التقرير الاسبوعي لمراكز الفكر الاميركية

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without doubt, the biggest issue for think tanks concerned with foreign affairs was the Obama speech on the Middle East last week and the ensuing back and forth between Obama and Netanyahu at the Oval Office and AIPAC meeting, and later the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech before Congress.  The opinion of most analysts was that the Obama speech was rolled out to fast (many think it was pushed up to counter Netanyahu’s speech before Congress) and it was ill timed.

Our political analysis this week looks at the political damage wrought by the speech and the political power of the Israeli lobby in the United States.  Although the Israeli lobby and the Israeli Prime Minister did considerable damage to Obama, it was Obama’s decisions that precipitated much of the damage he sustained this week.

There were many lines of criticism in regards to Obama’s speech.  The Brookings Institution questioned his sincerity in supporting the Arab Spring as he insisted in the speech.  They noted, “It was unlikely that Obama would ever go so far as to apologize to an Arab audience. But loudly affirming America’s commitment to supporting Arab democracy, when the reality – as Arabs perceive it – is that the United States has backed, and continues to back, repressive autocracies returns us to an old narrative and an old problem. During this “Arab spring,” the uneasy tension between ideals and interests has not, as some had hoped, been resolved. During Obama’s speech, the inconsistencies and contradictions were still there. And as long as they remain, they will continue to undermine American influence and credibility at this critical moment.”

The Council on Foreign Relations saw the speech and the events of the last week as hurting the chances for peace in the region.  President Barack Obama's speeches at the State Department and the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu speeches in front of Congress and AIPAC, did little to move the needle forward on the prospect of a two-state solution, says CFR's Steven A. Cook. Obama's praise for the Arab Spring "was a yawn" in the Arab world, which is feeling empowered and wants to craft its own future, says Cook. And profound differences over Jerusalem and the rights of return of Palestinian refugees, largely because of internal politics, have hamstrung both Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Cook adds that the prospects for negotiation are further diminished because of mistrust between U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian leaders. The United States wants to prevent a vote in the UN General Assembly for a Palestinian state that is not the result of direct negotiations with Israel, but Cook is doubtful that anything will "head off a likely train wreck at the United Nations in September."

The Council on Foreign Relations also criticized the lack of coordination between leaders in making their policy speeches.  They noted, “New foundations of trust and new channels of communication are needed for serious diplomacy to resume between American, Israeli, and Palestinian officials. But first, the cardinal rule of partnership--no surprises--needs to be reaffirmed among the parties. Until this principle is reestablished and demonstrated, it will be impossible for the lofty ideals of peace, so artfully articulated in Washington, to be realized in the Middle East.”

The pro-Israel Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) took a predictably negative view of the speech.  They warned of aiding Egypt by saying, “But to the extent that the United States is willing to help Egypt without knowing the extent of the Muslim Brotherhood's reach, we may be offering billions of dollars in aid to a government that will, by its nature, be at odds with us. To the extent that the United States has provided military assistance to Libya's "rebels" without knowing who they are (beyond knowing that some of them at least have been al Qaeda affiliated), we may be bombing a country on behalf of people who are, by nature, at odds with us. To the extent that the United States is offering a terrorist-controlled Hamas-Fatah partnership a country that makes our ally Israel indefensible, we may be creating a country that is, by nature, at odds with us.  It is a reckless approach to the Middle East to be throwing bombs, money and political support at countries that may end up well-armed and hostile to America's long-term interests while making life harder for our one solid, democratic friend - Israel.

The Hudson Institute saw both good and bad in the Obama speech.  They concluded, “There is an Orwellian quality to the speech: freedom is embraced on the one hand and crushing imposition on a sovereign state on the other hand. Obama has found his voice on the freedom agenda, but there is the nagging Chamberlain apparition that haunts his perspective. Since the president has oscillated all over the policy screen in the last few years from vigorous opposition to the war in Iraq to what is now an enthusiastic embrace, it is worth recalling Orwell's statement that "in a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

The Brookings Institute also had mixed reviews for Obama’s speech.  They concluded, “Combined with his clear guidance on future security arrangements, Obama has finally laid out parameters on two of the four main issues (the others being Jerusalem and refugees) of the conflict. The problem is that these have come two years too late and serious doubts remains on whether he has the political will and political strategy to push both Israelis and Palestinians.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has already rejected Israel's withdrawal to "indefensible" 1967 borders. The Palestinians will likely take their efforts to have a Palestinian state recognized to the United Nations if serious negotiations do not start soon--despite Obama's explicit rejection of this move.  Obama's words will be judged on results. Having aligned himself closer to their hopes and aspirations for freedom, justice, dignity and peace, this may be President Obama's last chance to enter in to a genuine partnership with the people of the region.

Not all think tank analysis castigated Obama’s speech.  The conservative Hudson Institute praised it and the appeal to individual freedom.  They noted, “Washington has learned a thing or two about Arab political cultures—about sectarianism and Islamism, both its Sunni and Shia variants; about cultivating a new generation of political leaders and sidelining less savory actors. Indeed, Washington has become the locus of expertise on Middle East democracy. Now that Obama has vindicated Bush's freedom agenda, he can best advance U.S. interests, and promote the self-determination of Middle Easterners, by learning not just from his predecessor's failures but his successes as well.”

 

By Marisa Cochrane Sullivan and Ramzy Mardini

Institute for the Study of War

May 2011

Policy Paper

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed in 2008 by outgoing President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, requires the U.S. military to completely withdraw from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011. However, Iraq is failing to maintain internal security, continues to experience serious external defense deficiencies, and has unresolved political disagreements that could threaten stability.  The national security interests of the United States and Iraq require extending the SOFA and retaining a smaller but still substantial U.S. military footprint in Iraq.  The U.S. has signaled its willingness to extend its presence if requested by Iraq. Although Iraq’s leaders increasingly recognize the necessity of extending the Status of Forces Agreement to permit U.S. military involvement beyond 2011, political obstacles have precluded them from initiating a domestic debate on extending the SOFA. As a result, it is necessary for the United States to take on a proactive and leading role when engaging with Iraq’s leaders, and to communicate the importance and value of a new security agreement. 

 

By Lee Smith

Hudson Institute

May 30, 2011

Weekly Standard

President Obama's speech on May 19 outlining the administration's Middle East policy vindicates his predecessor's freedom agenda, though the two men reached the same place by different paths. It was the 9/11 attacks that forced George W. Bush to conclude that promoting democracy and human rights in the Muslim Middle East was a core American interest. Insofar as the source of 9/11 was the poisonous political culture of the Middle East, in Bush's view, American policy had to focus on the people of the region and the societies they have made.  It's worth recalling that this is not the lesson Obama drew from 9/11. His June 2009 Cairo speech was premised on another understanding of the attacks—that anti-Americanism had its roots in Muslims' legitimate grievances with Washington's policies, perhaps above all the U.S. relationship with Israel. Obama's ambiguous words last week on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as well as his opposition to introducing democracy by force in Iraq, show that he still hasn't entirely embraced his inner Bush. Nor is he likely to credit the last president much, since his own road to the freedom agenda comes by way of the Arab Spring, that series of uprisings that Obama may have helped inspire, albeit unwittingly. 

By Herbert London

Hudson Institute

May 24, 2011

 

President Obama's speech last Thursday on the Middle East was one part Churchill, one part Neville Chamberlain. At long last the president revealed the secret George W. Bush hiding out in his soul with his version of the freedom agenda. He noted that promoting individual freedom, democracy and economic opportunity was America's "top priority that must be translated into concrete action." How this is to be achieved remains obscure, but it appears as if the president has decided he no longer wants "to lead from behind."

In some respects his language was Churchillian: he was tough on the tyrannies in Syria and Iran, the areas' principal malefactors. He implied the road to stability can only be discovered with a democratic map. This was a significant departure from his Cairo 2009 speech, which emphasized engagement and conspicuously avoided democratic impulses.

By Salman Shaikh

Brookings Institution

May 21, 2011

On Thursday President Obama attempted another "new beginning" with the peoples of the Middle East in his address on the "Arab Spring." He aimed to overcome the skepticism that now hangs over his administration's policies in the region and the growing sentiment that with the recent changes in the region, U.S. influence was, in any case, fast fading. He aligned himself with the struggles for dignity and "self determination" of the peoples of the region. He committed the United States to promoting reform and supporting transitions to democracy, especially in Egypt and Tunisia. And his assertion "that we can not hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights," must be welcomed, as must be the financial support offered to Egypt and Tunisia.  But Obama's claim that U.S. values and interests could be aligned with the values and hopes of the region's people was less than convincing. A good start would have been a clear acknowledgement, not a vague reference to "suspicions," of past mistakes in U.S. policy in pursuit of its own narrower interests in the region.

By Shadi Hamid

Brookings Institution

May 20, 2011

Many things were missing from President Obama’s Middle East speech, but one of the most concerning was its inability, or unwillingness, to clarify America’s contested role in a rapidly changing region. Obama and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly said that the Arab revolts are “not about us.” But, inevitably, they are. For decades, the U.S. supported autocratic regimes in the region. This has long been a central Arab grievance. Considering this history of U.S. involvement, some of the language Obama used was odd. For example: “We must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome.” This sort of language is likely to strike Egyptians as disingenuous. The United States was not, after all, a neutral actor. As Emad Gad of the Al Ahram Center for Political Strategic Studies pointed out after the speech: “Washington took a position against the Egyptian revolution and supported [Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak until his final days in office.”

 

JINSA Report 1090

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

May 19, 2011

Most of the media focus of the President's speech appears to be on his belief that Israel should shrink to the 1967 borders - with minimal land swaps - and should make that deal even before discussing the status of Jerusalem (the capital of the Jewish people and never the capital of any other people) and refugees. The Israelis will answer the President in their time and their way, we are sure.  The emphasis on Israel, however, may be a smokescreen for something more frightening - billions in aid to Egypt even before we understand who and what the government of Egypt is. And to understand what happens to American aid in the hands of governments that do not share American values and concerns, shift focus to Pakistan.

Interview of Stephen Cook

Council on Foreign Relations

May 25, 2011

With all the energy that went into the speeches and the anticipation and commentary around them, they did not amount to a lot. For everything the president said about supporting the Arab Spring, in the Arab world his speech generally was a yawn. Arabs are feeling empowered and don't necessarily want American help. I'm not talking about the governments who are certainly ready to accept the economic assistance the president offered. But in general the people who made these revolutions are less interested in receiving help from the United States and more interested in building their own societies.

By Robert Danin

Council on Foreign Relations

May 24, 2011

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address today before Congress in many ways mirrored President Barack Obama's Middle East speech at the State Department May 19. Like Obama, Netanyahu first addressed the issues of Middle East democracy, then Iran (Obama spoke about Middle East economic support instead), and then finally the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both leaders outlined their respective visions of the core elements necessary for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Each discussed Jerusalem, borders, security arrangements, and the steps Palestinians would need to take to best make peace. But most important, both leaders avoided any clear pathway out of the stalemate that marks the current absence of a peace process. In fact, that pathway is absent from all four major speeches--including each leaders' speech at the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--over the past week. Both leaders spoke about ultimate negotiating positions, but neither provided concrete ways to overcome the obstacles that have prevented serious negotiations over the past two years.