Obama’s foreign policy priorities

It’s been an interesting two weeks for American foreign policy. President Barack Obama gave a major policy speech on the Middle East and North Africa in which he said that Israel’s pre-1967 borders should form the basis for a Palestinian state, and then spent a very successful week in Europevisiting Ireland, Britain, France for the G8 summit and Poland.

The situation in the Arab world dominated the American President’s trips to France and Britain. In Paris Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy said they were determined to “finish the job” in Libya, and that Muammar Gaddafi had to exit the scene.

The comments on Libya echo remarks made earlier in London when Obama met British Prime Minister David Cameron and the two leaders declared there would be “no let up” in pressure against Gaddafi.

The G8 leaders also announced a $20 billion package to support new Arab democracies and Britain and France agreed at the summit to give clearance for the use of their attack helicopters in Libya, in an effort to boost the military campaign.

The G8 statement said: “In the short term, our collective aim is to ensure that instability does not undermine the process of political reform, and that social cohesion and macroeconomic stability are both sustained.”

In their final statement, the G8 leaders said Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “must go” and urged Syria’s regime to “stop usingforce and intimidation” against its people.

It is clear that the Obama administration has made the turmoil in the Middle East one of its main foreign policy priorities, and this certainly makes sense.

It is also very significant that the US and Europe are now much more aligned on the Middle East than ever before, and this is a very welcome development indeed.

While Obama believes the US should play a leading role in helping and encouraging Arab countries to make the transition to democracy, he does not believe in imposing America’s type of democracy in the region.

Unlike the previous Bush administration, this US administration is not of the opinion that Arab governments will only change as a result of direct American involvement.

Obama understands that the Arab people are capable of bringing about change on their own, and he is willing to help them achieve this, either by limited military action, as in Libya, or by pressuring allies like Egypt and Tunisia to bring about a transition to democracy and promising economic aid as a result.

This philosophy goes down well with Europe, even though some European leaders were initially sceptical about America’s limited role in Libya.

However, Obama’s message over Libya was clear: The US played its part in preventing a massacre in Libya by Gaddafi’s forces, but Libya was in Europe’s backyard and there were little strategic American interests in that country. Europe therefore, would have to play a central role in this conflict, something which the British and French are currently doing.

On the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Obama is also now closer to the Europeans.

His reference to Israel’s pre-1967 borders in his speech at the State Department 10 days ago is the policy of most European governments, but it marks an important shift in US official policy.

Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu objected to the President’sinsistence on the 1967 borders. He issued a statement on his way to Washington rejecting this vision, and he reiterated his objections when he met Obama at the White House and during an address to the US Congress.

Obama now has the difficult task of trying to get the peace talks resumed. The Palestinians say they will go to the UN to seek the creation of a state if no such talks are underway by September, something Obama is not supporting.

It will be interesting to note the reaction of the EU if there is such a development at the UN. Should the EU back the Palestinians, this could create a rift with the US.

Although under Obama the US has adopted more of an ‘honest broker’ role in the Middle East, as well as a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, this has not yet achieved any concrete results. Unfortunately Israel has not shifted its policy on the building of illegal settlements, and peace talks are at a standstill.

The US will probably haveto exert more pressure onIsrael, but it would possiblybe wiser to do that after the2012 presidential election, in order not to allow the powerful Jewish lobby in the US to undulyinfluence voters. However, 18 more months with no Middle East peace process is a dangerous situation, and Obama will have to consider his options very carefully.