The Real
Issues: International Relations
The Big Issues for Obama in Foreign Relations, First Installment: Europe and the Middle East
By Charles Kirchofer, Nov. 8th, 2008
Home Politics
Page
Not only will President Obama have a lot of work to do domestically
when he comes to office, he will have an entire world of difficult
circumstances to look after. Foreign policy is at least as tricky as
domestic policy, and a job well done all too often goes unrewarded
by the electorate as they look inwards. Presidents ignore foreign
affairs at their peril, however. These are important issues; many of
them may serve to define the future success or even existence of the
United States, the West, or even the world as we know it. This is
unfortunately no exaggeration in the age atomic, chemical, and biological
weapons. The following is a
brief overview of some of the problem areas and general proposals for
the direction President Obama should take in my view.
Europe
I am beginning with Europe because it is important to know who your
friends are and what they are willing to do before beginning anything
else. I haven't included Canada, Australia, and Japan in Europe for
obvious reasons, but the same would apply to those states as well. That
Europe and the United States are allies is often taken for
granted, and although they are likely to remain allies by virtue of
their liberal, democratic world view, serious rifts have opened in
relations across the Atlantic. It is crucial that Obama talk with
European leaders, particularly of the UK, France, Germany, Italy,
Poland, and the Czech Republic, to find common ground on many of the
issues I will discuss below. If the past eight years have taught us
anything, it is that America cannot go it alone. International support
is 100% necessary, whether we like it or not. It is also important to
realize that things in Europe are changing as well. France, often seen
as a thorn in the side of transatlantic relations, has moved somewhat
closer to the U.S., particularly since the election of their cowboy
president Sarkozy. Germany, often the U.S. junior partner (albeit a
generally pacifist one), on the other hand, has begun to resist U.S.
moves in areas from NATO expansion to Afghanistan. The "new" Europe,
including Poland and the Czech Republic is also beginning to suffer
from the electoral unpopularity of such foreign policy decisions as the
U.S. missile defense shield planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.
In addition, Eastern Europeans fear Obama will be concentrating more on
the traditional European allies (UK, France, Germany, etc.). Mr. Obama
should work hard to include Poland and the Czech Republic as well in
any discussions.
Finally, the UK has been one of the U.S.'s best allies since at least
the beginning of the 20th century. Although this
will almost
surely continue to be the case, Europeans in general are much more
skeptical about the U.S. now than they were eight years ago. Barack
Obama will have to work hard to convince European leaders of the
necessity and general good (for everyone involved) of his plans. It
won't be an easy task, since he will likely ask for more military
support in Afghanistan, something European leaders (responding to
unhappy voters) are loath to do. Nevertheless, their support is
crucial, and they know this, which could make the battle easier or
harder, depending on the persuasion tactics Mr. Obama uses.
The Middle East
Israel/Palestine
- I move to
the Middle East directly afterwards because it is probably the most
critical area in U.S. foreign policy. At the center of Mid-East
conflict lies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This seemingly
unresolvable situation will continue to make lasting peace and
cooperation in the Middle East nearly impossible, which will allow the
continued
spread of terrorism and extremism. It is unlikely that Obama will be
able to resolve the conflict, but he must try. In this case, moving
towards a resolution is nearly as important as coming to the
resolution itself. The basis for any agreement should be the 1967 UN
resolution number 242, which established the borders of Israel after
the Six Day War with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Why should this be the
starting point? It is essentially the only idea that has any legitimacy
and that has any possibility of being accepted by both sides. President
Obama will require some excellent tightrope skills in his
function as
negotiation moderator. Both sides must be confident that the United
States is interested in a fair solution for both sides, otherwise the
plan cannot work. One of the most difficult things will be to keep
talks going, even as extremist groups on both sides suicide bomb each
other in protest of progress toward a peace that doesn't meet their
demands (each side would naturally like to have everything).
It
is important to remember here that a great deal of people on both sides
are more interested in finding a way to live peacefully and have a
chance for themselves and their families to prosper than in absolutist
ideals, but that extremism is present and grows when progress is not
steadily made. Not only does a lack of progress breed extremism,
extremism also blocks progress. For this reason, it is imperative that
Obama get talks started, keep them in motion, and appeal to the people
(not just the leaders, but the people on the streets, via radio,
television, whatever) on both sides not to let extremists block the
process anymore. Maybe it's time for Television Free Palestine (based
on the model of Radio Free Europe)? President Obama should also make
appearances and speak directly to the people on both sides,
particularly to the Palestinians, letting them know he is listening,
and what he expects them to do to help towards peace. Letting
Palestinians know exactly what the deal is will make it easier to for
them to work towards it.
Sound like some liberal Utopian idea? I'd like to point out that no
long-term peace was ever achieved without the support of the people on
the streets (barring long-term, expensive, and morally
irreprehensible acts of violtent repression). It is not enough to have
a simple majority of people
passively supporting the peace movement; a vast majority must actively
support it and denounce any movements that endanger it. The U.S.
military cannot enforce peace (as we have learned in Iraq) unless this
is also what the people want. You believe the Surge in Iraq forcibly
brought the current half-peace there? First off, that peace is not
permanent, second, the Surge was only a small part of the equation;
read the Iraq section below for an explanation.
Finally, the U.S. and Israel need to provide more humanitarian support
to the Palestinians than Hamas can. As long as extremist groups are
providing people with care and shelter, they will win sympathy. We need
to win the competition for Palestinian hearts and minds. The same
applies to Southern Lebanon with regard to Hezbollah.
Iran - It
is important to analyze the recent history of Iran for an understanding
of why Iran is so insecure. Insecure you say? Yes, insecure. During the
Cold War, the United States was concerned about the rise of communist
tendencies within Iran (a neighbor to the USSR), though this concern
was probably mostly a cover. The elected Prime
Minister at the time, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, nationalized Iranian oil
reserves. This angered Britain, whose companies had invested in Iranian
oil, who invited the United States to bring about regime change. The
CIA under Eisenhower was successful in reinstalling the Shah. He lasted
around 26 years before the Iranian revolution overthrew him. No lasting
peace without the will of the people on the streets. The new leader,
Ayatollah Khomeini, was a Muslim ultra-conservative. Iran began an
Islamization process. The result: we now have a regime in Iran that is
considerably more repressive, more ideological, and less friendly to
America and the West than we had before the CIA got involved. It would
have been better to work with what we had, but hindsight is always
20/20. The U.S. also supported either Iran or Iraq alternatively,
whenever it best suited U.S. needs. The point is: Iranians have reason to
be very suspicious of the West in general, and the U.S. in particular.
So I'm saying Iran is right? No, but I don't believe trying to
understand both sides of a story is an exercise lacking patriotism. I
believe it is in the U.S.'s own best interests to resolve conflicts for
the sake of world stability and security. To do so, one must take an
honest look and try to understand all sides of the story. It is only in
this way that U.S. negotiators can have any chance at making a deal in
U.S. interests. If you don't know what the other side's core concerns
are, and which are not as important, you will never succeed in getting
what you want out of the deal. Not understanding the other side weakens your own
position. Ignorance may mean bliss, but it does not mean strength or
success, particularly in international relations. Knowledge is power.
The situation with Iran is indeed quite alarming. They
are working on technology to enrich Uranium. They did not report their
activities to the IAEA,
which makes the enrichment in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Is there
any way to tell whether someone is enriching uranium for power plants
or for weapons? No, there isn't. Weapons-grade uranium requires some
additional enrichment, but this can be done by repeating the process
with the same machinery. The enrichment to nuclear power plant grade is
the hard part, producing weapons-grade uranium after that is
comparatively easy once the technology is there.
Does having enrichment capacity mean you can build a bomb? Well, not
exactly. Creating the type of missiles the U.S. is concerned with
(prompting the design of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe) is
a daunting task. It would be quite some time before Iran managed to
build such missiles, if they ever managed it. One thing the embargoes
on Iran are doing is limiting Iran's access to some of the necessary materials (the embargo certainly isn't bringing regime change).
How likely is it that the Iranian government will give nuclear weapons
to terrorist groups? This is actually relatively unlikely in my view
for two reasons: 1) the Iranian government will want to hold on to, and
have control of, something they have worked so hard to develop. It
would be foolish to give it into the hands of a group they don't have
direct control over. 2) The weapons would be traceable, and Iran knows
it would have to face the consequences for any terrorist group using
its weapons. Having a couple bombs is powerful enough, but the West
still has more, and can launch them across the globe in seconds. The
Soviets and the U.S. were both deterred by this possibility, and this
will encourage the Iranians to think twice as well.
But what about a terrorist group stealing weapons? This is the truly
frightening scenario. Mutual Assured Destruction only works as a
deterrent when the opponent cares for his own life. With an extremist
terrorist group, we cannot always be sure we can make that assumption.
So what to do? Obama was not naive in suggesting it was time to start
talking to Iran. In fact, Bush has already begun the process of
indirect talks. "We don't talk to terrorists" is a nice bit of idealism
that sounds great in an election campaign, but what does it do? Do the
proponents of this idea really think the Iranians will be so insulted
they'll just stop enriching so that they can have a chat with the
President? The idea is ludicrous. Now that relations have been cut off
(the real mistake, I'd argue), starting them again does
give an air of legitimacy and may feel like a triumph for the Iranians.
We have to accept that and move on, because the current methods are not
working.
What does Iran really want? I would argue it has something to do with
the past in U.S. - Iranian relations. Iran wants security, and it knows
the U.S. will not invade a country that already has nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons level the playing field. Iran knows it is the only way
to have any hope of counteracting the incredible power of the U.S.
military. Offer Iran a guarantee of safety from U.S. invasion or
intervention if it stops enriching. After all, the U.S. has a lot to
gain from relations with Iran with respect to Iraq. It will still be a
hard sell, but Obama must try to convince Iran that it is in its own
best interests not to develop a bomb. Continue the
stick-and-carrot method currently being followed, but up the ante
with offers of security and more economic cooperation. Europe, Russia,
and China are absolutely vital in this, which is why Obama must first
try to find common ground with our allies and trading partners. Should
a military option be off the table? No, Obama should not limit his
options. The military option is always on the table, and the Iranians
know this. Still, it has served to accelerate their efforts rather than
slow them. It seems we need a larger carrot. Maybe security is that
carrot.
I'll discuss what to do when Iran gets a bomb when and if it actually
gets one. Even then, I'd like to mention all is not lost, though I
truly hope it doesn't go that far.
Iraq - Violence in Iraq seems
to be decreasing, and the Iraqi government itself now seems to want to
plan the removal of U.S. troops from the country. Barack Obama's
currently stated plan of a removal of troops as conditions allow is
wise. Pulling out immediately would be a horrendous mistake, causing
instability, increasing terrorism, and increasing Iran's influence in
the region. No, we must be sure Iraq can remain relatively stable
before pulling our troops out completely. The war itself was a mistake
(I have always opposed the Iraq War), but now that we are there, we
must see it finished.
Just for the record: McCain was only perhaps half right about the
surge. The decrease in violence was mostly due to Moqtada al-Sadr's
cease-fire, the realization of many Sunni groups that al-Qaeda was
moving towards taking over their country and was perhaps not the
greatest ally, and the fact the ethnic cleansing had reduced much of
the mixing of neighborhoods between Sunni and Shia. In the end, many
felt that the U.S. army was bad, but would eventually leave, whereas if
they let the country fall to al-Qaeda or other groups, that would be
the end. The U.S. troops became the lesser of two evils. Add the surge
on top of that, and you have the reduction in violence we've seen over
the past year in Iraq.
It is important that Iraq not only have a democratically elected
parliament, but that its laws contain clauses that protect minorities
in Iraq. Without protections, the Sunnis will never feel safe and will
never stop fighting completely. It is important that the Iraqis
understand that democratic elections do not mean they are living in a
democracy. Protection of minorities, as well as a host of democratic
institutions (courts, schools, free press, etc.) are also essential.
The U.S. government must work to establish or stabilize these
institutions in Iraq.
Afghanistan - Obama is right
in saying Afghanistan is where the real issue always was. Some say
Afghanistan is an impossible fight to win. They are right and wrong.
They're right if one looks at the situation as a military fight. As I've
said before: no lasting peace without the support of the people on the
ground. Most of the scattered tribes in Afghanistan aren't interested
in extremism. They would rather have stability and safety for their
families. However, the U.S. and other western militaries are being
displayed as disrupting that peace. Forced to choose between violent
foreigners and violent natives, they choose violent natives. We must
give Afghanis another choice: peace and prosperity. The U.S. must work
to win over popular support. Neo-conservatives have said they're not in
the business of nation-building. I do not propose going around the
world on humanitarian interventions and building schools and hospitals
all over the place. I do
propose doing this when the stakes are so high and the security in a
particular area is of such vital consequence to U.S. and world
stability and security. This is not just a humanitarian mission for the
sake of the Afghanis, this is a mission for the sake of America and the
West as well. To do it, Obama will need the support of our allies,
particularly ones in NATO, and this support is waning. Once again, his
first stop must be Europe, a place where nation-building once worked so well (after WWII).
Comment
View
Comments
Politics
page
Home