The Borders of Transformative Power
President Obama is attempting to position U.S. politics around the developments in the Arab world. For America, that will be a difficult balancing act.
Obama understands, better than any U.S. president before him, that in the future there will be many more power centers in the world. But at the same time, up until now, none of the up-and-coming powers were capable of lifting the administration out of a world of problems. This strengthens Obama’s confidence that the United States and Europe should also take a position of global leadership in the future – provided the transatlantic partner wins back its economic prowess.
In his speech in London, Obama referred to the reaction to the “Arab Spring” as an example of the importance of a unified West. In dumping its ally Mubarak in Egypt, Washington made a wide-reaching decision. Obama made it clear that the U.S. government is prepared to face the consequences. In principle that means that America stands on the side of those in the Arab world who cry for freedom.
The learning curve is unmistakable for a world power that long supported despotic monarchs in the region. Obama now understands the “false choice” between interests and ideals, between stability and democracy: “democracies are the closest allies we have.”
But Obama’s speech also shows that there is no conclusive, shared strategy for North Africa and the Middle East. The president can pragmatically conclude that the developments in the region are too multifaceted for that. Still, America’s association with Arab powers remains variable. Critics claim that ideals do, in fact, conflict with interests. The military intervention in Libya contrasts with the bare verbal protestation against Syrian despot Assad. The authoritarian Saudis won’t be subjected to excessive pressure since the global energy supply must not be interrupted, as Obama openly admits.
The U.S. president recognizes that the West must overcome deep distrust from the Arab world. That is all the more true as Arabs feel they have been unfairly treated up until now in the struggle over Palestine. Because the parties in conflict cannot come to negotiations themselves, the United States should, as an honest broker and with strict requirements, clear the path for new negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. But Obama must let himself be shown up by that naysayer of the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Obama understands, better than any U.S. president before him, that in the future there will be many more power centers in the world. But at the same time, up until now, none of the up-and-coming powers were capable of lifting the administration out of a world of problems. This strengthens Obama’s confidence that the United States and Europe should also take a position of global leadership in the future – provided the transatlantic partner wins back its economic prowess.
In his speech in London, Obama referred to the reaction to the “Arab Spring” as an example of the importance of a unified West. In dumping its ally Mubarak in Egypt, Washington made a wide-reaching decision. Obama made it clear that the U.S. government is prepared to face the consequences. In principle that means that America stands on the side of those in the Arab world who cry for freedom.
The learning curve is unmistakable for a world power that long supported despotic monarchs in the region. Obama now understands the “false choice” between interests and ideals, between stability and democracy: “democracies are the closest allies we have.”
But Obama’s speech also shows that there is no conclusive, shared strategy for North Africa and the Middle East. The president can pragmatically conclude that the developments in the region are too multifaceted for that. Still, America’s association with Arab powers remains variable. Critics claim that ideals do, in fact, conflict with interests. The military intervention in Libya contrasts with the bare verbal protestation against Syrian despot Assad. The authoritarian Saudis won’t be subjected to excessive pressure since the global energy supply must not be interrupted, as Obama openly admits.
The U.S. president recognizes that the West must overcome deep distrust from the Arab world. That is all the more true as Arabs feel they have been unfairly treated up until now in the struggle over Palestine. Because the parties in conflict cannot come to negotiations themselves, the United States should, as an honest broker and with strict requirements, clear the path for new negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. But Obama must let himself be shown up by that naysayer of the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.