|
 By Evarist Kagaruki
US President Barack Obama, who has been in office for nearly 21 months, took the reins of power at a time of great challenges in world affairs. The world then was facing a serious economic crisis which originated in the US. The American-sponsored war in Iraq, though ebbing, was not yet over, and one of its enduring manifestations – the insurgency – was rising.
There was also the problem of Afghanistan where the NATO allied forces were losing the war against the Taliban. This war, which, along with the Iraq military adventure, has been a big drain on the America public coffers, had the propensity to worsen America’s economic woes in the long run; and it was becoming increasingly unpopular at home.
Linked to this was Pakistan’s rising Islamist insurgency which threatened to destabilize America’s key ally in the region and further complicate the logistics of the war in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration was worried that if Pakistan were to slide to anarchy and become more violent, something which raised the prospect of another military takeover, things could turn nastier in neighbouring Afghanistan. Another worry was that in a situation where there was no secure government in Islamabad, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons might fall into the hands Islamic militants (the West prefers to call the “terrorists”).
President Obama also faced the problem of how to deal with Russia which in the last days of his predecessor George W. Bush’s reign, had frosty relations with the US. At the time of Obama’s inauguration, tensions between the two countries were very high following a missile row in which the Bush administration had planned to build a missile defence shield (MSD) in Poland and in the Czech Republic. Then Russian President Vladimir Putin (now Prime Minister) accused the US of starting a new round of arms race, and promised an “appropriate response” to maintain strategic balance in the world.
According to the Bush administration, the defence system was aimed at protecting America and her allies in Europe against missile attacks by the so-called “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. These two countries’ controversial nuclear programmes posed yet another challenge to the Obama administration’s new foreign policy orientation.
But, besides these huge challenges, some of which he has managed to overcome with incredible dexterity, was the seemingly intractable problem of the age-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Obama, who pundits think may be genuinely concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, found himself faced with an impossible task. No matter his good intentions, his hands were tied by the imperative of the “unbreakable bond’ between America and Israel, which obliged him to be on the latter’s side (all the time) in its dispute with the Palestinians.
Although Obama was quite aware of that, there was a time he “boldly” tried to go against that well-established principle and found himself in trouble. This was in March when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement of plans for new settlements in East Jerusalem, which President Obama strongly opposed. There was confrontation between the two leaders when the latter dressed down the former, telling him to scrap the project which, obviously, obstructed Washington’s intentions to revive the peace process. But the Prime Minister adamantly refused to comply.
Later, Obama had to back down under intense pressure by the Jewish lobby and friends of Israel on Capitol Hill, who flexed their muscle and reminded him of the “unbreakable ties” between America and Israel. This position was made clear in a letter signed by an overwhelming majority of members of the House and another by more than 75per cent of the 100 Senators. Obama understood the consequences of ignoring such strong petition!
So, if we put this in context, Obama, just like any other US president before him, can not devise coherent strategies that do not take into account the “special relationship” between the US and Israel in any of his initiatives to try and address the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. The system, which is inherently designed to favour the Jewish State (and therefore makes America a biased mediator in the conflict), just would not allow him!
It is precisely for this reason that one sees no hope in the direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders that began last Thursday in Washington. The other reason of course is that the negotiations have started on the wrong premise; wrong in the sense that they were being held without first reconciling the Islamist militant group Hamas (which is in control of Gaza) and Fatah party (which rules the West Bank). There is no way Israel can make peace with only one part of Palestine and remain secure. The Western – essentially American – policy of isolating Hamas (which is the winner of the 2006 election and is therefore the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) in any peace talks is politically self-defeating, to say the least. When will the West learn and understand this?
|
