Too Little, Too Late

From an office is the Department of State on May 19^th, President Obama spoke to Israel and the Middle East, opposing tyrants, championing populist uprisings and commanding the parties to the Palestinian dispute to return to the negotiating table to work out a two-state solution along the lines of the 9167 borders… adjusted with a few land swaps. Mired in Afghanistan and having fundamentally failed to establish a working balance government in Iraq, the United States drew mostly skepticism at these remarks.

“‘Most people have realized that what the U.S. does or does not do is no longer important because people took matters into their own hands and decided their own future,’ [said Fares Braizat of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Qatar] ‘So why should people care what he says? America is no longer an issue.’ Quoted in the Washington Post, May 20^th. Hey, wasn’t it American cruise missiles and jets that settled the no fly zone over Libya? Ah, note the skeptics, it certainly wasn’t the United States that made that initial decision, was it?

Israel’s conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in Washington for a meeting with President Obama, was less than amused at the American President’s suggestion that Israel cede territory consisting with the ’67 borders. With terrorist-designee Hamas blending with moderate Fatah (see my May 15^th blog – Fatah Accompli) in advance of a UN General Assembly vote on recognizing Palestine as a separate state slated for this September, Netanyahu was hoping for a US Security Council veto at the United Nations (mustering some allies along the way) and pressure mounted in the General Assembly (which is veto-proof) in support of Israel.

Israel’s disappointment with Obama’s proscription, notwithstanding the President’s admonition that Hamas must relinquish its basic position demanding the destruction of Israel for negotiations to be productive, was politely worded, but anger lurked behind these diplomatic words: “‘While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967,’ Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview.” New York Times, May 20^th. The bottom line from Tel Aviv was a little more definitive: “Reacting to Obama's speech, Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a full withdrawal from the West Ban k, saying the 1967 lines were ‘indefensible’ and would leave major Jewish settlements outside Israel. Netanyahu rejects any pullout from east Jerusalem.” HuffingtonPost.com, May 19^th.

President Obama has since tempered his speech, while calling the current unresolved Israeli-Palestinian dispute “unsustainable” and that Israel has to make some “hard choices,” he has indicated that the emphasis on pre-1967 borders in the May 19^thpresentation was also to be tempered with the realistic “land swaps” to reflect post-1967 realities. Obama iterated America’s “iron clad” commitment to the survival of Israel. On May, Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress on May 24^th, and doubtless he will get a very warm reception.

Having just returned from a European trip, I was struck by exactly how negative the local press was regarding things American. The underlying sentiments still seem to place the unforgiving burden for the global financial collapse on the United States and other countries mirroring America’s proclivity to borrow. The message was clear, “America, get your own house in order before you tell others what they ought to do.” There is this less-than-subtle projection – tempered with Europe’s own catastrophic PIIGS economic failures – that the United States is in severe decline and need not be followed with remotely the same degree of seriousness as in past years.

When reminded that it is American military might behind even Europe’s efforts to stabilize the Middle East (notably Libya), that the U.S. still spends about 44% of the world’s military budget, there is a grudging acknowledgment and an undisguised suggestion that we remain the world’s biggest bully. Sensing the pressure of possible large budget cuts, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, speaking at the Notre Dame Commencement ceremonies, warned against any significant reductions in our military expenditures saying: “Our military credibility, commitment and presence are required to sustain alliances, to protect trade routes and energy supplies, and to deter would-be adversaries.” But almost half the world’s military budget with little to show for it but the death of bin Laden after a decade-long hunt? Can we really afford to remain the world’s policeman?

American policies are seen as ineffective in the European press. The Middle East peace process has been going on for a very long time under the aegis of America without the slightest hint of any progress in recent years. World leaders and their constituents seem to have written off America’s ability to do anything, and the endless unsatisfying American military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan (now America’s longest conflict) are portrayed as the actions of a naïve, bumbling bully with less creditability that at any time since the beginning of World War II. And yet, the United States acts, critics note, as if the she still had the same perceived power from its halcyon days. They seem to be waiting to see how China will step up to the plate.

The world seems to have adopted that good old American “results oriented” valuation strategy, and in the eyes of so many – allies and enemies alike – in recent years, the United States has come up short. Our political system is more polarized that at any time since the Civil War, and cost-saving pressures threaten to dismantle what had once been our educational jewel in the global crown, the driver of American innovation, creativity and triumph. We are acting desperate, we no longer speak with anything remotely sounding like a unified American voice, and our leaders are more interested in short-term poll results than in long-term leadership. We have a choice: either reaffirm our commitment to our nation’s ability to retake the path to greatness or bicker among ourselves as the country slides down a precipitous slope.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I thought the world was coming to an end on the 21^st!