Change or Orthodoxy: Where Will American Politics Go?

Between what the analysts and the pundits who are convinced of the changes that Obama will bring to American foreign policy and those on the other side of the spectrum, differences exist. This was what I touched on last week during a conference that I attended held under the auspices of the American Studies Center sponsored by the Economics and Political Science departments. The talk pivoted on the future of Egyptian-American relationships with Dr. Ali El Deen Helal moderating the debate. Shortly afterwards, I gave a speech during a seminar at Mubrak’s public library run by Ambassador Abdel Raouf al-Reedy in which I talked about Obama’s “change” in the light of my book, “America in a Changing World.” In both contradictory views, change in Obama’s foreign policy has two ramifications, each of which with circumstances that first relates to a shift in America’s attitudes towards the world, while the other pertains to the Middle East, specifically the Palestinian cause and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The first change shall be imperative, whereas the second will be conditional and bridled by various conditions.

However, and in spite of the rule of normalcy governing the U.S.’s foreign policies, history says that some American presidents already bucked that rule, creating change in their own right. Examples include:

1- In 1975, President Gerald Ford officially declared to reconsider American policies towards the Arabs and Israel in response to the latter’s evasion of the resolutions agreed upon with Egypt for the Israeli evacuation of troops after the great war of 1973.

2- President George Bush Senior refused to lend Israel ten billion dollars in order to punish Israel’s pursuit of building settlements, ignoring the obligations set forth at the conference in Madrid.

3- President Bill Clinton left no stone unturned to spur Israel to go on the comprehensive talks in addition to declaring that the settlements are not legitimate and are an obstacle before peace.

4- In the late 90s, I went to George Washington University in Washington to attend a lecture by Israeli Avner Cohen, author of the book “The Bomb.” In both the lecture and the book, Cohen revealed that President Kennedy was the only president who stood up to Israel’s nuclear program from its start, and was resolved to sending inspectors and experts to Israel on fact-finding missions.

So, will Obama make good on the change he’s promised to usher in?

Apparently, Obama has his views and his background of the happenings in the region and perhaps he has the intention to defuse the Palestinian crisis.

However, it is not good intentions or wishes that comprise politics in America. Rather, President Obama, along with other politicians, are working inside the borders of a political map drawn by the American political system, where it allows special interest groups to exert pressure on behalf of entities or other notable actors.

Still, what would change Obama’s current position?

Even if he wanted to, Obama cannot change the current policies unless Arabs break their good-for-nothing silence and have stout political will and a national security strategy to gather their capabilities and organize their lobbying apparatus. For America, politics is the game of balance, away from our or its president’s individual wishes.

As for Obama changing policies in the world, they would be a must according to the following indications:

– In June 2008, the National Intelligence Council issued a report where it ascertained that America’s hegemony as a universal power will recede and that America alone cannot face the challenges to its national security or solve the world’s riddles.

– Fareed Zakaria, a preeminent thinker of Indian roots and a veteran of several think tanks, published his book “The Post-American Era” this year as well. The book tackles current transformations, such as the rise of international players like China and India and the turning of the compass’s needle from the West to Asia, something that would include other partners in the new multilateral system.

-This past year, Princeton University released a strategy for national security in the 21st century. The report, which took three years to complete and had contributions by 400 veteran experts in foreign policy such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and George P. Shultz, was released to handle the shifting perspectives in a changing world and the developing attitudes towards the U.S.

– Many studies and writings from veteran politicians and experts detailed that there was in effect that started three years before Obama’s election, believing that America would have to change in a transforming world, or history shall put it before a great catastrophe.

Certainly, this does not mean the oblivion of the impetus inside the U.S. that fancies the idea of a multipolar world or those who don’t want to abandon their faith in a dominate America. Indeed, Obama’s ability to change is associated with his public support: elite and zealous politicians and activists, who have cheered for someone like him to come along for a long time.