Upheaval in the Arab World: More Challenges than Opportunities to the U.S.

Published in China.com
(China) on 2 June 2011
by Tang Zichao (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Pak Ng. Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
The violent upheaval throughout the Arab world could mean either challenges or opportunities for the United States. But it seems that for the time being, the challenges are greater than the opportunities.

Speaking of opportunities, the current “revolution” in the Middle East is just what the U.S. government has hoped for and has been vigorously pushing. After the Sept. 11 tragedy in 2001, the Bush administration launched the “Great Middle East Project.” Besides the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration also promoted the “Middle East Partnership Initiative” in 2002. The goal of this initiative was to promote democracy and freedom in the Middle East through extensive collaborations with local governments and non-government organizations. Although Obama lowered his objectives and tones of driving forward democratic reform in the Middle East after he assumed office, the “Middle East Partnership Initiative” was still being implemented and carried forward. The government has never weakened the strength of support to this initiative. According to statistics, since the initiative was launched in 2002, it already implemented or has been implementing up to 680 programs throughout 18 countries and regions and has subsidized up to $680 million in funds. Because of this, President Obama emphasized in his speech concerning the Middle East and North Africa on May 19 that the changes in the Middle East has led the U.S to face a “historic opportunity.” The basic strategy of the U.S. will be to adjust to the historical changes, to give judicious guidance according to circumstances, and to lead and push the Arab countries to switch direction to the benefit of the West. Such reforms will involve the political system, the economic system and social customs and culture.

However, the radical changes in the Arab world might just lead to more challenges for the United States. Above all, the U.S. global strategy and Middle East policy have been affected. In recent years the core of the U.S. strategy has moved eastward to the Asia-Pacific region. Now the sudden transformation of the Middle East has disarranged the U.S.’ established global strategic deployment; therefore, the U.S. has no other choice but to again expand its investment in the Middle East. At the same time, the radical changes in the Middle East have severely struck against the U.S.’ interests in the region and have posted multiple critical challenges toward the U.S.’ Middle East policy.

First, the stable supports to the U.S. strategy in the region will be weakened. The traditional alliance network and security system are facing disintegration; the pro-American governments, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Algeria, have all been attacked. In addition, Turkey has been distancing itself from the West in recent years, Israel has been increasingly isolated, and the U.S.’ Middle East alliance network is swaying in the midst of a raging storm. In Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet’s headquarters is located, the government is also facing great danger. The U.S. will be forced to again implement a strategic reorganization and construct a new alliance network.

Second, Obama’s Middle East agenda has been interfered with so the priority of the regional strategic order will face rearrangement. The Obama administration’s three major primary agendas are: the Iran nuclear issue, Iraq and the Middle East peace process. Promoting democracy has been placed in a less important position, but this position will now be greatly advanced because of the “revolution” in the Middle East. Therefore, in a short period of time the U.S. may not have the energy to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Obama’s promise to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel within the year will also come to naught.

Third, the U.S.’ strategic ally, Israel, is confronting increased threat, while its major adversary, Iran, is seizing the opportunity to grow. Protecting Israel’s security is one of the major goals of the U.S.’ Middle East policy. Now, the radical changes in the Middle East have caused Israel’s security to face a severe challenge; the Arab-Israeli conflict threatens to intensify. At the same time, Iran is taking the chance to expand in the region and may bring challenges to the U.S. on issues such as Iranian nuclear development and regional security, but the U.S. will not have time to deal with it in the short term.

Fourth, the U.S.’ regional anti-terror strategy and the efforts to improve its relationship with the Islamic world will face challenges. The U.S.’ two extremely opposite attitudes exhibited at the changing situation in the Middle East bitterly disappointed the pro-American governments in the region.

Aiming at the abrupt and rapid changes in the Middle East, in the last six months the U.S. government has adopted a way of bringing these allies through by treating problems on a case-by-case basis, depending upon where each of these problems occurs. On May 19, Obama gave an important speech that specifically addressed the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa and the U.S. policy. It was not only the Obama administration’s most focused and comprehensive response concerning the Middle East situation in the last six months, but it was also the second important speech regarding the Middle East problem given by Obama since he assumed office. The “Cairo Speech” in 2009 focused on policies such as improving the relationship between the U.S. and the Islamic world, withdrawing troops from Iraq, moving the forefront of the war on terror eastward to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and promoting peace in the Middle East. However, from the speech on May 19, we can perceive the U.S. government’s general train of thought and its framework concerning the changes in the Middle East.

To sum up, Obama’s speech mainly included three major subject matters: First, supporting the democratic reform in the Middle East will be his top-priority objective, and this would be the most urgent topic for Obama. He specifically presented the policy toward Arab governments that were facing “revolution”: He emphasized that Libya's Gadhafi doesn’t have much time left; he demanded that Syria’s President Assad either start transitioning to democracy or depart from power; he accused Iran of suppression and opposed its nuclear development and its support of terror; he requested President Saleh of Yemen to carry out his promise of transferring power; and he hoped that Bahrain would promote reform and conduct dialogue. Second, [Obama addressed] the use of economic means to support Tunisia and Egypt’s transformation to democracy through economic development. Obama stressed that the U.S. will focus on promoting these two excellent models — Tunisia and Egypt. Third, [he spoke of] promoting peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel. While increasing pressure on Israel, the U.S. will strengthen the military alliance with Israel and increase security assistance. A fourth objective would be to diversify cooperative partnerships so that in the future, the U.S.’ partners in the Middle East will not be limited to only the traditional allies — namely, those in power.

This speech, compared to the “Cairo Speech” in 2009, indicated important changes in the U.S.’ Middle East policy. Firstly and most importantly, major shifts of the core of Obama’s Middle East policy occurred, compared to the past — from maintaining traditional regional security to supporting and advancing regional democratic reform, and for this purpose Obama reorganized strategic priority orders. In the past the U.S.’ Middle East policies were often criticized. One of the important reasons was that the U.S. orally advocated democracy but in fact supported “authoritarian Arab regimes”; thus, the promotion of democracy became a “secondary interest.” Now Obama said that he would change the slogans into “actions” and “urgency.” Obama also vowed that the U.S. will use “all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal” to “support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.”

Next, the U.S. has changed its ways of collaborating with its regional partners. Where previously special emphasis was on dealing with the rulers, he stressed that going forward the U.S. should “speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people,” and emphasized establishing contacts with diversified social forces such as the local masses, young people, women and various citizen organizations. This actually signified that the U.S. would abandon any of those allies who are not willing to carry out reform. The ways and means will be more diversified and will not be just as simple as the government-to-government assistance of the past.

Third, Obama demanded that Israel go along with the changes and adjust its policy. Obama delivered several messages in part of his speech concerning the Palestine and Israel issue: In the future Israel will be more isolated, and its security will be more fragile; Arab countries’ future foreign policies will further reflect the will of people, and the Palestine-Israel conflict will once again be the focal point; acceptance of Hamas in the future cannot be excluded; Israel must adjust to the change of the situation, and its leader must make “bold choices.”

Fourth, Obama accentuated that the balance of value, security and interest must be realized. Obama pointed out that “for decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.” He emphasized in the speech that a strategy only based on interest will no longer work and that the U.S. can no longer pursue “our own interests at their expense.” He wanted to accomplish the integration of the U.S.’ national interests and its values.

However, it is still in doubt whether Obama can achieve his goal and if the U.S. can successfully turn around its Middle East policy. Can the U.S. accomplish the balance in its value, security and interest? Will the U.S. choose to completely separate itself from its traditional regional partners? Will the U.S. be able to withstand the “great chaos” in the Middle East? Will Israel, the U.S.’ most loyal ally in the region, meet Obama’s Middle East “new ideas”? All of these problems have big question marks.


阿拉伯世界的剧烈动荡,对美国而言,既是挑战,也是机遇,但从目前来看,挑战大于机遇。

从机遇来看,当前中东的 “革命”正是美国政府所希望的和力推的。2001年“9•11”事件后,小布什政府就提出了“大中东改造计划”,除了发动反恐战争和打击伊拉克外,还于 2002年推出了“中东伙伴关系”计划。该计划宗旨就是通过与当地政府和非政府机构的广泛合作,推进中东民主和自由。奥巴马上台后,虽然降低了在中东推进 民主改革的目标和声调,但实际上“中东伙伴关系”仍在继续实施、推进,政府并未减弱对其支持力度。据统计,自2002年启动至今,该计划已执行或正在执行 的项目达680个,遍及地区18个国家和地区,累计资助基金6.8亿美元。为此,5月19日奥巴马总统在关于中东北非演讲中强调指出,中东的变化使美国面 临一个“历史性机遇”。美的基本策略将是顺应历史变化,因势利导,引导和推动阿拉伯国家向有利于西方的方向转变,这包括政治制度,也包括经济体制和社会文 化。

但是,对美国而言,阿拉伯世界剧变可能带来的更多是挑战。首先,美国全球战略与中东政策遭冲击。近年来美战略重心东移亚太,现今中东突变打乱美既定全球战 略部署,重新加大对中东投入不可避免。同时,中东剧变严重冲击美中东利益,对美中东政策造成多重重要挑战:一是美中东战略稳定支柱遭削弱,传统盟友体系和 安全体系面临瓦解。突、埃、也门、巴林、阿尔及利亚等亲美政权纷纷遭冲击,加上近年来土耳其日渐远离西方,以色列日益孤立,美国的中东同盟体系风雨飘摇。 第五舰队总部所在地巴林政权面临危险。美将被迫重新进行战略布局,组建新盟友体系。二是冲击奥巴马中东议程,地区战略优先次序面临重排。奥政府中东三大优 先议题是:伊核问题、伊拉克以及推进中东和平进程,推进民主居次要地位,如今中东“革命”将使推进民主位置大大前移,而短期内美恐难有精力解决伊核问题, 奥承诺年内实现巴以和平愿望也将落空。三是战略盟友以色列面临威胁上升,同时主要敌手伊朗趁势坐大。保护以色列的安全是美中东政策主要目标之一。中东剧变 使以安全面临严峻挑战,阿以冲突恐将加剧。同时,伊朗乘机在地区坐大,可能在伊核、地区安全等问题上向美发起挑战,美短期内无暇应对。四是美地区反恐战略 及美与伊斯兰世界关系改善努力面临挑战。美在中东变局中首鼠两端的态度使亲美阿拉伯政权“心寒”。

针对中东的急剧而快速的变化,近六个月来可以说美国政府都是采取救活式的个案处理方式,头痛医头,脚疼医脚。5月19日,奥巴马专门就当前中东北非局势以 及美国政策发表重要讲话,这不仅是奥巴马政府对近半年来中东局势的最集中、全面的回应,也是奥巴马上任以来就中东问题发表的第二个重要讲话。2009年的 “开罗讲话”,集中谈的是如何改善美国与伊斯兰世界的关系,提出了从伊拉克撤军,反恐中心东移巴阿以及促进中东和平等政策。而从这次讲话中,可以看出美政 府应对中东变局的大致思路和框架。概括起来,奥巴马的讲话主要包含三大内容:一是将支持中东民主变革作为最优先目标,即奥巴马的当务之急。其中,具体提出 了对面临“革命”的阿拉伯政权的政策:对利比亚,强调卡扎菲已经时日无多;对叙利亚,要求巴沙尔总统要不进行民主过渡,要么走人;对伊朗,谴责镇压,反对 核发展和支持恐怖主义;对也门,要求萨利赫总统兑现移交政权的承诺;对巴林,希望推动改革和进行对话。二是以经济手段支援突尼斯和埃及的民主变革,通过经 济发展来帮助民主转型。奥巴马强调将集中打造突尼斯和埃及这两个“优秀样板”。三是推动巴以和谈,加大对以色列施压的同时,将强化美以军事同盟关系,加大 安全援助。四是合作伙伴的多元化。未来美中东伙伴不再单纯是传统的盟友,即当政者。

此讲话与2009年开罗讲话相比,显示美中东政策发生了重要变化:首先,也是最重要的,与过去相比,奥巴马的中东政策重心已发生重要转移,即由传统的维护 地区安全转向支持和推进地区民主改革,为此奥巴马重新确立了战略优先排序。过去,美中东政策常常遭到批评,一个重要原因就是美口头上提倡民主,但实际上却 “支持阿拉伯独裁政权”,促进民主成为“次要利益”,而现在奥巴马提出要将口号变成“实际行动”和“当务之急”。奥巴马还发誓“将利用我们所掌握的所有外 交、经济与战略手段”支持“发生在中东和北非的能够满足整个地区普通人民的合理愿望的政治与经济改革”。其次,美地区合作对象和方式发生转变。过去侧重与 当权者打交道,而未来则强调必须“注重当地普通人民更广泛的渴求”,强调与当地人民、青年、妇女、各种公民社会组织等多元社会力量打交道。这实际上也释放 出一个信号:对那些不进行改革的盟友,美随时可以抛弃。方式上,也更加多样,不再是过去相对单一的政府对政府的援助。第三,要求以色列顺应变化进行政策调 整。奥巴马关于巴以问题的讲话传递了几个信息:未来以色列会在中东更孤立、安全更脆弱;阿拉伯国家未来外交政策更加民意化,阿以矛盾将重新突出;不排除未 来可以接受哈马斯;以色列必须顺应形势变化,其领导人必须做出“有魄力的抉择”。第四,强调要实现价值观和安全、利益的平衡。奥巴马指出,“几十年来,美 国一直在该地区遵循一套核心利益:打击恐怖主义和制止核武器扩散、确保商业的自由流通、保卫该地区的安全;支持以色列的安全和追求阿拉伯—以色列和平。” 他在讲话中强调,仅仅以利益为基础的战略已不再行得通,美国不能再“靠牺牲他人而追求自己的利益”,要实现美国的利益和美国的价值观之间的统一。

但是,奥巴马的目标能否实现,美中东政策能否实现华丽转身,仍值得怀疑。美能否在价值观和安全、利益之间实现平衡?美是否会选择与传统地区盟友“彻底决 裂”?美是否能经受得了中东的“大乱”?地区最忠实的盟友以色列是否会配合奥巴马的中东“新思维”?所有这些问题都是大大的问号。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Topics

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Mexico: Big Tech and the Police State

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice