US policy in the Middle East unravels
US policy in the Middle East unravels
By Roula Khalaf in London and Edward Luce in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: August 4 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 4 2006 03:00
On March 14 2005 Beirut's fashionable downtown district was flooded with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, waving Lebanese flags and passionately demanding an end to Syrian control over Lebanon.
Dubbed in Washington the "Cedar Revolution", the protests - following the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri - were held up as evidence of a changing Middle East, a blow to radicalism and a vindication of America's push for freedom.
There were stirrings of democracy elsewhere in the region. From the first nationwide municipal elections in Saudi Arabia to the emerging Kefaya movement in Egypt, the Arab world was sending signs of hope.
In Palestine, Yassir Arafat, the historic leader shunned by the US, was gone and a more moderate Mahmoud Abbas had taken over, promising accountable government and reviving hopes for Middle East peace. Even in Iraq, the US-designed political transition was progressing in defiance of escalating insurgent violence.
That image of the Middle East has now been dramatically transformed. As Israel pounds Lebanon and its troops push deeper into the south, the US vision of the Middle East is in disarray.
The Lebanon conflict is the latest sign of a broader unravelling of US policy. Looking across the Arab world: the radical Palestinian group Hamas is in power and Mr Abbas is marginalised; Iraq is sinking towards civil war; no one expects wider elections in Saudi Arabia; and the Egyptian regime has reverted to its repressive ways.
Expressing the sense of frustration and desperation, Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon's Druze group and a driving force behind the Cedar Revolution, told the FT this week that today's Middle East is one of "darkness everywhere" with "failure in Palestine, failure in Iraq and now this failure in Lebanon".
Israel's onslaught, supported by the US, has intensified anti-American sentiment in the region and raised domestic pressure on US-friendly regimes.
Worse yet from the US perspective, the Lebanese conflict has underlined the rising power of Iran, Hizbollah's most important backer. The crisis comes as Sunni Arab governments fret over Shia Iran's growing influence in Iraq, now ruled by a Shia-led coalition, an anxiety exacerbated by Tehran's determination to pursue a nuclear programme.
With little evidence so far that Israel's offensive has done much to degrade Hizbollah's military power and growing signs that it has strengthened the group's political influence in Lebanon, Iran and its allies - in Syria and Lebanon - could yet emerge as the biggest beneficiaries of the war.
By radicalising public opinion, the Lebanon conflict also risks complicating US efforts to contain Iraq's civil strife. Al-Qaeda leaders have seized on Israel's war as justification for their violence. Worrying too are angry warnings from Iraq's Shia figures againstUS backing for Israel.
In considering the Middle East's predicament, there is enough blame to go round for all the regional actors - leading Arab governments, Iran, Syria and Israel. But American blunders, starting with the bungled handling of Iraq, have contributed to the region's mounting troubles.
The sticks waved at Iran and Syria appear to have only radicalised them further. The lack of perceived US even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli conflict has allowed the conflict to fester and undermined the credibility of other US policies. The contradictions between fighting a war on terrorism and spreading democracy, meanwhile, became starkly evident in the Palestinian elections, where most parliamentary seats went to Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organisation in the US but considered by Arabs as legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation.
In Washington, Bush administration officials maintain that the Lebanon crisis can be turned around to the advantage of the US and its allies in the Lebanese government. They point to the growing convergence between the US and leading European countries on UN resolutions needed to defuse the crisis. Betting that Israel's military campaign and international pressure will lead to the disarmament of Hizbollah, they insist the US is not losing the war for hearts and minds.
"There are two curves that intersect at some point: the military curve that is degrading Hizbollah's capability and the political curve of public opinion," says a senior US official. "Even as Hizbollah are losing on the military battleground, their political standing may be growing. But we don'tthink that public empathy for Hizbollah in theMiddle East will be deep or lasting."
However, Richard Haass, former head of policy and planning at the US State Department and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, echoes many, including a queue of former Democrat and Republican secretaries of state, who fear the US is losing the larger political war.
"The US is giving the impression that it is uncaring about Lebanese lives and this will help further radicalise elements in the Arab world," says Mr Haass. "The administration limited its options at the outset by refusing to deal with Iran and Syria and aiming for maximum objectives in a short time-frame. This is entirely consistent with its approach to diplomacy over the last five and a half years."
In Beirut, meanwhile, the Americans' optimistic predictions are met with growing scepticism. With the country battered by Israel for more than three weeks, the government, dominated by forces that led the March 14 2005 protests, can ill-afford to turn against Hizbollah, whatever the outcome of the war.
Attempts to impose an internationally agreed deal to disarm Hizbollah, warn politicians, could push Lebanon down the treacherous path of another internal conflict, only 15 years after it emerged from civil war.
It is no doubt such gloomy prospects that led to this week's lament from Saudi al-Feisal, foreign minister of Saudi Arabia. "We would like to return to the old Middle East," he said, "as we did not see anything new in the new Middle East apart from more problems".
By Roula Khalaf in London and Edward Luce in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: August 4 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 4 2006 03:00
On March 14 2005 Beirut's fashionable downtown district was flooded with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, waving Lebanese flags and passionately demanding an end to Syrian control over Lebanon.
Dubbed in Washington the "Cedar Revolution", the protests - following the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri - were held up as evidence of a changing Middle East, a blow to radicalism and a vindication of America's push for freedom.
There were stirrings of democracy elsewhere in the region. From the first nationwide municipal elections in Saudi Arabia to the emerging Kefaya movement in Egypt, the Arab world was sending signs of hope.
In Palestine, Yassir Arafat, the historic leader shunned by the US, was gone and a more moderate Mahmoud Abbas had taken over, promising accountable government and reviving hopes for Middle East peace. Even in Iraq, the US-designed political transition was progressing in defiance of escalating insurgent violence.
That image of the Middle East has now been dramatically transformed. As Israel pounds Lebanon and its troops push deeper into the south, the US vision of the Middle East is in disarray.
The Lebanon conflict is the latest sign of a broader unravelling of US policy. Looking across the Arab world: the radical Palestinian group Hamas is in power and Mr Abbas is marginalised; Iraq is sinking towards civil war; no one expects wider elections in Saudi Arabia; and the Egyptian regime has reverted to its repressive ways.
Expressing the sense of frustration and desperation, Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon's Druze group and a driving force behind the Cedar Revolution, told the FT this week that today's Middle East is one of "darkness everywhere" with "failure in Palestine, failure in Iraq and now this failure in Lebanon".
Israel's onslaught, supported by the US, has intensified anti-American sentiment in the region and raised domestic pressure on US-friendly regimes.
Worse yet from the US perspective, the Lebanese conflict has underlined the rising power of Iran, Hizbollah's most important backer. The crisis comes as Sunni Arab governments fret over Shia Iran's growing influence in Iraq, now ruled by a Shia-led coalition, an anxiety exacerbated by Tehran's determination to pursue a nuclear programme.
With little evidence so far that Israel's offensive has done much to degrade Hizbollah's military power and growing signs that it has strengthened the group's political influence in Lebanon, Iran and its allies - in Syria and Lebanon - could yet emerge as the biggest beneficiaries of the war.
By radicalising public opinion, the Lebanon conflict also risks complicating US efforts to contain Iraq's civil strife. Al-Qaeda leaders have seized on Israel's war as justification for their violence. Worrying too are angry warnings from Iraq's Shia figures againstUS backing for Israel.
In considering the Middle East's predicament, there is enough blame to go round for all the regional actors - leading Arab governments, Iran, Syria and Israel. But American blunders, starting with the bungled handling of Iraq, have contributed to the region's mounting troubles.
The sticks waved at Iran and Syria appear to have only radicalised them further. The lack of perceived US even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli conflict has allowed the conflict to fester and undermined the credibility of other US policies. The contradictions between fighting a war on terrorism and spreading democracy, meanwhile, became starkly evident in the Palestinian elections, where most parliamentary seats went to Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organisation in the US but considered by Arabs as legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation.
In Washington, Bush administration officials maintain that the Lebanon crisis can be turned around to the advantage of the US and its allies in the Lebanese government. They point to the growing convergence between the US and leading European countries on UN resolutions needed to defuse the crisis. Betting that Israel's military campaign and international pressure will lead to the disarmament of Hizbollah, they insist the US is not losing the war for hearts and minds.
"There are two curves that intersect at some point: the military curve that is degrading Hizbollah's capability and the political curve of public opinion," says a senior US official. "Even as Hizbollah are losing on the military battleground, their political standing may be growing. But we don'tthink that public empathy for Hizbollah in theMiddle East will be deep or lasting."
However, Richard Haass, former head of policy and planning at the US State Department and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, echoes many, including a queue of former Democrat and Republican secretaries of state, who fear the US is losing the larger political war.
"The US is giving the impression that it is uncaring about Lebanese lives and this will help further radicalise elements in the Arab world," says Mr Haass. "The administration limited its options at the outset by refusing to deal with Iran and Syria and aiming for maximum objectives in a short time-frame. This is entirely consistent with its approach to diplomacy over the last five and a half years."
In Beirut, meanwhile, the Americans' optimistic predictions are met with growing scepticism. With the country battered by Israel for more than three weeks, the government, dominated by forces that led the March 14 2005 protests, can ill-afford to turn against Hizbollah, whatever the outcome of the war.
Attempts to impose an internationally agreed deal to disarm Hizbollah, warn politicians, could push Lebanon down the treacherous path of another internal conflict, only 15 years after it emerged from civil war.
It is no doubt such gloomy prospects that led to this week's lament from Saudi al-Feisal, foreign minister of Saudi Arabia. "We would like to return to the old Middle East," he said, "as we did not see anything new in the new Middle East apart from more problems".
posted by Carlos T Mock at 10:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home