COMMENT It's Obama that's changing
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
President-elect Barack Obama has made history as the first African-American to
win the highest office in America. He did so by running an efficient and
seductive campaign around the slogan "Change we can believe in."
But as his choices for top government positions become public, above all the
possible selection of former rival Senator Hillary Clinton as his secretary of
state, they clearly demonstrate that a metamorphosis of Obama has begun even
before assuming official duties. Obama's choices, mostly from the narrow
Clinton "circle", represent a mini-betrayal of his promises and represent
the opposite of his slogan: they reflect only continuity in the realm of
foreign policy.
Obma's decision to retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates is another strong
indication that the Obama administration will refrain from introducing any
sea-change in US foreign policy. Instead, the trend of hiring, by and large,
maintains the foreign policy pattern of his predecessor, George W Bush.
Any expectation of a brand new, or even mostly new, US foreign policy,
including in the turbulent Middle East, will likely be frustrated. At a time
when the US economic crisis has assumed number-one priority, Obama's choices
have been justified as a trade-off whereby stability in US foreign relations is
paired with important changes in economic policies.
Such analyses miss the point of an organic interconnection between domestic and
foreign policies, particularly when dealing with issues of potential conflict
and war that directly impact the global economy - especially if they involve
the oil-rich Persian Gulf region.
Hillary Clinton is the US secretary of choice by Israel and its army of
lobbyists in Washington. Her anticipated selection is deeply disappointing to
important segments of the Middle East which simply do not trust Clinton to
exert pressures on Israel to move forward the stalled peace process. Clinton
has never criticized Israel's repressive policies toward the Palestinians or
the Israeli government's illegal settlements, just as her husband, former
president Bill Clinton, looked the other way when the size of Jewish
settlements in the West Bank more than doubled during his tenure.
Throughout her campaign for presidency, Clinton never once spoke of the need
for a more balanced US foreign policy in the Middle East. Instead, she
constantly raised her voice for the state of Israel. Even when former
Democratic president Jimmy Carter published a controversial book decrying the
oppression of Palestinians as "worse than apartheid", she maintained her
silence.
Despite campaign lip service about the need to "talk to our adversaries",
Clinton is expected to do little more than present Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice with respect to Iran, a country that Clinton once bluntly
promised to "annihilate" if it dared attack Israel.
Fully committed to underwriting Israel's security, Clinton has more than proved
her determination to also fulfill Israel's foreign policy expectations from the
US. This is one reason why Washington's pro-Israel pundits, such as Bill
Kristol and Fox TV's Chris Wallace, were beaming when Obama first met Clinton a
couple of weeks ago to consider her for the post, This was a fatal error on
Obama's part as it opened a flood gate of pro-Israel spin doctors in the US
media to put the limelight on her selection, eclipsing the chances of other
candidates, such as Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and former New Mexico
governor, Bill Richardson. Both are too independent as far as the pro-Israel
lobby is concerned.
Continuity instead of change; this is the most likely scenario for US foreign
policy in the foreseeable future if Clinton, a former first lady, is put in
charge of US foreign policy with other familiar faces such Gates and former
marine general Jim Jones, chosen as national security advisor. The entire
foreign policy team of Obama reeks of politics as usual.
One wonders how Obama expects to be more successful that the Bush
administration in the absence of appointees aligned with his vision of change?
From the point of view of many foreign observers, this represents a false start
by the Obama administration. He is apt to lose a great deal of his
international aura within months, if not weeks, of assuming the presidency in
January.
The exception may be in Moscow. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has welcomed
Obama's victory, and on his recent visit to Washington went out of his way to
emphasize Moscow's worth as America's partner in the fight against global
nuclear proliferation and other issues.
With a little give and take - such as on the thorny issues of US missile
defense in Eastern Europe or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's lack of
expansion into Russia's backyard in the Caucasus - Washington and Moscow can
patch up a great deal of their differences. This would be an important
prerequisite for enlisting Russia's cooperation in dealing with Iran's
recalcitrant ruling clergy who have defied the UN Security Council's demands on
the nuclear issue.
Such probable successes may pale in comparison to what Obama could lose
elsewhere, namely in the Muslim world which is presently in turmoil in part
because of decision's made by the Bush administration.
Consider India, reeling today as a result of cold-blooded Islamist terrorist
attacks in Mumbai this past week. While there is no justification for the
inhuman carnage, the underlying causes of an increasingly dangerous
deterioration of Hindu-Muslim relations in the sub-continent deserve serious
attention.
Thanks to the policies of the current government in New Delhi, which has
tolerated a rising tide of Hindu extremism while clamping down on Muslim
radicals, social tensions have been allowed to fester. There is a growing sense
of economic deprivation and neglect on the part of Indian Muslims who
constitute some 14% of the total population.
There has also been a rapid escalation of communal tensions in India
threatening to destabilize the largest democracy in the world.
Although the government of India has blamed the terrorist attacks on "foreign
sources", chances are the Mumbai terrorists were homegrown. The recurrence of
communal pogroms, last seen in Gujarat in 2000, may not be too far away.
India's Muslim minority has been only minimally integrated in the national
government. As a result, the Muslims' sense of economic and political
frustration will likely worsen in the aftermath of India's self-declared 9/11.
(This is a misnomer since it is entirely the fault of India's security forces
to allow three days of rampage by a squad of 10 terrorists. An important
question to consider for any commission of inquiry in India is whether or not
the government's tardiness was deliberate.)
By failing to respond quickly and with adequate force to the initial terrorist
attack, the government indirectly permitted a national horror that will fuel
its current attempts to curry even more favor from the West. India's navy has
been extending its presence in the Persian Gulf recently, and India has shied
away from signing a gas pipeline agreement with Iran and Pakistan.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been making all the wrong decisions
and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his political allies have yet to
understand that their sectarian and pro-West policies have had unpleasant
side-effects that will likely grow more and more troublesome in the future.
Short of a new government of national unity in India, and a u-turn in India's
current Muslim policies, the country may move closer to the brink of internal
and external conflicts.
President Bush has reportedly made a sympathy call to India's prime minister
and advised both India and Pakistan "not to fall in the trap of terrorists".
Sound advice, but New Delhi must also make sure that it does not fall into
Washington's "new cold war trap" - and accept a subsidiary function with
respect to China and, more and more, the Muslim world.
If Hillary Clinton takes the helm at the US Department of State, the US policy
toward India and Pakistan will likely continue to be unbalanced, favoring a
larger and more-powerful India. Pakistan's national security interests may be
sacrificed given Islamabad's anxieties over the US-India nuclear cooperation
agreement and India's security projections in Afghanistan.
India is not without its own vulnerabilities. Home to the third-largest Muslim
population in the world after Indonesia and Pakistan, India must either modify
its present foreign policies to reflect the interests of its millions of
Muslims or face more attempts by various Islamist elements to tap the
discontent of this vast minority.
With emotions running high in India today, and calls for revenge raising the
specter of anti-Muslim atrocities, it is not just Washington that is bedeviled
by policy continuity, but also New Delhi, both requiring winds of change to
avoid future debacles.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry,
click here. His
latest book,
Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing
, October 23, 2008) is now available.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
