Monday, 10 November 2008
Ghassan Charbel
The Arab official said, "Believe me, I have nothing; I do not wish to drown in speculations. We have to wait for Obama's team to be formed and put in charge. Evidently, the financial crisis will top his priorities. We have to wait for the major headlines of his foreign policy. It is a phase of waiting. We are tiny nations by all standards. The choices of the White House impact our security, stability and prosperity."
He added, "It is difficult to speculate now. Obama may be a big man and his policies may restore the damage caused by George Bush. He may also drown under the burdening crises and turn into an ordinary president who dreams of nothing more than a second term. He may invest his credibility both at home and abroad to face crises. He may also choose to coexist with them, merely limiting their repercussions. It indeed is a phase of waiting."
I found the Arab official's words rational and realistic, but I heard something different from a security official. He said that the agenda of the new president might change if the events beat him as the case would be if bin Laden delivered a new astounding blow to the US on American soil or overseas. In that case, Obama's only choice would be to escalate the war on terror. Another case would be a meltdown, major turbulences in Pakistan, or an adventure in the Middle as in an Israeli raid on Iranian nuclear facilities. In this event, the US would emerge as a party. He concluded saying, "It is a phase of anticipation and waiting."
The world awaits Obama. His choices will determine whether he can heal the wounds afflicting the relationship with Russia to retrieve the former level of cooperation. Those choices will also determine the future of American-European relations, especially since the old continent is tired of Bush's approach and errors. The same can be said of the nuclear negotiations with the North Korean leader who has shown exceptional abilities in nuclear blackmail. His choices will determine the fate of the dispute with Iran and Ahmedinejad's dictionary, the future of Iraq, the dialogue with Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and Lebanon's future.
The Bush era was disastrous. This can be heard in several capitals without the need for convincing evidence. His Iraqi achievements were horrific, but prior to Bush's arrival, I recall hearing that the phase was one of waiting for the next American president. This is not to mention that at the time, the situation was far less complicated and dangerous prior to the 9/11 attacks and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Middle East nations have the right to wait until Obama's choices clear out; they have the right to talk about Bush's catastrophic era. But can Bush be held accountable for what we inflicted upon our countries when we transformed waiting into a permanent state and ignored the fact that nations are built while waiting? They await through their institutions as the normal cycle of life goes on - as European states do for example. Can we blame Bush for the failure or lack of development plans? Can we blame him for the limited scope of freedom and participation and for the violation of women's rights and roles? Or for the corruption that undermines institutions? Or for the fact that universities and schools continue to rely on outdated obsolete curricula? Can we blame all our failures on the excuse of waiting for the next American president, thus holding him responsible for the Palestinian rift, Lebanese chaos, Somali disintegration, and the prosperous piracy?
We have spent too much time waiting. Does waiting contradict with illiteracy efforts, street lightening, and road network construction? This type of waiting threatens to turn fatal.
November 10,2008 |
Monday, 10 November 2008
Al-Hayat
|
|
