The Global Cop Takes Off the Uniform

North Korea flew off the handle and got away with only a reprimand. It’s not clear how Obama is going to respond if there is a flare up in Lebanon. With no one who would deter — corresponding results will follow.

The Global Cop will never have to take a polygraph. Truly, he overstepped his boundaries, too, this week — but not for the purpose of assault. At most, it was a reproach. He, too, prefers a threesome. He doesn’t feel like taking care of North Korea on his own. He prefers that China do it. And China — she also conveys a message that is sometimes hard to understand — at times enticing, at times repelling. It makes no sense for the Global Cop to take a polygraph because he seems to have already made a decision: He takes his uniform off.

Actually, there is no more Global Cop, no one to put things in order, no one to deter. The results could be seen this week. North Korea went rogue, and the former cop rebuked her. Not much more than that. And the truth is the Obama administration didn’t have many other options.

Previous administrations also had difficulties pursuing an understanding policy against the North Koreans. They ridiculed Bill Clinton, and they ignored George Bush most of the time. Now they are provoking Obama. To his disgrace — he has nothing to offer in response. To his credit — he’s got strong nerves and isn’t easily provoked.

American policy as it concerns the Korean Peninsula is built on two foundations: One is to broadcast a clear message that South Korea will enjoy support and protection in case the North displays aggression. The second is a stubborn refusal to reward North Korea for “bad behavior.”

Agitate, Relax, Agitate

And in other words: Obama learned from his predecessors’ experience and is not ready to buy North Korean peace in exchange for an economic bribe that eases the life of the regime. He knows — everybody knows — that this is the modus operandi of the North: First, they go wild. Then they promise to calm down in return for relaxing the sanctions or for assistance; later on, when the duration of the assistance is over, they go wild again, and so forth.

With Obama, for the moment, this is not working. It may be one of the reasons for the gradual escalation in the aggressive actions of the North. Perhaps the regime is checking how far it can go before somebody decides to do something. In other words, to compromise.

The Americans tried this week to mention China’s responsibility for what is happening in her backyard, but the Chinese responded with a typical shrug.

It looks like what’s happening now is convenient for them; their method has a degree of benefit in exacerbating tensions between the Koreas. Or possibly, China is simply declining to take upon herself duties America decided to abandon. Declining to be the new Global Cop. Either way, there is no Global Cop, neither old nor new. And with no cop, the criminals are out hunting.

Busy with Lebanon More Than with the Freeze

Obama does not believe, apparently, that the United States can continue to carry on her back the burden of the world. From here — there is disagreement. Opponents argue that defeatism, which casts its shadow on America, erodes her strength. His adherents are claiming: Obama just reads the map better. It’s not that America doesn’t want to be at the helm of the rest of the world — but she can’t.

The former remember Ronald Reagan, arguing that power is drawn, first of all, from inner strength and faith in the power of America’s special role. The latter remember the previous president, George Bush, and the hardships he encountered when he overstretched the muscles of the United States.

One thing is beyond argument: In order to fill the roles she previously played, the United States is going to need, first of all, to restore her economy, to become a locomotive and not a dragging debtor. Obama claims that this is where he is headed. It’s only that the rest of the world, in its obstinacy and stupidity, is unwilling to wait up for the stuttering superpower.

Here, Lebanon is on the agenda. In a few days or weeks, an incriminating report will be presented against co-conspirators in the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — and within the American administration, officials have been trying for weeks to prevent the deterioration that will come in its wake.

True, they were dealing quite a lot with Israel-Palestine [settlement] freeze issues — which from the perspective of Jerusalem always looks like the center of the universe — but anyone familiar with the schedules of those in charge of Middle East affairs might be surprised to find out that they were occupied with Lebanon more. By the way, they dealt with the Lebanon matters facing the Lebanese, the Saudis, and also high-ranking Israeli visitors who recently stayed in Washington.

Israel as a Whip against Lebanon

Between the United States and Israel, there are understandings, too — “agreements” is a strong word, said an official knowledgeable about the details of the talks — on what Israel will and will not do in the event of an escalation in Lebanon.

On the one hand, the Americans sought to restrain Israel so as not to be an agent pushing for unnecessary deterioration; on the other hand, they sought to use Israel as a whip against those looking to sow calamity in Lebanon.

In fact, they hinted that Israel might attack. At the moment, it’s the most effective threat the Americans have in this arena, assuming they won’t send American aircraft carriers to tackle Hezbollah in the near future.

The American predicament in managing the crisis anticipated in Lebanon derives from several factors. In the first place, the ball is in the court of Hezbollah, the organization that has already suggested it won’t put up with incriminating conclusions; however, one can’t foresee how far it is willing to go.

Will it be content with a show of force or attempt to topple the government? Is it going to point only an accusing finger at Israel — as it did last week — or missiles, too? The Americans can sketch scenarios, warn, run a dialogue, but they will have to postpone their reaction to events until a date established by Hezbollah.

Furthermore: They are not the only meddlers in the arena. Besides them, there are the Iranians, the Syrians, the Turks and the Saudis. Some weeks ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a social call to Lebanon, in part, to signal to countries of the region that this is the territory where he dictates what’s going to take place.

Reaching Deep into the Lebanese Swamp

This week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Lebanon, in order to send a signal back to the Iranians. The relations between Iran and Turkey have indeed improved in recent months, but in the Lebanese arena, these two countries — the non-Arab regional superpowers — struggle for influence.

The administration is “deeply concerned” about Lebanon,” said Jeffrey Feltman, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, three weeks ago. In the middle of October, Feltman landed in Lebanon after a visit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and had a meeting not only with President Michel Suleiman, but also with Walid Jumblatt — after he met with the Premier Saad Hariri in Riyadh. In other words: He’s gotten deeply involved in the swamp of Lebanese politics in hopes of stabilizing a coalition that would be able to withstand Hezbollah in the weeks and months after delivering the indictment in the Hariri assassination.

And he’s not doing this alone. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also paid a visit to Lebanon at the beginning of the month, and from there, he headed to Damask, to try and see if his warnings outweigh those that Feltman issued.

The Syrians — and Americans say this publicly, too — continue doing in Lebanon as they do at home and “do not contribute to the stability we all are hoping for.” On this matter, even Kerry’s visit didn’t change the situation much.

Obama’s Semantics

Barack Obama is careful about words, especially when he has time enough to write them down. Therefore, you should read carefully what he has heralded: “I am committed to doing everything I can to support Lebanon and ensure it remains free from foreign interference, terrorism, and war.”

On one hand, the essence of the decision to reveal a personal commitment indicates an intention to take action. On the other hand, Obama hasn’t pledged to safeguard a free Lebanon. He has promised to do everything he “can” — which is actually everything that he has decided he wants to do, within the framework of limitations he will identify when it comes to a decision point for him. Or in the assistant [secretary of state] Feltman’s words: “The divisions that are inside Lebanon, that are apparent to everyone inside Lebanon, I don’t think lend themselves to any one* party inside or outside Lebanon being in a position to control everything.”

Or simply: If Lebanon crashes down, America would not necessarily be able or willing to try to rescue her. This is what’s implied by Feltman, what’s implied by the president, what‘s known by the Iranians, the Turks, the Hezbollah leaders, as well as the Lebanese government. Hence, they are not satisfied with American involvement.

And more sharply: They don’t view the American interference as the crucial determinant in the development of the conflict. The steps taken by closer neighbors, Israel being among them, are far more important.

Hurried to Do Away With the Freeze

Meanwhile, America speaks in Lebanon in two ways: One way, of less than dramatic importance, is via declarations of support. The second is via financial support of the Lebanese army. This is of greater importance, and two weeks ago the American administration succeeded in getting over the hurdle set before it in the Congress, when nervous legislators, inspired by Israel’s nervousness, froze a hundred million dollars of aid Obama and Clinton promised to Lebanon.

At the beginning of August, after the incident on the Israeli-Lebanese border, Congressman Howard Berman from California announced that he wouldn’t allow the money transfer to Lebanon. But on Nov. 12, he solemnly announced his decision to unfreeze the budget, after being briefed by the administration and convinced that the money was going toward appropriate purposes and that there was “no concern”^ that the arms America supplies to Lebanon had not, directly or indirectly, “fallen into the hands of Hezbollah.”

Not accidentally, members of Congress selected Berman and Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., to announce the lifting of the hold on Friday. This is the day chosen long ago by PR agents and speakers for releasing statements potentially damaging to the client’s image. For it really isn’t possible for Berman and Lowey to know in advance whether Hezbollah can or cannot get their hands on the equipment purchased with American assistance. Moreover, Israeli briefing bodies made sure the two are informed that Israel is still not comfortable with the assistance.

There are some among them taking consolation in the fact that in two months, when the leadership in Congress has changed in the aftermath of the elections, there will be a woman more concerned than Berman and Lowey taking the seat of chairman of the House’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen denounced eliminating the freeze on the aid, and it is doubtful whether she would make its transfer possible without receiving additional clarifications from the administration.

* Quotation in WashingtonPost.com article published “anyone party.”

^ Quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.