Barack Obama’s triple test
Pervez Hoodbhoy
The
foreign-policy in-tray of the new United States
president should be headed by Palestine, Iran and Afghanistan, says Pervez Hoodbhoy.
21 - 01 - 2009
The new United States
president faces challenges in almost every area of the world. The most urgent
and unavoidable are Palestine-Israel,
Iran, and
Pakistan-Afghanistan.
First, a Palestinian
state side-by-side with Israel
must become Barack Obama's
top foreign-policy priority. The longer the Palestinians remain a displaced
people, the more dangerous the world becomes. Over time, Palestine
has acquired the status of a cause celebre for
political Islam and a symbol
of America
siding with the powerful against the weak. Unless the Palestinians are seen to
get a modicum of justice, the entire middle east is doomed
to eternal cycles of violence and destruction.
The nuclear complex: America, the bomb, and Osama bin Laden" (16 February 2006)
The fact that there is
bitter rivalry between the two main Palestinian movements, Hamas
and Fatah, makes the problem ever harder to solve.
But as long as the issue of statehood is
unresolved and conflict continues, the more Muslim anger over Palestine will mutate into new and still less
predictable forms. I estimate that the crushed body of every dead Palestinian child in Gaza,
flashed on TV screens across the world, costs the United States about $100
million in terms of the protection it must buy to defend itself against
retributive Islamist terrorism.
Second, the US must talk to Iran. As Iran
gets closer to making a nuclear
weapon, there is a danger that a war of words between Washington
and Tehran
could trigger a real war is real. The choice as US
secretary of state of Hillary Clinton, who made hawkish
statements about Iran
during the election campaign (echoed
in part by Obama himself) on balance increases the danger.
Iran's quest for
nukes is dangerous and condemnable, and sanctions are quite justifiable in my
opinion. But the United States
lacks a moral argument for war, because of its own nuclear stance and in light
of the fact that it provided
Iran
with the country's initial nuclear capability during the Shah's rule. Moreover,
the US has to various
degrees rewarded several countries that have made nukes surreptiously:
Israel, India, Pakistan,
and North Korea.
Before and after
more hardline statements on the campaign trail, Obama has offered to negotiate with Iran: a good
proposal that he should carry through.
After all, nothing has
been gained by rejecting Iran's
numerous overtures, from the comprehensive approach suggested
by Tehran in
2003 to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
letter to President George W Bush in 2006. North Korea's nuclear
test in October 2006 also showed that US refusals to hold one-on-one talks
only reinforced the problem. By contrast, nuclear negotiations in exchange for
oil have partially succeeded in halting the North Korean nuclear developments.
Third, the US
must take seriously the impact of "collateral damage" on civilian
populations as it pursues the war against Islamists. Since I am deeply fearful of Taliban successes
in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I have mixed feelings about Obama's planned "surge" in Afghanistan.
But heavy use of airpower has led to large numbers of non-combatant casualties.
Often the coalition forces refuse to acknowledge such deaths; when confronted
with incontrovertible evidence, they apologise and issue miserably small compensation. This approach
swells the Taliban's ranks. If there is to be any chance of containing the
Taliban menace, the coalition
forces must set zero innocent civilian casualties as their goal.
In relation to the larger
global environment, America
needs an attitudinal change. It must repudiate grand imperial designs as well
as its exceptionalism. The notion of total planetary
control through "full-spectrum dominance" guided the previous
Republican administration well before
9/11. The Democrats, many of whom later turned against the Iraq war, limit
their criticisms to the strategy and conduct of the war, the lies and
disinformation dispensed by the White House, suspicious deals with defence contractors - rather than its very conception and
underlying attitudes (see Paul Rogers, "The world as
a battlefield", 9 February 2006).
Barack Obama must convince Americans of the need to obey
international laws and etiquette, that they do not have some divine mission to fulfil and that its sinking
economy cannot afford such fantasies now or in the future.
The lengthy
political transition in the United
States is over. The perils facing the new
president are clear. He will need
much more than rhetoric to meet them.