
East<http://gonzaloraffoinfonews.blogspot.com/search/label/Middle%20East>,
U.S. Economic And
Political<http://gonzaloraffoinfonews.blogspot.com/search/label/U.S.%20Economic%20And%20Political>
http://gonzaloraffoinfonews.blogspot.com/2010/12/america-and-middle-east-great.html
*America and the Middle East*
.
*Great sacrifices, small rewards*
*Has America’s obsession with this region been worth it?*
*Dec 29th 2010 | CAIRO | from PRINT EDITION*
*.*
*THE Middle East holds a giant chunk of the world’s energy reserves, and
also generates its biggest political headaches. Small wonder that the United
States has long had an outsize interest in the place. Since September 11th
2001, and the rise of radical Islam as the sole violent challenge to
an American-shaped
international order, America’s focus on the region between the Nile
and theIndus
rivers has been obsessive. Yet all the attention would seem to have been in
vain. America’s influence has dwindled everywhere with the financial
crisisand the
rise of emerging powers. But it seems to be withering faster in the Middle
East than anywhere else. *
*Two decades ago, when America marshalled a daunting force to toss Saddam
Hussein out of Kuwait, it stood unchallenged in the region. Kings and
presidents-for-life
vied for American favour. Countries such as Iran that would not, or
Somalia that
could not, were ignored. When America summoned leaders to Madrid in
1991 to sort
out the most intractable Middle Eastern mess, the Arab-Israeli struggle,
some grumbled, but all fell into line. *
*Most of them still come when America beckons, but ten years ago things
began to slip. Despite the commitment of successive American presidents, and
despite near-consensus worldwide on the outlines of an agreement, Arab-Israeli
peace has kept receding out of reach. The invasions of Afghanistan in
2001andIraqin2003 vastly
expanded America’s bootprint in the region. But the smoke of those Pyrrhic
triumphs cleared to reveal America in trouble. The global “war on terror”
declared by George Bush displaced al-Qaeda and prevented several serious
attacks. But those successes drained America’s treasury, alienated
itsfriendsand emboldened
its enemies. Recalcitrant, revolutionary Iran found itself magically
enhanced. *
*America’s Middle East policy now looks thwarted at every turn. Its closest
ally, Israel, which has received more than $27 billion in American military
aid over the past decade, has rebuffed pleas, backed by offers of yet more
aid and diplomatic support, to pause in its building of illegal Jewish
settlements in occupied territory. Another Middle Eastern friend and aid
recipient, Egypt, has cocked a snook at American requests to set an
exampleof democratic
reform. It rejected a call by Barack Obama to let international observers
monitor a recent, garishly fraudulent election. Iraq, where America has
expended so much blood and treasure, took nine months to form a shaky
government that looks more to Iran’s liking than America’s. And Iran seems
undiminished in its determination to pursue its nuclear ambitions, no matter
how much America and its allies rattle sabres and pile on sanctions. *
*Even the popularity of Mr Obama, which surged among Arabs and Muslims after
his inauguration, has fallen back. Shibley Telhami, of the University of
Maryland who has long experience in polling regional opinion, notes two
trends. Arabs used to distinguish between a dislike for American policiesand a
liking for Americans as people; now they tend to dismiss both. And when
asked which leaders they admire, Arabs continue to cheer those who stand upto
America and to its ally Israel. This year Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan topsthe
list, followed by Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s yanqui-baiter-in-chief. *
*Several reasons lie behind America’s loss of potency. Some reflect
changeswithin the Middle
East. Allies such as Israel and Turkey long followed American wishes
reflexively
because they felt imperilled and dependent on American largesse. They have
now grown too strong for that. With its thriving economy, Israel feels
ableto take
a more independent line. Turkey has also become an economic power and its
government, unlike the dictatorships elsewhere in the Middle East, is now
democratic. And although the region’s two strongest states still pursue
policies that dovetail with America’s, they have grown unhelpfully
estrangedfrom each
other. *
*Other allies that once augmented American power by proxy have grown tooweak to
help. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia packs financial clout, but its ruling
princesare ageing
and absorbed by a struggle for succession. Egypt, the most populous
and diplomatically
agile Arab country, is also run by old men. Once they could rally Arabs
behind American objectives, but the Egyptians have struggled lately
even togetthetwomain
Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, to talk to each other. The
Mubaraksand theAl Saudshave little
impact any more on the Arab Street: “resistance” and defiance carry more
appeal. “The sense of how weak we are is a factor of how weak our
partnersare,” saysScott Carpenter,
a Bush-administration official now with the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy. *
*Fingers burned*
*America’s own mistakes, tactical and strategic, have speeded its decline. The
failure to find banned weapons in Saddam’s Iraq and the torture at
Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have tainted America’s moral authority. The
application of American firepower has, ironically, also raised the bar
for defying
America’s will. Iran and its allies, including Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah,
the Lebanese Shia party-cum-militia, feel they can call America’s
bluffbecause theythinkthat, having
burned its fingers in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will no longer back harsh
words with invasions. *
*You can see how they might reach that judgment. Aside from nearly
6,000 American
fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expenditure, so far, of more than $1.1
trillion on military operations in those theatres has sapped the will for more
campaigns. The cost of keeping a single soldier on the ground now
exceeds $500,000
a year—a strong reason for a poorer America to reduce its presence in the
region. *
*The incoming, Tea-Party-infused Congress is likely to make things
harder. Whereas
rivalry between Democrats and Republicans used to end at the water’s edge,
it now extends into foreign policy. Despite the ratification of the New
START treaty at the end of 2010, Congress is beset by partisanship,
even in petty
matters. *
*Solely because of partisan obstruction, Mr Obama has yet to secure
approvalfor his
choice of two career diplomats as ambassadors to Turkey and Syria. *
*America’s pro-Israel lobby shows no sign of losing strength. Jonathan
Broder, foreign-affairs editor of the Congressional Quarterly, discerns an
effort by Republicans to woo Jewish voters, long more supportive of
Democrats, by outbidding the administration over Israel. Eric Cantor,
the incoming
House majority leader, has proposed moving the $3 billion annual military
grant to Israel from the foreign-aid budget to the Pentagon, in effect
shielding it from spending cuts. *
*“Not only would this remove a lever for American pressure,” warns Mr Broder,
“it would make us silent accomplices in the settlement process.”*
*However, other Washington observers lament that the lessons of failure in
the Middle East have yet to be learned. *
*“Obama said that we had not only to change the war in Iraq, but to changethe
mindset that led to the war, and this has not happened,” says Brian
Katulisof the Centre
for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think-tank. Despite a
viewthat soft
power can be as potent as military muscle, he says, this has not
translatedintopolicy
. Marc Lynch, of George Washington University, agrees: “The lesson we
seemto have
learned from Iraq is not, ‘Disaster, don’t do it again’, but rather, ‘Now we
know how to do counterinsurgency.’”*
*Picking up the pieces*
*America’s woes have led some to accuse Mr Obama’s team of managing the Middle
East even more ineptly than Mr Bush’s did. The American right and many
Israelis think he is too pro-Arab. Arabs, Europeans and critics from the left
charge him with being timid and oversensitive to domestic politics;
with lacking
strategic vision; with being locked into black-and-white views that overlook
useful ambiguities; and with substituting lofty talk for firm action. *
*This is not entirely fair. As with the economy, Mr Obama took on a terrible
inheritance from his predecessor. Iraq, Iran and Arab-Israeli peace were big
burning fires when he took office. All have since been contained, to some
extent, and largely by American efforts. *
*Indeed, if damage-control was the mission, Mr Obama may claim a decent
measure of success. *
*Mr Obama began with an assessment of what was wrong, and the steps
neededtorepair it
. He expressed his urgency by appealing to Muslims through Arab media, in
his impassioned Cairo speech in 2009, and by diplomacy to rebuild
confidencewith allied
governments and on a smaller scale by expanding funding to civil-society
groups and human-rights activists across the Middle East. Such
initiativescan be hard
to gauge, yet despite Mr Obama’s falling regional approval and some worrying
trends in public opinion, America’s standing is better than it was in the Bush
years. The number of Middle Easterners studying in American colleges, for
instance, has nearly doubled in the past five years. *
*Improvement shows up, too, in the State Department’s annual index of
votingat the UN
General Assembly. This has long revealed Arab states as the group least
likely to vote with America. Voting coincidence stood at a peak of 40% under
Bill Clinton. Under him it started to fall, reaching a feeble 10% in
theBush years.
In 2009 Arab countries voted with America 20% of the time—not bad,
considering that the average for all UN members was only 39%.*
**
*Thank you, neoconservatism*
*America’s recent record on the big issues shows similar modest improvements
. Iran’s behaviour has still to change, but Mr Obama’s mixture of diplomatic
overtures and sticking to principles has left its rulers rattled and lonely.
The administration’s softer touch, says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has solidified thetransatlantic
alliance, allowing for tougher sanctions. *
*It has also widened divisions inside Iran that may accelerate the regime’s
demise. *
*In any case, sharp changes are unlikely in a government so ideologically
blinkered, diplomatically inept and administratively opaque as Iran’s. *
*On Iraq, too, the administration’s achievements have been undramatic, but
important. Critics forget that America’s declared aim is not to create
apro-American bastionbut toleaveastable,
inclusive and democratic government and to protect Iraqi sovereignty.
The dramatic
reduction in American troop levels, from 150,000 to below 50,000, has gone
more smoothly than expected. Despite Iran’s influence over some
factions, neither
it nor other foreign would-be meddlers have made huge inroads. Iraq’s
government remains shaky and venal, but it is now, in the eyes of most
Iraqis, a legitimate, independent institution and it has, so far, been fairly
inclusive. In short, it is too early to judge whether Iraq will prove a
write-off for America, or a dearly bought long-term asset. *
*The biggest headache*
*It is harder to defend America’s record in the Arab-Israeli talks,
exceptto note
that Mr Obama has shown more determination than Mr Bush. The president has
been accused from the right of making too much of Jewish colonisation in the
West Bank, in effect granting a veto to the far-right elements in the coalition
led by Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. But the focus on
settlements came in response to pleas from the weak Palestinian
president,Mahmoud Abbas,
to give him something to convince his people—understandably sceptical after two
decades of pedalling to nowhere—that talks might work.*
**
*Still in the thick of it*
*The Obama team may have underestimated Mr Netanyahu’s ability to resist. The
White House was outfoxed in Washington, where the Israeli leader used
the mid-term
elections for Congress and pro-Israel Republicans to cow the administration.
*
*The effort to coax Israel with American gifts, say Mr Obama’s defenders,
was a recognition that action was urgent. “They saw a risk”, says Robert
Malley of the International Crisis Group, “that if things don’t happen in
the next few months, they may lose two years in the run-up to the next US
election, and have to kiss the whole Obama peace agenda goodbye.”
Thishiatuscouldaffecta
range of Middle Eastern issues, from Iran to Lebanon. *
*By this logic, the administration’s willingness to pay to keep peace hopes
alive can be seen as admirable commitment rather than feebleness.
Israel mayhave outbluffed
America, using the power of its supporters in Congress, but it stands
increasingly isolated in the world. The next time America asks Mr
Netanyahufor something
it could, conceivably, rally allies to exert pressure too, and this
couldunsettle Israel
. American diplomats have already moved to sustain momentum by
arranging forparallel talksbetween the
two sides. Their leadership is still needed; nobody else is likely soon to
step into America’s peace-processing shoes. *
*In fact, the Middle East’s need for an active America is as great as
ever. Don’t
forget that America’s footprint spreads across the region, and in most
places still rests on a comfortable carpet. *
*Smaller states welcome American forces, accepting the need for protection much
as Europe did after the second world war. *
*Iran may declare that its objective is to chase America from the Persian
Gulf, but it is Iranian recalcitrance that prompts its neighbours to host
American bases and spend lavishly on American arms. *
*Privately, most Iraqi leaders hope that American forces will stay. North
African countries and Yemen quietly welcome American help against al-Qaeda.
*
*America’s present difficulties obscure longer-term successes. Gary Sick,
who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford and Jimmy
Carter and now teaches at Columbia University, sees oscillations rather than
a declining influence in the Middle East. He recalls that in the Gulf,
America had almost no permanent armed presence before the 1979 Iranian
revolution. “We’re on our way out of Iraq but not about to vanish,” he says,
noting that al-Udaid, the American air base in Qatar, is the busiest in the
world, and Dubai’s Jebel Ali port the most frequently visited by
theAmerican navy.
“If our main purpose has been to keep oil flowing, well, it works,” says Mr
Sick. Another American target, global jihadism, is a work in progress;
though in contrast to a decade ago, countering it is now a task that virtually
every government in the world takes part in. *
*Yet even if America’s influence endures, is it worth the price? Few
Americans realise that the Persian Gulf nowadays supplies barely 10%
of America’s
oil. Its value is far less than what the Pentagon spends on American
fleetsandbasesin the
region, even excluding the costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. America
projects that over the next 25 years its dependence on Gulf energy will fall
. *
*Hence its armed muscle is, in effect, protecting the world from a Middle
Eastern oil shock. That benefits America—because its consumers pay a world
price for their oil. But it also benefits emerging rivals such as China and
India, which shoulder none of the burden of serving as the world’s policeman.
*
*At the same time, the two things most consistently cited by Arabs
andMuslimsas theirmain objectionsto
America—and which therefore serve as the biggest rallying calls to jihad—are
its support for Israel and the regional presence of American forces.
Neitheroftheseis
likely to change. That may one day lead Americans to ask why they invest so
much in a troubled region with such poor returns.*
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----