Friday, September 21, 2012

Obama's Failed Appeasement Strategy

President Obama’s foreign policy has centred on improving relations with Arab and Muslim nations. He appears to proceed from an assumed guilt complex and seems apologetic for America’s (or Republican?) exercise of global power. He went to Cairo to “speak” with the Arab/Islamic world; he bowed waist-level before the Saudi King, a curious gesture that still requires interpretation given his off-handed, almost superior posture with Western dignitaries (e.g. The Queen of England); he tolerated the notion of a Mosque at the World Trade Centre bombing site against majority US opinion; and has consistently shown irritation with Israel. Indeed Obama’s body language suggests willingness to sacrifice the US-Israeli relationship for a US-Arab/Islamic one! As Iran marches determinedly towards nuclear weapons, it seems in spite of his words and reluctant sanctions, that Obama is willing to countenance Iranian nuclear arms. While the Israelis, for good reason given Ahmedinejad’s genocidal rhetoric, are paranoid about the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama seems unperturbed and if one focuses on actions rather than words, one would think that Obama really does not mind Iran getting the bomb! As the Arab “Spring” developed, Obama quickly sacrificed US allies in Egypt (Hosni Mubarak) and elsewhere. While this columnist sympathised with America’s decision to side with Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans against their erstwhile dictators, I wondered at the complete loss of US initiative as events unfolded! America was being led down a path it did not define; could not influence or control; and yet its power and resources were deployed in support of the protesters, activists and rebels, including a diverse crowd of Islamists, former terrorists, far right Salafists, Al Qaeda extremists, and other dangerous groups with barely-disguised hatred of America. As the Arab uprisings progressed, the US did not insist on projecting its values-would the emerging states make an irrevocable commitment to democracy? (In Egypt some former protesters later carried banners saying, “We don’t want democracy, only Islam!!!”); would they protect religious minorities? (Such as Egypt’s Coptic Christians who have subsequently been victims of religiously-inspired violence); would they protect women? would they adopt secular constitutions? In short US policy makers, often led by their noses by people like Fareed Zakaria and Christiane Amanpour, did not define their objectives based on US values and interests! It is a sign of the shocking naiveté of US policy that the new Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt, has since visited Saudi Arabia, Iran and China! Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was heckled and booed as she visited Cairo, presumably to remind Morsi of America’s role in his emergence! Remember also that in spite of America’s help, the transition government arrested and prosecuted US NGOs for spying against Egypt! It is the same helplessness and confusion that defines US policy in Pakistan! This is the nation that harboured Osama Bin Ladin and much of the leadership of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani Network, all undisguised American enemies. Like Egypt which collects well over a billion dollars in US military and non-military aid annually, Pakistan is a major recipient of US aid, yet at best ambivalent about its US relationship. Reports suggest that Osama Bin Ladin regularly evaded the US trail whenever it shared intelligence with the Pakistanis. Eventually the US learnt to keep its plans to itself and killed him at a location proximate to a major Pakistani military facility! The Pakistanis have subsequently put the medical doctor who assisted the US CIA on trial for treason! US appeasement and political correctness is also evident in Nigeria! Recall that Ambassador Johnnie Carson, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and other members of the sentimental, liberal crowd in the State Department have urged a strategy of appeasement on the Nigerian government in response to “Boko Haram”. They have agonised and dithered over designating our local terrorists as a “foreign terrorist organisation” despite its bombing the UN building in Abuja, killing thousands of civilians, bombing countless Churches across Northern Nigeria and attacking newspaper houses. The State Department’s overriding consideration has been that designating “Boko Haram” as a terrorist organisation would portray the US as against Nigeria’s Northern Muslims! The US Congress has had to take the initiative in that regard. This past week, Obama and Clinton’s appeasement strategy has fully come home to roost!!! There are fierce anti-American demonstrations in twenty states across the Middle-East and North Africa; the US Ambassador to Libya who helped the rebels take power (and performed sentimental gestures such as eating in his Arab-Muslim driver’s home with his wife to show America’s love for the romanticised “new Libya”) and three of his officers have been killed; the Egyptians nearly allowed a similar occurrence as US Cairo embassy was attacked; Sudan and Yemen would not even allow US marines in to protect US lives and assets; President Morsi would not issue an unequivocal condemnation of the Cairo attack! While Egyptian officials expressed sympathy in English tweets, their Arabic version justified the US embassy attacks! Obama now reminds of Jimmy Carter during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980! Anyone who thinks this was a spontaneous reaction to a stupid film is irredeemably naïve!!! In his eagerness to build friendly relations with Arab and Middle-East nations, Obama ended up projecting weakness and simple-mindedness. Hopefully he (and Clinton) will snap out of romantic delusions and begin to define US foreign policy based on substance, geo-politics, interests, shared values and pursuit of global peace.

1 comment:

Folabi said...

In talking about an “appeasement strategy” you fail to realize that the world has changed since the days of the cold war. It’s very easy for critics to point out what hasn’t worked as well as hoped. The harder question is what would they recommend? Usually (and I suspect the author falls into this group also) the recommendation is a return to the strategies used when Russia was the foe and enemies were nations not small faceless gangs. Let’s look back at the last 30 years. In 1982 under Reagan the threat was clearly Russia. It made sense for America to invest in technology that would protect its cities from an incoming nuclear attack (Star Wars) as well as work at achieving clear nuclear supremacy. America’s military supremacy was so established and the threat of small terrorist groups so remote that when Reagan wanted to attack Libya he didn’t even have to worry about consulting other nations, he just did it. By the 90’s when Clinton was President, America got its first taste of dealing with the threat of small terrorist groups when embassies in East Africa were bombed, the USS Cole bombed near Yemen and the first attack on the World trade center in NY occurred---I was in the building on the day that it was rocked by that bomb. America maintained its strategy of dealing with its enemies cold war style but started to develop tactics to go after organizations like Al Qaeda. When Bush 43 became President, it was clear that the cold war style approach was becoming as outdated as the British Navy after WWII. However, because of active wars and a strong correlation between a Republican government and high military spending, America continued to spend uncontrollably on weapons that kept this outdated approach alive. Enter Obama who inherits a country burdened by war and even further along in the journey of realizing that America’s chief threat was now Islamic radicals not communist nations. What to do? One option is to do more of the same and just keep pumping obscene amounts of money into weapons that can’t do much to control a hornet’s nest of suicide bombers. Sort of like getting a machine gun to kill some pesky mosquitoes. Another option is to address the hornet’s nest itself and rather than continue to create more maddened hornets (like Israel does with the Palestinians) try to see what could be done about them. Yes, they are crazy hornets but is there a way to begin the process of reducing their numbers? Even if one tries and fails, there is the strategic benefit of being able to get tough with them without the risk of running into the criticism that one did not try to talk to them first. In that sense an “appeasement strategy” does not end at “failure” but the “failure” is a stepping stone on the way to a part II effort that justifies use of merciless force. Obama is not projecting weakness and simple-mindedness like you think, he is examining options that need to be examined even if it results in failure. Only by extending this open arm to Islamic fundamentalists can he have the leeway to do whatever is necessary when they don’t join him to make peace. This is what he did in Pakistan where Pakistan’s lack of loyalty to the US gave him the justification he needed to send in drones into Pakistan airspace at will. This is what he’s doing with the Palestinians where he’s fought Benjamin Netanyahu over giving Palestinians more concessions only to fully back Israel (and justifiably so) when Hamas started sending rockets into Israel. That is also exactly what he did when he extended his arm to the Congressional Republicans then completely bypassed them when they rebuffed him. Any thoughtful follower of this President’s style would understand that rather than write like someone who’s been watching too many shows of people trying to make a TV career out of opposing the President. This guy is playing chess while all you part-time bloggers are playing checkers.