Hop’n change apologizes to every thug-o-crazy and dictatorship in the world:
The Region: America, look behind you! Turn around! Turn around!
* Â Embarrassing: Â America apologizes for not agreeing with Iran, Cuba and Libya?
America: A freight train is heading your way and you’re standing right on the tracks, looking in the wrong direction.
Or perhaps it is like a horror film in which the killer sneaks up behind the hapless victim while the movie audience yells: “Turn around! Turn around!” And then blood spatters the screen.
Unfortunately, in this case, it might beÂ ourÂ blood, and it won’t be produced by a special effects department.
Today, US policy and the dominant thinking are not based on realpolitik but on international affairs as a popularity contest. Its motto might be, “The nice will inherit the Earth,” as the Obama administration tries to prove that it’s not like that mean old Bush.
Before we get to the oncoming train, consider two small but indicative examples.
Scene 1: The UN committee planning the Durban-2 pro-racism – I mean “anti-racism” – conference. Libya chairs the committee, Iran is the vice-chair, Cuba, the rapporteur, and Russia is presiding. The plan is designed to ensure that the conference limits free speech, bashes Israel and enshrines Muslims as the world’s only and perpetual victims.
The US representative stands to propose amendments. Is the speech a thunderous denunciation of dictatorship and a defense of liberty? Not exactly. Here is the key sentence: “I hate to be the cause of unhappiness in the room… I have to suggest [amendments] and I offer my sincere apologies.”
How’s that for speaking softly and carrying a big pillow? (US president Theodore Roosevelt a century ago famously described diplomacy as “speaking softly and carrying a big stick.”)
Scene 2: The camera pans and the screen fills with an invitation to a conference being held by the Brookings Institution in Washington. The purpose is defined as asking, “How should Europe engage Russia to put relations between the West and Russia on a more positive and sustainable basis?” There is no room for pressure, opposition or criticism as part of the package; no hint of the need for flexibility to be accompanied by toughness.
Russia invaded Georgia, fought a surrogate war against Azerbaijan, blackmailed Ukraine and Lithuania. It has opposed sanctions on Iran, sold huge amounts of arms to Syria and committed real human rights’ violations in Chechnya. It is the dawning of the age not of Aquarius (as the film Hair once said of the utopia predicted in the 1960s) but of Aquarium, in which the sharks are put in charge.
US policy is putting the emphasis on conciliation with Iran and Syria, and a soft line toward Pakistan, despite its lack of cooperation on fighting terrorism against India or in Afghanistan.
The only thing you can do with a strategy of carrots without sticks is to make carrot cake. Now consider what is sneaking up on the US government as it hands out candy:
On March 29, local elections will be held in Turkey. If the current government wins these municipal races, especially in Ankara and Istanbul, the country will be encouraged to go even further down the road toward Islamic extremism. Whatever happens internally (where the nature of Turkish society forces it to go more slowly), Ankara’s foreign policy is increasingly aligned with that of the radicals in the region – not only Hamas but also Syria and Iran.
Turkey’s many friends are hoping that moderation and its traditional political virtues win out. But what’s happening there may well be the most important political event in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. Think of what it means if, in whole or even in part, Turkey goes from the Western to the radical camp; clearly this is a world-changing event.
Then on June 7 come the Lebanese elections. Given the vast amounts of money they have spent, their use of violent intimidation and demoralization due to the Western abandonment of the moderates, it is likely that Iran’s Syrian clients will take over Lebanon’s government. This does not mean domination by Hizbullah but by four allied forces: pro-Syrian Sunni politicians; Michel Aoun’s Christian forces; and the two Shi’ite groups, Hizbullah and Amal.
Already, Lebanon’s president and former armed forces’ commander Michel Suleiman is very close to the Iran-Syrian orbit. This doesn’t mean that Lebanon will be annexed or militarily reoccupied by Syria, or that Lebanon will become an Islamist state internally. But itÂ doesÂ mean that Lebanon will become a reliable ally of what Syrian President Bashar Assad calls “the resistance front.”
In the region, these two developments will be perceived as two big victories for Teheran, and a sign that the Islamist-radical side is the wave of the future.
And what is the United States doing to fight, stop or manage this visible crisis?
FINALLY, ON June 12, presidential elections will take place in Iran itself. The likelihood is the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, either fairly or through manipulation of the ballot. The Iranian ruling establishment, which might have been persuaded to endorse a less extreme candidate if there had been enough Western pressure to make the incumbent look bad, has backed an openly aggressive anti-Semite.
Even though Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran, he and his allies are working to make him so. And of course his reelection means not only that Iran is waging a campaign to get nuclear weapons, it will mean that it is moving at the fastest possible speed, with the least likelihood of compromising and the most probability of using such a weapon (or forcing Israel to act militarily to stop the process). By years’ end, or shortly after, Iran might have an atom bomb.
In short, 2009 is looking like a year of massive defeat for the US and its friends in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Washington is blind to this trend, pursuing a futile attempt to conciliate its enemies, losing time and not adopting the policies desperately needed.
Instead, the US should make itself leader of a broad coalition of Arab and European states, along with Israel, to resist Islamism and Iranian ambitions.
Alas, the new administration is fooling around while the region burns.
Turn around! Turn around!
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of theÂ Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.
OIC Welcomes U.S. Shift on Durban II; Denies Anti-Semitic Intent
Critics of the Durban Review Conference (“Durban II”) view the OIC — whose members account for 57 of the U.N.’s 192 member states — as the leading instigator of a campaign to use the gathering to attack Israel, Jews, Western counter-terrorism initiatives and freedom of expression. Those critics are calling on democracies to join Israel and Canada in boycotting the conference.
The Bush administration, which withdrew in protest from the original Durban conference in 2001, shunned the Durban II preparatory process, but left a decision on whether to participate in the April 20-24 conference to its successor.
The Obama administration says it shares the concerns. In a policy shift last week, it sent a delegation to four days of talks at the U.N. in Geneva, “to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading.”
The State Department said in a statement afterward that the U.S. had yet to make a final decision on whether or not to participate, but that information from the week’s work would be important in that regard.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s Jeddah-based secretary-general, has welcomed the U.S. decision to participate in the preparatory talks.
He said in a statement a decision to be represented at the Review Conference “would be widely perceived by the Muslim world as a credible signal of the new U.S. administration’s goodwill and desire to introduce a fresh, fair and objective approach to the issues related to human rights and Middle East peace process as well as to rejuvenate the United States’ positive image throughout the Muslim nations.”
Ihsanoglu then turned to some of the controversies surrounding the event.
Durban II, he said, “should not be perceived as a gathering of the U.N. member states to criticize specifically Israel [but] … rather be perceived as an expression of the global community’s growing concern over acts of discrimination, intolerance and incitement to hatred.”
It would be a setback, he said, if any country stayed away from the conference “because of some pre-conceived notion that the Review is directed against any particular country.”
A key criticism of the “outcome document” being drafted for Durban II is the singling out of Israel.Â
Still intact in the draft, in a section on the Middle East, is a reference to foreign occupation being “a contemporary form of apartheid.” The draft also takes issue with Israel’s “racially-based law of return” and refers to the “racial policies of the occupying power.”
The draft, currently 45 pages long, does not refer specifically to other conflict situations around the world where race is a factor.
Ihsanoglu said criticizing Israeli policies and practices that contravene human rights principles should not be seen as anti-Semitism.
“Anti-Semitism is a practice which neither originates within, nor belongs to the Muslim communities,” he said. “Therefore, anti-Semitism should not be associated either with the religion of Islam, or with the OIC member states.”
The question of “defamation of religion” is another controversial aspect of the Durban II process. The outcome document raises concerns about “Islamophobia” and condemns the association of Islam with terrorism, “including through publication of offensive caricatures and making of hate documentaries.”
In his statement, Ihsanoglu “emphasized the OIC’s firm commitment to freedom of expression which is a fundamental human right.”
“The OIC is not looking for limitation or restrictions of this freedom beyond those that already have been set by Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” he said.
(Article 19 of the covenant upholds freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions necessary to respect “the rights or reputations of others.” Article 20 prohibits “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”)
The outcome document does include references to restrictions on free speech. It “urges states … to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.”
And states are also called on “to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation.”
The OIC for several years has spearheaded aÂ campaignÂ aimed at outlawing religious “defamation.”