The expression, “With friends like you who needs
enemies?” is an apt summary of a major problem for U.S. foreign policy during Obama's second term.
Here’s
the issue: a number of supposed allies of the United States don’t act
as friends. In fact, they are major headaches, often subverting U.S.
goals and interests. But to avoid conflict and, for Obama, to look
successful to the domestic audience, Washington pretends that everything
is fine.
Consider,
for example, Pakistan. The United States has given billions of dollars
to that country in exchange for supposedly helping keeping the lid on
Afghanistan—and especially to ensure the Taliban does not return to
power—and to fight terrorism, especially al-Qaida.
In
reality, Pakistan supports the Taliban, wages a terrorist war on India,
and hasn’t been all that
helpful in fighting al-Qaida. It would be interesting to see the U.S.
intelligence document evaluating how high up in Pakistan’s government
was their knowledge that Usama bin Ladin was “hiding out” a few blocks
from a Pakistani military complex. The fact that Pakistan threw into
prison a local doctor whose work helped find bin Ladin indicates which
side that regime is on.
Moreover,
Pakistan’s regime is ferociously oppressing the Christian minority,
becoming more Islamist, and giving women the usual treatment existing in
such societies. Obama claims to be protecting women and
religious minorities yet lifts not a finger in Pakistan. And rather
than be a force against terrorism, the Pakistani government has been
sponsoring a terrorist war against India.
After
the horrible massacre of civilians in Mumbai, it became clear that the
attack was sponsored and planned by Pakistan using terrorists trained
and enjoying safe haven in Pakistan. India was left helpless as Pakistan
simply refused to cooperate with the investigation or to turn over
terrorists from the group responsible. In short, the United States is
massively subsidizing a major sponsor of
international terrorism.
Yet
for the U.S. government to admit that the Pakistani government is more
enemy than friend would make it even more uncooperative and might lead
to attacks on the U.S. embassy and diplomats. Pretending
that a regime like Pakistan's is helpful--and continuing to fork over
U.S. taxpayer money to it--is a huge temptation. Only if the regime in
question does something obviously horrible, and even the bin Ladin case
wasn’t sufficient to sour the White House on Pakistan, will the
situation
change.
Of
course, some measures have been taken but basically Pakistan isn’t
paying for its behavior. Consequently, it will continue acting in a
hostile way, subsidized by the United States to do so.
The scope of this problem becomes clearly visible if you add to this list such places as Egypt,
Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Turkey,
Venezuela, Bolivia, and several other countries being in a similar
situation.
-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation
to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of
IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC,
116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 30,090 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
Take
Egypt for example. The country is now governed by a radical,
anti-American, antisemitic government dedicated to spreading jihad,
imposing Sharia law, and driving U.S. influence from the region. It
could be argued that a mix of carrots and sticks from the United States
would moderate the regime’s behavior. But what if that doesn’t work? The
temptation is to continue with the carrots and forget about the sticks.
Obama
says that the “red lines” are that the Cairo regime must adhere to the
peace treaty with Israel; treat women and religious minorities (that is,
Christians) well; and help fight terrorism. But what if it doesn’t?
Suppose the Salafist burn down churches and massacre Christians and the
government does not protect the minority? Suppose a Sharia regime
reduces women’s rights to a minimum? Suppose Egypt declares itself no
longer bound by the peace treaty with Israel or pretty openly arms Hamas
in the Gaza Strip for an attack on Israel?
Will
Obama be prepared for a conflict, even a confrontation, with the
Arabic-speaking world’s largest country? Would even a President Mitt
Romney do so?
In other words, the argument would be made that it is better to
keep giving money, selling weapons, and shutting up about criticism than
to make a break. Moreover, the president who did so could be accused of
getting the United States into an unnecessary battle and making more
enemies. To some extent, that’s what happened with President George W.
Bush.
The possible difference between the two current candidates could end up looking like this:
Obama version: Although you act as enemies we will believe you are friends.
Romney version: We know you aren’t really friends but we don’t have a
choice.
In practice, the difference would be that Romney would have a lower threshold for acting against betrayal than would Obama.
Of
course, a large part of the problem with Obama’s policy is that he not
only treated enemies as friends and did not pressure supposed friends
that acted like enemies, he joined them. Thus, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi
Arabia are arming anti-American Islamist forces in Syria with U.S.
intelligence officers supervising the weapons’ supplying. The only
restriction is that the guns don’t go to groups affiliated with
al-Qaida. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how extremist they are. In Libya,
one of the groups—treated as “good guys”-- supplied with guns by the
United States during the civil war there went on to kill the U.S.
ambassador.
Yet
given the current situation, especially in the Middle East, a realistic
policy would make the enemies’ list seem too long and discouraging. In
political and diplomatic terms that means the truth will be covered up.
The important question is: How far does a country have to go, how futile
and even counterproductive do the pay-offs have to be, before it is no
longer treated as a friend.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment