Opinions | Columnists
Match friendly tone with action
Obama must avoid Bush's policy trap of focusing solely on terror and accept the reality of a diverse world order
- By Francis Matthew, Editor at Large
- Published: 23:08 April 29, 2009
- Image Credit: Illustration: Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
Although US President Barack Obama has successfully changed the tone of the US administration in the world, he has not yet managed to shift US government policy away from George W. Bush's total fixation on his 'war on terror', which resulted in all US foreign policy being made subsidiary to that single aim. This badly weakened the US government's room for manoeuvre, and at its worst allowed unscrupulous governments around the world to blackmail it into doing or supporting whatever they wanted to do regardless, all under the guise of 'helping' the war on terror.
Israel was one of the most obvious winners in this failure of US objectivity. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Israeli leadership took every opportunity to claim that Palestinians were terrorists. Even though the Palestinians had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, the Israelis produced renewed offensives in the Occupied Territories, their brutal assault on Jenin, and other brutalities continuing until their all-out assault on Gaza earlier this year.
All this was done under the ridiculous guise of helping the war on terror, and Bush found himself unable to stand up to the Israelis because they had taken the time to pretend to fit their actions into the broad framework of fighting terror.
Obama needs to move US government action away from this narrow focus. The whole world has heard him talk of his belief in a multilateral world, of the importance of a more sustainable world, and a more understanding and tolerant world. And his first 100 days has resulted in a major shift in the way the US presidency is perceived around the world. He has created a large reservoir of goodwill which he must now put to good use.
He has to change what US forces and diplomats are doing on the ground to meet the definitions of his new directions. One example of such a real change came this week in a projected change to the policy that the US administration refuses to deal with Hamas, on the grounds that it considers it a terrorist organisation.
Obama's administration this week asked for a change in the law that would allow it to give aid to a possible future unity government that included Hamas. This was a small but significant shift which showed that Obama was both thinking about how to support a unity government, and also sent a signal that it is starting to think in different ways about people with whom it disagrees.
The key to all this is an underlying acceptance that not everyone in the world will agree with each other. The real test in developing a new world order is not to base it on one set of political principles, or to expect one economic system to reign. The way forward will have to be based on finding what mutual tolerances will allow people of very different ideas to co-exist, if not get on or cooperate.
Such a wide acceptance of other people implies a lot of confidence in each society's own system being able to survive in such a tolerant and open world. It also means not worrying too much about the power of the other societies, and getting on with what is important regardless. These ideas have been taken forward in an interesting article by Michael Brenner of the University of Pittsburgh who has argued that US foreign policy since 11 September 2001 has been based on fear of another attack, and the consequent perceived imperative of reducing the risk of any future attack to zero.
Achieving such a zero risk has had major implications for US actions in the greater Middle East, argues Brenner. It has forced American security to include the following points as absolutely essential:
- Eliminate all vestiges of Al Qaida.
- Render the Taliban in Afghanistan impotent.
- Do the same to the Taliban in Pakistan.
- Assume custodial responsibility for Afghanistan.
Bring maximum pressure on Islamabad to do America's bidding, or else take custodial responsibility for Pakistan.
Persuade India, Russia, China and Iran to see the world through the terrorist optic.
All these points are made vital by the logic of requiring the war on terror to be the main force in US foreign policy, and as Brenner points out, America is "locked into a self-defeating set of policies that in their execution generate the very menace that we are trying to slay. This never-ending war is bankrupting us diplomatically, morally and financially".
Obama's task is to move US action away from this nightmare, into a more rational acceptance of a widely differing world. Of course, those who attack others should experience retaliation, but those who differ should not worry that difference is a reason for being assaulted.
Share this article
Popular in Opinions
-
Speak your mind
Company culture
How can you change a company culture if necessary?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Use Facebook responsibly
Like just about anything else, the social networking site has pluses and minuses
-
UN must be the final arbiter on Iran
Any action taken against the country should be agreed upon by the world body
-
Tel Aviv's hydra-headed monster
It's outrageous that in all probability Israel will once again be allowed to get away
