Obama's tough tasks ahead
Josh HongPublished: Jan 9, 2009 3:56 AM | Updated: Jan 9, 2009 4:02 AM
In a meeting with Jewish community leaders and orthodox Jewish clerics in Philadelphia in April last year, Barack Obama pledged that he would not sit down with Hamas, which he regarded – as President George W Bush did and still does – as a terrorist organisation.
In a meeting with Jewish community leaders and orthodox Jewish clerics in Philadelphia in April last year, Barack Obama pledged that he would not sit down with Hamas, which he regarded – as President George W Bush did and still does – as a terrorist organisation.
Given the immense influence of the Jewish lobby groups and that Obama was campaigning to secure the Democratic presidential candidacy, his position as such was understandable. Now, the American public is getting wind of the president-elect being prepared to ditch Bush’s non-engagement with Hamas by establishing a communication channel to the Islamic party popular with the Palestinians.
With Obama’s election, there were hopes that the new occupant in the White House would make a fresh start in America’s relations with the Muslim world. Regrettably, Obama’s initial silence on the violent carnage exacted by the Israelis in Gaza since the crisis flared up had been bitterly disappointing.
While some argued Obama was adhering to the protocol that the United States only has one president at a time, this was strongly refuted when Palestinian politicians in Gaza opined the same protocol did not prevent Obama from condemning the heinous crime committed by terrorists in Mumbai last month.
Quite clearly, wars and the killing and wounding of innocent civilians in Gaza wouldn’t wait for Obama’s official inauguration. Someone from Washington must come forward and help lance the boil or at least seem to be doing so.
As most people, I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself from outside attacks, especially when it is locked in a region full of hostile states. But the conflict between Tel Aviv and Hamas is utterly unequal, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians being denied access to clean water and proper shelter. The Israeli authorities have the peculiar habit of overdoing war in order to highlight their “vulnerability”.
'An eye for an eye is not enough'
Reverend Alex Award, the dean of students at the Bethlehem Bible College in the West Bank of Palestine, sums it up perfectly: “When it comes to dealing with its enemies, Israel has a pattern of being extreme…An eye for an eye does not satisfy; it has to be more like one hundred eyes for one eye and one hundred teeth for one tooth.”
Hence, I disagree with those who simply side with Tel Aviv out of their blind hatred for everything Islamic, such as Manjit Bhatia, who may be feeling so aggrieved by unfair treatments at the hands of some Muslims.
I don’t know how far will Obama depart from Bush’s established doctrine of ostracising Hamas, but I guess no amount of effort to reconcile with the Muslim world would at the same time change Washington’s foreign policy goal in the Middle East. After all, the US finds it hard to trust any of its Arab allies and giving tacit support to Israel’s military posture can only reinforce its position in the region.
In fact, an early-warning radar system was deployed by the US Army’s European Command in Israel in September last year, along with a 120-member support team effectively cementing the first permanent presence of American military personnel in Israel. This was an initiative by Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of Chicago, a long-time supporter for Israel, who successfully persuaded the Bush administration to accept the plan. It was also unanimously passed by the US Senate, to the tune of US$89m.
Washington is also prepared to expand more anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) globally, including Poland and the Czech Republic, the two eastern European countries that are regarded as most appreciative of US security network to guard against Russia and to keep the European Union in check.
And it does not stop there, as a plan to accommodate ABM radars in Japan. The agreement on military cooperation between Tokyo and Washington on developing ABM systems was signed in 2004, which could lead to the creation of a Joint US-Japan command post by 2010.
It goes without saying the extension of the ABM systems to the Asia-Pacific region is aimed at China, with whom Japan is ill at ease. If it goes according to plans, it would increase the political and military influence of the US in East Asia as a whole, to the detriment of the entire region. Since Tokyo’s militarization is only certain to provoke Beijing to step up its own effort to boost its war chest, the entire region of Asia Pacific will become more volatile and susceptible to conflict, with far-reaching implications for other regional powers such as Pakistan, India and, needless to say, North Korea.
Just as the US cannot secure peace in the Middle East when it is constantly increasing military support for Israel, East Asia will continue to be shrouded in the fear of an arms race so long as the US-Japan initiative on ballistic missile defence is in place. To what extent is Obama willing to reverse the trend is everyone’s guess.
President Bush’s eight years rule has only produced more paranoids in the White House and freaks in the Pentagon. While Obama’s possible change of course in dealing with the Muslim world should be welcome by all, it remains to be seen if he could overcome the obstacle and achieve long-lasting foreign policy goals in the Middle East.
Given the immense influence of the Jewish lobby groups and that Obama was campaigning to secure the Democratic presidential candidacy, his position as such was understandable. Now, the American public is getting wind of the president-elect being prepared to ditch Bush’s non-engagement with Hamas by establishing a communication channel to the Islamic party popular with the Palestinians.With Obama’s election, there were hopes that the new occupant in the White House would make a fresh start in America’s relations with the Muslim world. Regrettably, Obama’s initial silence on the violent carnage exacted by the Israelis in Gaza since the crisis flared up had been bitterly disappointing.
While some argued Obama was adhering to the protocol that the United States only has one president at a time, this was strongly refuted when Palestinian politicians in Gaza opined the same protocol did not prevent Obama from condemning the heinous crime committed by terrorists in Mumbai last month.
Quite clearly, wars and the killing and wounding of innocent civilians in Gaza wouldn’t wait for Obama’s official inauguration. Someone from Washington must come forward and help lance the boil or at least seem to be doing so.
As most people, I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself from outside attacks, especially when it is locked in a region full of hostile states. But the conflict between Tel Aviv and Hamas is utterly unequal, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians being denied access to clean water and proper shelter. The Israeli authorities have the peculiar habit of overdoing war in order to highlight their “vulnerability”.
'An eye for an eye is not enough'
Reverend Alex Award, the dean of students at the Bethlehem Bible College in the West Bank of Palestine, sums it up perfectly: “When it comes to dealing with its enemies, Israel has a pattern of being extreme…An eye for an eye does not satisfy; it has to be more like one hundred eyes for one eye and one hundred teeth for one tooth.”
Hence, I disagree with those who simply side with Tel Aviv out of their blind hatred for everything Islamic, such as Manjit Bhatia, who may be feeling so aggrieved by unfair treatments at the hands of some Muslims.
I don’t know how far will Obama depart from Bush’s established doctrine of ostracising Hamas, but I guess no amount of effort to reconcile with the Muslim world would at the same time change Washington’s foreign policy goal in the Middle East. After all, the US finds it hard to trust any of its Arab allies and giving tacit support to Israel’s military posture can only reinforce its position in the region.
In fact, an early-warning radar system was deployed by the US Army’s European Command in Israel in September last year, along with a 120-member support team effectively cementing the first permanent presence of American military personnel in Israel. This was an initiative by Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of Chicago, a long-time supporter for Israel, who successfully persuaded the Bush administration to accept the plan. It was also unanimously passed by the US Senate, to the tune of US$89m.
Washington is also prepared to expand more anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) globally, including Poland and the Czech Republic, the two eastern European countries that are regarded as most appreciative of US security network to guard against Russia and to keep the European Union in check.
And it does not stop there, as a plan to accommodate ABM radars in Japan. The agreement on military cooperation between Tokyo and Washington on developing ABM systems was signed in 2004, which could lead to the creation of a Joint US-Japan command post by 2010.
It goes without saying the extension of the ABM systems to the Asia-Pacific region is aimed at China, with whom Japan is ill at ease. If it goes according to plans, it would increase the political and military influence of the US in East Asia as a whole, to the detriment of the entire region. Since Tokyo’s militarization is only certain to provoke Beijing to step up its own effort to boost its war chest, the entire region of Asia Pacific will become more volatile and susceptible to conflict, with far-reaching implications for other regional powers such as Pakistan, India and, needless to say, North Korea.
Just as the US cannot secure peace in the Middle East when it is constantly increasing military support for Israel, East Asia will continue to be shrouded in the fear of an arms race so long as the US-Japan initiative on ballistic missile defence is in place. To what extent is Obama willing to reverse the trend is everyone’s guess.
President Bush’s eight years rule has only produced more paranoids in the White House and freaks in the Pentagon. While Obama’s possible change of course in dealing with the Muslim world should be welcome by all, it remains to be seen if he could overcome the obstacle and achieve long-lasting foreign policy goals in the Middle East.
View Comments0