Yemen Observer: http://www.yobserver.com
Posted in:
Opinions
Written By: Ricard Gonzalez*
Article Date: Jun 14, 2008 - 4:03:59 AM
Whatever happens next fall, Barack Obama has already made history by being the first black person to become the nominee for the general elections of one of the two dominant parties in the US. It is a milestone for a society that abolished slavery only 143 years ago. Moreover, he has been able to inspire millions of new voters, most of them young, thanks to a message of hope and change. It was a long time since a politician was able to draw thousands of people to his rallies all over the country.
Despite all his rhetoric about change (his slogan is “Change We Can Believe in”), it is sensible to wonder how much different his Middle East policy would be if he won the elections, especially after his speech last week in the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main pro-Israeli lobby in the US.
In front of AIPAC members, Obama sounded pretty conventional when he assured that he would always “keep the threat of the military action over the table” to defend Israel. Unfortunately, the promise to isolate Hamas was not very original either. To make matters worse, the biggest change announced in his speech also took the wrong direction.
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” said Obama, much to the despair of Palestinians.
Maybe Obama’s words should not be so shocking, since it is well known to all observers of American politics that it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to achieve the presidency of the country against the pro-Israeli lobby. Especially, as long as Florida’s Jews remain a key voting bloc in this decisive battleground state. However, it is worth noting that the tone and content of his speech supposed a deviation from the positions he had adopted all along the democratic primaries. Maybe this change is just the result of the typical and strategic balancing towards the center that all nominees do after the end of the primaries.
Or maybe it is a sign of weakness, after having struggled in the last streak of primaries, especially after the scandal of his former inflammatory pastor, the Reverend Wright. Obama is having troubles to attract some key social groups for the Democrats, like mature women, and blue-collar workers, and it seems that one of the reasons is that they do not trust his patriotism. Not only his personal biography is not reassuring for these voters, but he has suffered a smear campaign in internet, with e-mail chains that affirm that he is Muslim. Therefore, his pro-Israeli speech may have been a way to show his commitment to the core values of the American policy.
In addition to all this, his rival, John McCain, is attacking him almost on a daily basis because of his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile nations to the US, such as Cuba, Iran, or North Korea. The Republican nominee has decided that his major line of attack to his adversary is his lack of experience in international affairs, and he repeatedly describes him as “naive” and “weak”.
With his speech at the AIPAC conference, Obama may have wanted to limit the scope of changes in his foreign policy platform in order not to scare moderate voters, whose support is always crucial in the general elections. Sometimes, if you push for too many changes at the same time, you get none of them done. In fact, his overall Middle East program does represent a substantive change with respect to the current administration, especially his approach towards Iraq and Iran.
One of his main promises in this campaign is to withdraw American troops from Iraq in a period of 16 months. This promise is very important for Obama, since his opposition to the war in Iraq constitute one of the most important traits that define his identity as a politician, that is, what made him different from the rest of candidates to the White House.
His commitment to engage in direct negotiations with the Iranian leadership is also high in his foreign policy agenda. Obama and his advisers, which include reputed and experienced specialists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, argue that the Iranian regime must be offered not only sticks, but also carrots so that it changes its problematic behavior in issues such as its nuclear program, and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as some Iraqi militias.
In these two issues the differences between Obama and McCain are pretty remarkable, since the Arizona senator wants to follow Bush policies in the Middle East. The Republican nominee has always said that American troops must remain in Iraq until it is necessary, since the US cannot afford to be perceived as a loser in the Iraq war. According to McCain, victory means the creation of a self-sustainable democracy in Iraq. As for Iran, he defends to step up the pressure against the regime, and he has suggested several times that the military option is a possibility that should be taken under consideration.
However, it remains to be seen to what extent Obama will be able to carry out his proposals concerning the Middle East policy if he is elected the next president. It is never easy for a new president to make radical changes in the foreign policy of a country such as the US. Inertia is a powerful force in burocracies, and the State Department is not an exception. In addition, Obama will face the opposition of the powerful conservative media, which may reduce considerably his margin of maneuver.
As a consequence, it is difficult to predict in detail what would be Obama’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, both his personal and political roots suggest that his call for a different relation between the US and the rest of the world, based on dialogue and the international law is sincere. Obama’s America will be less arrogant than Bush’s, and more peaceful than McCain’s. So far, it is not clear to what extent Obama represents a change we can believe in, but he is at least the only change we can hope for.
* Ricard Gonzalez is a correspondent of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo in Washington D.C. He is a Political Scientist specialized in International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, and he collaborates with other publications such as the Spanish edition of Foreign Affairs.