Guner Ozkan JTW Columnist printable version send your friend message to author add comment ()

Friday, 10 April 2009

Obama was met like a pop star anywhere he went in Europe and Turkey in last several days.  There are many credible reasons for this: young, dynamic, kind, black, inspirational, non-unilateralist, and so on.  These credentials and characteristics he has and displays are very different from those of his predecessor, G.W. Bush.  During his more than two-day visit to Turkey, he said a lot and not much at the same time, just like he did in London, Strasbourg, and Prague, about the challenges the world is confronted with.  Someone who was listening to Obama during his visits, and even before during his election campaign, can easily describe him as an idealist. But Obama himself says he is not.  He expresses that he is well aware of the difficulties and challenges ahead to resolve piles of problems from Afghanistan, global terrorism, Iraq, and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to environmental issues in a short period of time.  He is right, nobody should expect that all these issues can be and will be resolved soon, and also nobody should ask the U.S. to resolve them on its own.  He also says that when toughness is required, the U.S. under his leadership will be tough. So, while impacts of Bush’s policies, and most importantly the long term legacy of U.S. foreign policy around the world, are still being vividly felt, Obama cannot be a pure idealist.  He has to be a ‘cautious realist’ at best.   Mammoth challenges in and about Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the South Caucasus explain why Obama is and has to follow a policy of ‘cautious realism’.      

Afghanistan

Just take a look at the enormous challenges Afghanistan has faced for decades: war lords, clan rules, ethnic divisions, religious extremism, opium cultivation, poverty, illiteracy, displaced persons, and external influences.  The sheer size and diversity of the problems in Afghanistan are so great that the U.S. has not been and will not be able to resolve them all on its own. In fact, most Americans know this fact, and that is why they elected someone like Obama as their President, an advocate of cooperation and multilateralism for common challenges.  But will Obama get that much needed help from those states he and previous U.S. governments called as their allies.  Hardly likely so.  Everyone knows that Afghanistan needs two things at the same time: a huge economic, social, and educational development programme and a well trained military force.  It is because the development programme is needed for long term salvation of the country, and the second is necessary for the protection of accomplished improvements.  These two necessities must be applied for at least a generation-long period of time if success is really wanted.  The U.S. allies have committed neither enough financial assistance nor essential military force to Afghanistan during either the G20 Meeting in London or in the NATO Summit in Strasbourg. The G20 gathering dealt more with how to resolve the global financial crisis and the NATO Summit produced just five thousand more troops from various allies of the U.S. only for providing security for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan. An Afghanistan without a substantial development strategy cannot be stable no matter how many soldiers are deployed in the country and how many times suspected Al Qaeda houses and members are bombed by the U.S. in northern Pakistan.

So, the new U.S. government has to increase pressure on its rich allies to devote more capital, manpower, and energy to the development and security of Afghanistan.   For sure this must include Pakistan, too, as it has now become a major safe haven for Al Qaeda and its sympathisers.  Other immediate neighbours of Afghanistan, namely China, Iran, and the Central Asian Republics, have to be convinced that the U.S. is in Afghanistan just for security and stability there, not for any other objectives.  Just like the U.S. has, they have seen Al-Qaeda and instability in Afghanistan as one of the most important threats against their security.  Yet, convincing those states to help the U.S., at least with the logistic supply or joint operations in development and security issues, still requires diplomatic and practical, honest policy applications and changes on the ground in their relationships with Washington.  Without accomplishing any ease of tension between Washington, Moscow, and Tehran on other bilateral issues, such as Missile defence systems in Eastern Europe and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the U.S. cannot get any genuine support for Afghanistan from Iran and the Central Asian states, which are still in Russia’s orbit.  Obama has indeed been trying to realise the abovementioned policies.  He is trying to open up a new chapter with Russia by sorting out the issue of missile defence shield in Czech Republic and Poland, and calling for a further reduction in nuclear weapons.  In the case of Iran, apparently the most difficult one, he has again called for cooperation over Afghanistan.  While in an international arena where mistrust is still rampant, mainly thanks to G.W. Bush, there is no room for idealism at least for now.  Being aware of this, though in the initial period Obama’s appeal to the world on Afghanistan appears idealistic, it will soon turn into a ‘cautious realism’ and perhaps farther on into a pure realism. 

Middle East

The Middle East impasse, particularly the Arab-Israel conflict, though this is, one way or another, connected with Afghanistan, has remained ‘the mother of all conflicts’ in front of the world and Obama.  The motto of ‘unclench your fist’ and his visit to Turkey were positive steps taken in the right direction by Obama.  But, these words and visits should not be left just as mere rhetoric, and so have to be supported by concrete policy actions on the ground. These steps should be taken first by the U.S. as it is occupying the strongest and most influential positions in the developments in the Middle East. Turkey can and should continue to be an intermediary between Syria and Israel and Iran and the U.S., but its being an interlocutor cannot produce any success if the U.S. government continues to remain indifferent to the plight of Palestinian people. So long as the U.S. policy towards Israel continues as ‘business as usual’, and while Palestinians are still being killed, it is highly unlikely that people in the Middle East will unclench their fist.  Nor will Iran, especially on the nuclear issue, ever be convinced of the honesty and idealism that the new U.S. administration has put on display. 

Obama’s conviction is true that a nuclear Iran will likely lead a number of Middle Eastern states to rush to obtain nuclear weapons for their security urge. From Obama’s viewpoint such a development is unacceptable, as it carries the likely danger of using those devices in a highly unstable Middle East.  So, there are not too many options really.  As the sanctions did not work, the option of bombing Iran was considered by Bush and is still on the table for Israel.  The other and the last and best option is the honest engagement of the U.S. in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states.   This has to include the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in the pre-1967 war borders.  A Palestinian state falling short of this requirement will neither provide viability nor appease people in the Middle East nor end conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan nor root out cells of Al-Qaeda around the world.  The appointment of George Mitchell, the peace-broker in the Northern Ireland conflict, as the special envoy for the Middle East may be considered a good start. But one should not forget the fact that the Northern Ireland issue is different from the Arab-Israeli conflict, for while it is a more balanced dispute between Catholic and Protestant Irish people only on religious and territorial grounds, the latter conflict concerns the continuous territorial expansion of Israel at the expense of Arabs and Palestinians on an ethnic ground and non-stop humiliation of the Muslim World on the religious ground.   It is now much more difficult to obtain peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict, since Israel is governed by an unbending and robust new government led by Netanyahu.  Thus, Obama’s appeal to the Muslim World during his visit to Turkey is a kind gesture and was surely warmly welcomed by many in Turkey and the rest of the Muslim World.  Obama’s wish to see a peaceful Middle East and his ideas to bring the conflicting sides together seem to have a chance of success only if he gets equal warmth from a similar appeal to be made to the Israeli people and pro-Israeli lobbies in the U.S.   

South Caucasus

Regarding the South Caucasus, Obama appears to have mainly urged the Turkish side to open its border with Armenia. Armenian isolation and its economic and military dependency on Russia have been partly contributed to by the Turkish embargo of closing the border and denying the establishment of diplomatic relations with Yerevan.   But it was Armenia’s own choice from the very beginning, in the early 1990s, and even before the dissolution of the USSR, that leaning on Russia was the most secure policy in the region against not just Turkey but Azerbaijan, too.  Regarding Turkey’s regional greatness in terms of its size, economy, and military power, it may be thought that Ankara can accommodate unilateral compromises to be made towards Armenia on the border, diplomatic, and so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ issues.  Doing so without any compromise on the Nagorno Karabakh dispute by the Armenian side will cause huge disappointment in Azerbaijan with a possible consequence of delaying, if not totally abrogating, the NABUCCO project.  It is also hugely difficult for the Turkish government to have the Turkish public opinion absorb any compromise to be given to Armenian side without getting any progress or guarantees on Armenia’s resistance to recognise Turkish borders, Diaspora Armenians’ insistence on the recognition of the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ and the Nagorno Karabakh issue.

The U.S. policy in the South Caucasus, as Obama implied during his visit, will likely be similar to that of the Clinton Administration, which was based on including Russia and expecting intra-regional disputes to be resolved among themselves with some external encouragements when and if necessary.  After Georgia lost the August 2008 war against Russia and during the still ongoing war of words between Saakashvili and Russian leaders, new energy pipelines via Tbilisi have become harder to work on.  Against the odds, Russia-Turkey relations have become even stronger following the Georgian crisis.  A solution to the NK problem would then boost the restart of the energy cooperation in the region, but again, on the condition of satisfaction of the Azerbaijani side.  The participation of Georgia in this new cooperative effort will possibly be delayed until after the replacement of Saakashvili with another, but much more balanced and cautious, pro-Western government.  The upcoming demonstration of the united opposition against Saakashvili will likely decide whether Georgia’s return to regional cooperation is going to be sooner or later. 

In the end, challenges of the world are so many and too much complicated and bigger that even the U.S. cannot sort them out alone. The Obama government has, in fact, had no such claim of resolving things on its own as being either a financial and political supplier or world cop.   Obama as the leader of the most powerful state can, as he himself often stresses, encourages the hesitant ones and opens the way for others to facilitate further cooperation among themselves.  Obama is and has to be an optimist and obviously appears to be an idealist for many.  But, the legacy of Bush has left such a world that being an idealist for the U.S. in these days cannot bring any good for peace, security and prosperity in the world.  There are areas in which the U.S. will have to follow realist policies and other areas in which it will seem to be pursuing an idealist approach.  Overall, Obama will be a ‘cautious realist’, and his foreign policy will sooner or later reflect that.  In either case Obama, during his visit, asked Turkey to be part of it as the U.S.’s ‘model partner’.  Can Turkey and the U.S. manage to develop and enrich this new relationship as a real ‘model’ for the rest of the Middle East and the world? Yes, they can, so long as the U.S. pursues a bit of constructive foreign policy beginning first as an honest peace broker in the Middle East.

* Guner Ozkan is a lecturer at Muğla University and an expert on the Caucasus at the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (USAK).