Middle East stakes in American race

As George W. Bush prepares to vacate the Oval Office, he leaves behind a host of complex foreign policy issues for his successor, the 44th US president, to deal with.

The Bush administration will pass on a legacy that could put the fate of the Middle East in the next president's hands. With the war in Iraq, tensions with Iran and the situation in Palestine and Lebanon, the Bush administration's Middle East policy may have an impact that could last much beyond its term in office.

The fate of no other region in the world is arguably as intertwined with Washington as the Middle East's is. Every move made by the main presidential contenders is, therefore, closely watched in the Arab world.

But while several domestic and foreign players have influence on the American political system, Arabs in America and outside have had little success in understanding or being understood by it in the past.

Since September 11, however, Arab American figures have found themselves catapulted into the limelight by the US media, having to explain the Arab world and its discontent to the Americans.

Gaining relevance

Their involvement in politics has also come to light since then. Arab Americans are being recognised as a constituency becoming more relevant — something that presidential candidates and politicians have recently started taking into consideration.

James Zogby of the Arab American Institute (AAI) has become the face of Arab America on US television networks. Although it is debatable whether Arab Americans will have any significant impact on domestic politics (some argue that their contribution can be counterproductive), Zogby is encouraged by the level of participation in the political process that the community has achieved.

With the exception of African Americans, he said, no other ethnic group has had to face as many hurdles in political involvement as the Arab Americans.

“We had to endure people saying ‘sorry, we don't want to work with you'. Candidates rejected endorsements and contributions from the Arabs and refused Arab American involvement,'' he recalls.

“That continues till today, but we have had to fight to overcome that and we have been somewhat successful. Candidates do not reject our money [anymore]. We've had to fight to get in, but we're in''.

The Arab American voice has lately been supportive and, in many ways, beneficial to Arab governments. This was, perhaps, best demonstrated by the advocacy done by Zogby when Dubai Ports World's purchase of American port operations sparked a wave of opposition by American lawmakers.

Zogby regularly appeared on American television screens, arguing that the opposition was more likely to have stemmed from xenophobia than genuine security concerns.

Despite the fact that Zogby regularly meets Arab government officials and diplomats, and campaigns for Arab causes, he stresses that unlike other lobby groups operating in Washington, the AAI is not a foreign policy arm for any government.

The institute, he said, lobbies for issues concerning Arab Americans, not Arab governments. “I don't look to Arab ambassadors for guidance,'' he said. “They're not my ambassadors.''

Although Arab Americans are troubled by the situation in their ancestral homelands, he adds, their primary concerns are in line with those of average Americans — the state of the US economy, education and healthcare.

Whether or not Arab governments can influence Arab American political activity, Dr Abdullah Al Shayji, chairman of the American Studies Unit at Kuwait University, said there is probably no consensus among Arab leaders in favour of a US presidential candidate.

But the election campaigns, he said, are being followed very closely in the Arab world and, particularly, in the Gulf states.
“The US-Gulf relationship has evolved in a very important way. Remember there 40,000 US troops in the Gulf states, and recent Gulf investments in the US have also evolved the relationship between the GCC states and the United States,'' he said.

The economic relationship between the GCC and the US, he notes, has become more mutually reliant than previously thought.

Sights set on profit

Barring a few protectionist voices in the US Congress, Gulf investments in America have been welcomed by those who feel the US economy needs a cash injection — as the country has a $9 trillion national debt, a huge trade deficit and a tumbling dollar.

A clear figure of the GCC's total assets in the United States is not available, but according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), more than 56 per cent of GCC capital outflow went to the United States between 2002 and 2006.

The IIF also estimates that foreign assets belonging to the six member-states reached $1.8 trillion by the end of 2007. The recent publicity surrounding Gulf investments abroad has shown that the United States remains a popular destination for the region's surplus wealth.

Although Gulf countries have assured Western governments that their objective in acquiring stakes in Western companies is only profit-driven, US presidential candidates have taken notice of them and the politico-economic muscle they can potentially create.

Hillary Clinton has already called for “aggressively'' imposing regulations on government investment funds, known as Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF), to improve transparency.

“There are different strategic and national interests at work here,'' she told Bloomberg in an interview recently, adding that SWF-controlling governments could one day use their investments to twist America's arm.

Barack Obama, too, recently said that he was concerned that the funds were motivated by “more than just market considerations''. He said that one way to prevent Gulf governments from buying into major US financial institutions was to reform the country's energy policy by controlling the consumption of oil to stop the transfer of American wealth to “Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE''.

This transfer of wealth has resulted in an unprecedented economic boom in the Gulf states, with leaders putting the excess cash into education, foreign investments and building local infrastructure.

At a time when the GCC's global economic clout is growing, its leaders are keen to avoid interruptions.

Last year, when the US decided to start negotiations with Iran on bringing stability to Iraq, commentators and analysts in the Gulf and beyond raised eyebrows, alarmed that America had reached a level of desperation in Iraq that forced it to start direct negotiations with the Islamic republic for the first time in almost 30 years.

Limiting ground realities

The view is that although the GCC states do not want to see a war in the Gulf amid record growth and development, they are also wary of what they see as Iran's growing influence in the region — and any cosying of US relations with Tehran is likely to cause concern.

An American administration that wishes to wash its hands of the Iraq war, Al Shayji said, may reach a “grand bargain'' with Iran, allowing the nation to expand its influence in the region in exchange for stability in Iraq.

“To prevent Iraq from dominating news bulletins on television and making the front page of newspapers, the Americans could be propelled to give Iran some kind of leeway in the Gulf and Iraq in return for their help in alleviating the situation in Iraq,'' he said.

Such a scenario, he notes, would be more likely under a Democratic administration, and could work against the interests of the Gulf states and Iraq.

Sobhi Ghandour of the US-based Al Hewar Centre said a development on these lines is unlikely as the Bush administration could, before leaving the White House, create ground realities that limit manoeuvring space in the Middle East for the next administration.

There is a fear, however, says Ghandour, that the Bush administration could go too far in trying to trap its successor in a status quo that corresponds with its school of thought before leaving office.

“The current administration is trying to create a status quo that will impose itself on the next president. We saw this in Vietnam; administrations would change but the new presidents would be forced to deal with ground realities,'' Ghandour said.

“There is a possibility that the US would conduct military strikes against Iran or even Syria and Lebanon with the assistance of Israel, and there are indicators for this in the region now,'' he said.

The Bush administration would thus ensure that its influence lasts beyond its term in office.

However, the question that is causing the most anxiety in the Arab world is: Which presidential candidate would be committed to finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict (the “master key'' to solving the region's other conflicts, as Al Shayji puts it)?

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report that was mandated by the US Congress to assess the state of the war in Iraq in March 2006 stressed that a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict was key to solving the other conflicts in the region, including the Iraq War.

Although the report has been received well by the three candidates and recommendations on policies to help stabilise Iraq have been adopted to a degree by the Democratic candidates, Al Shayji said that all three have, so far, not given credence to the report's recommendation about the significance of Arab-Israeli conflict in bringing lasting peace to the wider region.

According to Ali Abunimah, journalist and co-founder of Electronic Intifada, while McCain and Clinton have traditionally had pro-Israel leanings, Obama has only recently changed in favour of Israel.

Abunimah knew Obama when he was a senator in Illinois. “[Obama] would frequently attend events held by Palestinian Americans and would be eager to be introduced to the community,'' he said.

Although it was not uncommon for local lawmakers to attend Arab community events, he notes, Obama stood out in his interest in Palestinian issues and the personal relations he had with prominent Palestinian-American academics.

“He was generally supportive [of Palestinians] and understood the problems [with the] US policy of unquestioning support for Israel. He gave the impression that he would be willing to challenge that,'' he said.

That changed when Obama set his sights on the White House, Abunimah said.

“That's when he started to adopt more strongly pro-Israel positions as the price for getting support from key constituencies and donors,'' he said, adding that the senator subsequently cut off ties with Palestinian academics.

As the presidential campaign heats up, Abunimah said, the candidates' Middle East policies have almost converged in favour of Israel.

“What is clear is that Palestine as an issue has not been there in the campaign. The candidates have not differed on it; they've all been competing to see who can be more pro Israeli,'' he says.

Ghandour points out that Obama's Middle East policy is more rational, “as he has made a distinction between being pro-Israel and being pro-Likud (the right-wing Israeli party)''. That distinction, he explains, is rare for a presidential candidate “and important'' as a sign that his support for Israel won't be unconditional.

Al Shayji is nonetheless pessimistic about Palestine reaching a settlement with Israel with the help of Washington.

Arabs, he said, have given up on finding a neutral mediator in the United States.

“There is no hope, unless you want to lull yourself into believing that any administration coming to the White House will be better than the administration that left it.''


John McCain on:

Iraq:
- Considers it “central front'' in war on terror
- Advocates troop buildup; opposes a withdrawal strategy
- Considers success in Iraq as important to keep pressure off Israel and keep Iran in check

Iran:
- Calls for more sanctions outside UN framework
- Economic and political isolation of Iran with help of Europe and Gulf states
- Military action as a last resort if Iran is found to acquire nuclear weapons
- Proposes the creation of a “League of Democracies'' as an alternative to the UN, to counter Iran

Palestine/Israel:
- Intends to isolate Israel's enemies: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas
- Believes Palestinians and Israelis must be separated; sees Palestinian state as “ultimate end'', after recognition of Israel and an end to terror
- Will continue arms supply to Israel, to maintain its military edge in the region
- Recognises Israeli claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem

War on Terror:
- Supports military intervention where needed: covert operations and pre-emptive strikes
- Advocates making long-term commitment to Pakistan to weed out terrorism


Barack Obama on:

Iraq:
- Will immediately begin US troop withdrawal
- Rules out permanent US bases, but opposes complete withdrawal
- Will engage Iran and Syria in bringing stability to Iraq
- Considers it America's moral obligation to assist Iraq in its humanitarian crisis

Iran:
- Against war with Iran, but does not rule out use of military force
- Supports direct presidential diplomacy with Iran while calling for tougher sanctions against it
- Would offer Iran choice of abandoning nuclear programme for WTO membership, end of US regime change policy, normal diplomatic relations and investment

Palestine/Israel:
- Considers Israel's security to be the US's primary commitment in the Middle East
- Rules out negotiations with Hamas until it recognises Israel - Will be pro-Israel but not pro-Likud

War on Terror:
- Compares it to Cold War
- Supports use of unilateral force


Hillary Clinton on:

Iraq:
- Calls for a withdrawal strategy as well as negotiations with all of Iraq's neighbours, and focus on helping refugees
- Rules out permanent bases or occupation, but is in favour of a small force to prevent Al Qaida resurgence

Iran:
- Does not rule out military confrontation
- Supports tough economic sanctions as well as unconditional negotiations

Palestine/Israel:
- Supports West Bank separation barrier and the need to strengthen Palestinian Authority
- Has shown support for relocation of US embassy to Jerusalem

War on Terror:
- Rules out negotiations with individual terrorists, but not “state sponsors'' of terrorism
- Considers Afghanistan as central front in the war on terror
- Considers Pakistan an ally in the war, and supports increasing financial and military ties with it