Arabs Pressure Rice On U.S. Peace EffortsThe Bush administration's effort to foster a bloc of moderate Arab states to stand against growing militancy in the Middle East has come up against a brick wall, with several close U.S. allies bluntly telling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday that they do not want to be pitted against other Arab governments and movements, according to senior Arab officials. To read the entire article click here.
This is an interesting Development. Discuss the article in the context of the conversation we had on the global implications of the Arab-Israeli conflict in class on 10/03. What do you think the U.S. wishes to do with the poodle club, GCC plus 2?
10 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
This article addresses a number of the global effects of the Arab-Israeli conflict that we discussed in class on Tuesday. As the eight Arab states said, the US is too focused on Iran, and needs to be the leader in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The conflict is like a disease that weakens the body’s ability to deal with other diseases, as the Saudi Prime minister stated. With this disease comes the global consequences of great tension between the Muslim world and the west (USA), and global polarization, as we mentioned in class. If the US is so interested in fixing the Iran problem, then the way to solve all issues starts at the core issue - the Arab- Israeli conflict. This global call coming from the Arab world along with prominent western figures should be sending a strong signal to the US that it is ultimate player in creating peace in the conflict.
The inherent issue is the division between the Western world and the "Rest.” As Dr. Kahn states in class on Tuesday, the US’s imaginary preoccupation with Iran has created real consequences. Those consequences? The Iranian government has even more reason to side with Palestine, and even more reason to wage conflict against the US, because the US initiated it. But the US can fix it. By being the main player in a solution to the conflict, the US is essentially killing two birds, or killing many birds, with one stone. They are bridging the hate between the Western world and the Arab world, and fostering a lasting peace and understanding.
Condi Rice is making statements but not acting on them. Rice said the issue has become UN’s credibility in regards to the conflict, but if this is the issue, the US bears a great deal of responsibility, seeing as how we are the dominant world power. Moreover, the US rarely ever follows through with anything they agree to at the UN. We sign and break treaties all the time. So perhaps it is the US whose credibility is in jeopardy.
As far as the GCC plus 2 club, the US should be concerned. This group illustrates that although some moderate Arab states are siding with the US, like Jordan and Egypt, ultimately their sympathies lie against the United States.
I want to also share an interesting article I read by columnist, Thomas Friedman [see link below]. He argues that all of this internal violence of Muslims fighting against each other and incessant bombing is because of a lack of dialogue and leadership amongst all Muslims. The Arab world is composed of mostly young people, with vast underdevelopment and poverty and little strong leadership. The bombings and fighting are backed by many angry young people who do not really have clear views of the objectives. Muslims are in general against the Western world, but they themselves need to decide what they want, through leadership and dialogue.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/
opinion/29friedman.html
The quote comparing the conflict to a disease goes right along with what we were saying in class about how the conflict is preventing regional development. For nearly every country in the middle east, the Arab/Israeli conflict is a top foreign (and often domestic) policy priority. Until it is solved, there can be no real focus on important development issues.
Another similar consequence is that no one in the middle east will take us seriously in our confrontation with Iran until we put more effort into a two-state peace arrangement with Israel and the PA. Bush has stated how necessary such a peace agreement is, yet rather than actively pursue it, he ignores that conflict and instead focuses his attention on the "threat" of Iran. It's foolish to think that these Arab countries in the "GCC plus 2" are going to formally allign themselves with the US, while we are doing virtually nothing to help solve the conflict that is most important to people in the region.
One of the Bush administration's key flaws in its foreign policy is that they truly don't see the need for dialogue or REAL negotiation. It's as if the term "compromise" has become confused with the dirty word "appeasement." We see this both in the current situation with Iran, as well as in the cutting of US aid to the PA and the refusal to talk diectly with Hamas. And by trying to create and become friendly with this "moderate bloc" or Arab states, the US is making a sneaky attempt to appear to be "working with the people," but Arab leaders made it clear that it's obvious we're using them to pursue our own interests.
I agree with the previous post with regards to the intentions of the Bush administration’s lack of effort toward a peace arrangement. It would be refreshing to see our leadership seek solutions rather than create larger problems; such is the case with our involvement in Iraq and the false concerns with regard to Iran and its nuclear capabilities. I am not surprised that the meeting between Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and other Arab officials was not considered very productive. If the administration was concerned with a realistic solution there would be less focus on Iran, which maybe a future problem, and more concern with the Arab-Israel conflict that currently is a real problem. It is a shame that a region which is so rich in history and culture is engulfed in violence which does not end. If the United States seeks to be a true hegemonic leader in the world, we must show others that our intentions are peaceful and we strive for significant progress. If progress and peace is created, people around the world may change their opinion of our country and view us with a positive outlook.
In relation to the balance of power in the region, the eight Arab governments telling Rice that they do not wish to group and stand against other Arabs in the Middle East makes balancing other nations in the region increasingly difficult. I think that what the US was trying to do was to form a moderate Arab bloc to counter the rising power of Iran, whom the US sees as a threat. The nuclear issue in Iran is a small part of the larger picture of what the US is trying to stop, a rise in Iran’s international clout. Iran is trying to improve their international position by standing up to the US and trying to get other nations to stand up against the US with them, an example being Venezuela. Iran and Venezuela are trying to chip away at the US’s hegemony and so the US is trying to form alliances and groups to balance their power.
Now in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab’s saying that they do not want to go up against other Arabs sort of moves those nations to the center of the chart from class. Not creating a moderate bloc begins to move them towards neutrality because while they reject the US’s attempt to influence them, they aren’t going up against the opponent of the US, Iran. So instead of having a new group on Israel’s side to counter the growing rectangle of Iran’s support of the Palestinians, the US now has to try to find another way to keep the conflict in Israel’s favor.
If you think of it as a scale, the US is a big heavy block that makes the Israeli side the heaviest. To counter that you would have all the Arab nations on the other side, trying to balance it. To counter the balancing, the US wants to take the moderate Arab nations and put their blocks on the Israeli side of the scale to counter Iran’s block, which is defying the laws of physics and somehow adding matter to its block to become heavier. So what the Arab governments have done by not forming a bloc is moved to the center of the scale, where they are still present but not putting any weight down for either side.
It is clear that while the issue of Iran going nuclear is important, it shouldn't stop us from dealing with the other issues in the region. Establishing peace can only be accomplished if the Israelis and Palestinians can negotiate, and I find it surprising that more attention is not paid to Hamas' refusal to accept the recognition of Israel's right to exist as a precondition for negotiation. Such a hardline stance essentially means that even a two-state solution isnt good enough. Emphasis should be on finding a middleground that both sides find reasonable, but it goes without saying that failing to recognize Israel's right to exist pretty much kills any chance of finding a peaceful solution.
I'm not sure if Rice has done anything productive or anything that lead to tangible results since she has been promoted to her current high office.
Today, BBC had an interesting interview with Syria's president:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6034665.stm
Points out that the US role in the Middle East is important, but the current administration has done nothing to promote peace or trust between the nations or itself. It's ridiculous for the US to promote the Fatah party and president Abbas while at the same time cutting off aid and not discussing the issue with Israel.
I think it's rather clear that currently the US has no real interest in a two state solution. It simply wants security in the region so it can stop the insurgents in Iraq and possibly start invading Iran.
Most of the Arab states aren't willing anymore to help the Palestines beyond political support and perhaps some aid. Nevertheless, the bad treatment they receive from the US and Israel does play a large role in the Arab nations' views on us.
The threat of Iran seems even more ridiculous than Iraq. When will those in Washington realize that the US people do not want another enemy with Iran and that there's no good reason for one either. Lately, the issue of North Korea with its recent "supposed" nuclear testing underground has caused fear in the American people, but I doubt that will amount to anything once again. And the Bush administration will continue its talks about Iran and ignoring the world's pleas about Palestine. The dichotomy between what the Middle East is concerned primarily with and the US is amazing.
With good reason, Arab officials question whether the Bush Administration has the commitment or energy to seek a solution between the Israelis and Palestinians before Bush leaves office. If the issue becomes hot again, like it did during the Hezbollah-Israel conflict this summer, then America is sure to get involved. If not, the plight of the Palestinians is not a top priority for the Bush Administration, which chooses to focus its efforts in the region on Iran and Iraq. I believe this casual diplomatic approach is another missed opportunity to enhance the image of the United States in the Middle East. On the surface, America’s lack of interest in Israeli-Palestinian issues compared to national security issues like Iran and Iraq seems reasonable. In no way do I intend to marginalize the issues of Iran or Iraq, but I do not believe that the Palestinian issue should be given much more attention in Washington. If nothing else, if our government played an important role in resolving the Palestinian issue by putting diplomatic pressure on Israel, America’s credibility in the Arab world receive an enormous boast. Additionally, America’s good will would make Arab counties more receptive to calls for assistance by the United States in the future: whether those calls are for a united front against Iran, or for more staunchly fighting the flow of insurgents from their countries to Iraq. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue would undoubtedly strengthen America’s soft power in the Middle East, and likely strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and many Arab countries.
The pressure being placed on the Bush Administration is definitely an interesting development in the region. Much of the allure of radical organizations as well as Iran comes from their fierce opposition to the Israel, the U.S. and her allies. The war in Iraq and especially the war in Lebanon this past summer do nothing but reinforce the very perceptions that these groups in the Middle East have been reciting for years – that the current moderate Arab states are weak and powerless to resist the “Zionists” and the “Crusaders”. As the influence of Iran and these fringe organizations grow, the moderate Arab governments realize the need for a real political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I think that the description given in the article by the Saudi officials that the conflict is like a disease that hurts the body’s ability to fight other diseases is fairly accurate. It is obvious that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not suddenly make the Middle East peaceful and free of problems, but a legitimate settlement removes a major pillar upon which non-moderates garner support.
The U.S. is currently placing the war in Iraq and the Iranian nuclear weapon dispute above all other priorities in the Middle East, but what it is failing to see is that it will not be able to harvest any backing in the region until the Arab-Israeli conflict has come to a resolution. Various radical groups and governments in the ME manipulate the plight of the Palestinians in order to appear legitimately in support of righteous causes, while in fact their ulterior motives lie else where. The Arab-Israeli conflict allows radical organizations in the Middle East to rally around a common cause giving them a superficial unifying element. If not for the existence of the conflict these very same groups would be in transparent conflict because of diametrically opposing fundamental ideologies. For example, al-Qaeda is an extremist Sunni organization while Hezbollah is a Shiite organization. These two groups are the result of radically different circumstances, consist of completely different members and have totally different goals. However, when Hezbollah was winning the hearts and minds of the Arab street during the war in Lebanon, Ayman Al-Zawahiri was on TV railing against the same foe that Hezbollah was fighting. These groups are wholly opposed to one another, but their differences become opaque as long as they both appear to be opposing perceived Israeli aggression. If this unifying factor is removed, the U.S. would significantly more leverage to exploit their differences thereby weakening them.
In further global context, as is conveyed by the handouts from class that show the U.N. Resolutions drafted against Israeli, but were never passed because of U.S. opposition (usually the sole dissenting vote), the most capable force in the world is seen as being an enabler of Israeli aggression. The one country powerful enough to mediate a solution is viewed around the world and especially in the Middle East as utterly biased against the Arabs. Given the strength of American power it is not surprising that these moderate Arab governments want the U.S. to be more engaged in the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although they would like to see a solution, they cannot appear to be moving closer the U.S. and the Israelis. The name of the problem is the Arab-Israeli conflict which in itself denotes a strong sense of unity that governments in the region do not want to belie by their actions for fear of further empowering these elements. As usually the U.S. wants to give the illusion of progress and backing from nations in the region, hence the GCC plus 2. The group does not want to be considered a block, which is unfortunate for the U.S. who would love to parade them around as proof that American policies have the support of moderate governments. Realistically, if the GCC plus 2 appeared to have policies aligned with the U.S. as much as the U.S. and Israel have policies aligned, then it would actually hurt American interests by strengthening governments like that of Iran as well as radical groups.
Is it bad to hope that Iran speeds up the process to get nuclear weapons? I'm thinking not because of history has shown the US doesn't like to attack countries with a nuclear capability. We saw this in the Cold War. A huge war didn't break out between USSR and the US partly due to the fact that both had nuclear capability. Maybe once Iran get these weapons we would be less likely to talk about attacking them and be forced to deal with other issues that really threaten the stability of the Middle East, like the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also both Israel and the US may deal a little more fairly because there would be another nuclear power in the picture.
Post a Comment
<< Home