By Steve Hynd
Obama's speech on the Middle East and the Arab Spring today, much anticipated by foreign policy wonks, has turned into a damp squib from the very start. As ever when Obama speaks, it sounded pretty - but contained too much of the usual American hypocrisy and too little of real substance.
Despite saying that "it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy", Libya, Syria and Iran were singled out for criticism for forcibly repressing their reform movements while Bahrain got barely a slap on the wrist and Saudi Arabia didn't get mentioned at all. The Libyan mission was pre-emptively hailed a certain success while every analyst thinks that its going nowhere. Two months in to a war that was supposed to last "days not weeks" there was no mention of any strategy going forward other than to hope Gadaffi steps down or trips going to the bathroom in the night. A couple of billion is to be thrown at stabilizing the Tunisian and Egyptian economies (if deficit hawk Republicans don't put a wrench in the works) which is hardly enough. Egypt saw its current account deficit double in the quarter to March 2011, reaching over $3 billion, and has run a massive trade defecit for decades. Tunisia is no better off and both nations rely heavily on tourism to even try to keep pace with grwoing deficits.
But the real flop came on Obama's outlining of America's position on Palestine and Israel. As Larry Defner writes:
By saying the Israeli-Palestinian border should be based on the �67 line, he just repeated what Clinton said publicly about a year ago (and what her husband said in the White House a decade ago). What was new, or at least newer, was his endorsement of Netanyahu�s call for a �non-militarized� Palestine � which is a contradiction to a sovereign Palestine, something Obama claimed also to support. And by mentioning the need to stop the smuggling of weapons into Palestine, he might have been giving a nod to Netanyahu�s demand to keep the Israeli army on the Jordan Valley. Also, he repeated his opposition to the Palestinians� plan to seek recognition from the UN in September. Meanwhile, he mentioned nothing about the refugees killed by Israeli troops on the borders. In all, a very, very good day for Fortress Israel. But I think Obama just lost the Palestinians.
But even so, it wasn't a good enough day for Netanyahu.
Israel's prime minister has rejected a key aspect of President Barack Obama's policy speech, saying that a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state.
In a statement released late Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines "indefensible."
The ever-excellent Adam Serwer sums up so well, I'll just quote him.
Sadly, this is an admission of how limited U.S. statements of support for democratic movements in the Middle East are. There�s little chance for change in how Arabs and Muslims view the United States as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, the U.S.�s military footprint in the Muslim world remains significant, and the U.S. does little more than wag its finger at allies engaged in brutal crackdowns against their own people.
In many ways this was a beautiful speech, particularly its emphasis on universal human rights and historical comparisons to America�s own movements for change. But the allusions to our own history, while meaningful to us, may not resonate much with the speech�s intended Mideast audience. Obama can give all the speeches he wants, but absent progress on those fronts, negative perceptions of the U.S. in the region are unlikely to change. America�s problems in the Middle East have never been about what it has said, but about what it has done.
I believe its the internet tradition at this point to only add, "indeed".
All the time I was listening to his speech I kept thinking what a good columnist he would have made. Each day he could analyze a new problem with no need to follow up on any statement. He really does speak well. What a shame for both the country and him.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides, the speech was mostly ignored in the ME. Check this guest post at Kal's place by Algerian-American journalist Assia Boundaoui.
ReplyDelete...a geographically-illiterate observer might come to conclude that North Africa is made up of only three countries: Egypt in the West, Libya in the East, and Tunisia in the middle. The other countries that actually make up the Western-half of North Africa � Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania and the Western Sahara� went entirely unmentioned in the President�s speech.
[...] The fact is, the people of the Middle East and North Africa are not taking their cues from the American administration � most didn�t even listen to the President�s speech. Even in the two countries President Obama referenced the most, (Tunisia ten times and Egypt thirteen times), most Egyptians and Tunisians on the so-called �Arab Street� don�t seem to have even heard the speech.
**yawn**
The very interesting thing is that the world, not including the suck holes [you can use this term on air down-under we should use it more here]: Western political elites, hangers on, mainstream courtiers, obamabots, etc., seem to have Obama's number. George was all hat no cows. What's Obama? All mouth no stuff. So this latest bullshit pontification I suspect was for the domestic market and his bobble-headed bots. Fing around with the Palestinian fiasco when he doesn't seem to know his ass from a hole in the ground just seems stupid unless he is trying to demonstrate to his devoted that he doesn't completely dance to Dennis Ross's fife and drum zionist combo . Love how he got the reference to the google exec into the speech Nir Rosen might say that was to assure the local market that those Arabs & Muslims are god guys just like us 'cause they use Facebook and speak english and dress neat. Face it, he's a clown but he doesn't make you laugh like some of the GOP substitutes might. Obama's bumper stickers likely be "I'm the lesser evil"; GOPs should be "I'll make you laugh as we go to hell in this made offshore somewhere handbag". Latter slogan needs some work but suspect GOP would win being honest about fing you but it'll be lots of laughs.
ReplyDelete"What's Obama? All mouth no stuff."
ReplyDeleteI love it Geoff - 4 stars.
I thought I had misheard but no:
ReplyDeleteAs for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself � by itself � against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.
This may get me in trouble with people who otherwise would ordinarily agree with me, but:
ReplyDeleteI�ll sign off on the Palestinian state (something that�s taken me a while to come around to) and I�ll sign off on the �67 borders with some exceptions � not for large settlements of right-wing extremists, but if there are a few little bumps on the map here and there that would make Israel more militarily defensible. I would hope to see those as last-minute inclusions in the negotiating process.
Assuming there is going to be a negotiating process, of course.