Monday, May 30, 2011
A Palestinian Plan B
The ongoing uprisings throughout the Arab world during the last six months have largely removed the Arab/Israeli conflict from the pages of the western media. This changed last week when Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu came to Washington to meet with President Obama, speak to AIPAC and speak to a joint session of the US Congress. The depth of the stalemate in place in the so called “peace process” was vividly on display throughout the week as Netanyahu and Obama each struggled to set the agenda. The Palestinian leadership watching from afar as Netanyahu articulated the three “no’s”: no 1967 borders, no refugees and no Jerusalem, concluded that the negotiation process was completely dead. As they watched the US Congress jump up and down like puppets on AIPAC strings during Netanyahu’s speech, they also realized that Obama has no ability to influence events.
Shortly after watching this circus in Washington, Palestinian President Abbas announced that they would proceed, despite US warnings to the contrary, with their effort to obtain recognition by the UN in September. The Arab League quickly endorsed this effort and so it is unlikely that Abbas will back down regardless of strong US pressure.
This week Netanyahu told an Israeli audience that there was no way that Israel could prevent UN General Assembly recognition of Palestine, but he was comfortable that a resolution would never be approved by the Security Council. Read here “the US will veto any resolution and that will be the end of it”.
However, it may not be the end of it after all. In 1950, when the Soviet Union was vetoing everything in sight and stalemating the Security Council, the US orchestrated the passage of UN General Assembly resolution 377. In this so called “Uniting for Peace” resolution the General Assembly:
"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Under this resolution the General Assembly essentially acts as a Security Council of the whole with the power to approve Palestinian membership and impose sanctions on Israel as an occupying power of a UN member. If 377 is invoked, the game may not be over until it is over.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Changing Face of the GCC
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was founded in 1981 as a cultural and economic union of six Persian Gulf states: Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. The founding purposes of the group, economic integration and cooperation, defense cooperation, and strengthened private sector cooperation were similar to those of the European Economic Community and its successor the European Union. The founding countries have much in common culturally, governmentally and economically. They are all Persian Gulf states with small, predominately Sunni Muslim, Bedouin indigenous populations. All are relatively wealthy with large petroleum resources. They are governed by Sunni Muslim absolute monarchs.
The pro-democracy uprisings that have spread across North Africa and the Middle East have completely changed the political landscape in this area. The GCC countries have not been able to completely immunize themselves from the spreading democracy virus. Oil wealth has allowed leaders the economic flexibility to “buy off” the protestors. (Sultan Qaboos of Oman responded to protests by doubling the minimum wage and creating 50,000 new jobs.) The Sunni al Khalifa ruling family in Bahrain, faced with uprisings led by the majority Shia population, was not as successful in co-opting the demonstrations and the GCC was forced to deploy its joint armed forces (The Peninsula Shield Force) to brutally suppress the pro-democracy movement.
The ruling families in these oil rich sheikdoms are now looking over their shoulders and have started to take action to protect their privileged positions. The GCC has invited Jordan and Morocco to become members. Neither of these countries have oil wealth or geography in common with the founding members. What they do have in common is Sunni absolute monarchies and they have strong western trained military establishments. The GCC is morphing into an association of western oriented Sunni autocrats positioning themselves to confront the so called “Shia crescent”, Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The varying outcomes of the pro-democracy uprisings have shown that just having a strong military is not enough to suppress determined demonstrators. In order to succeed the military must be willing to shoot its own citizens. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak fell because the military would not shoot their fellow Egyptians. In Bahrain and Libya the non-violent protests failed because the military, largely composed of foreign mercenaries, was willing to shoot. Learning this lesson, the UAE has hired the founder of the American private security firm, Blackwater Worldwide, and other Americans to set up an internal security battalion of foreign troops. Although Blackwater, a major US contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a well-deserved reputation for brutality, the US has supported this project. We may be in for some ugly times in the future.
The pro-democracy uprisings that have spread across North Africa and the Middle East have completely changed the political landscape in this area. The GCC countries have not been able to completely immunize themselves from the spreading democracy virus. Oil wealth has allowed leaders the economic flexibility to “buy off” the protestors. (Sultan Qaboos of Oman responded to protests by doubling the minimum wage and creating 50,000 new jobs.) The Sunni al Khalifa ruling family in Bahrain, faced with uprisings led by the majority Shia population, was not as successful in co-opting the demonstrations and the GCC was forced to deploy its joint armed forces (The Peninsula Shield Force) to brutally suppress the pro-democracy movement.
The ruling families in these oil rich sheikdoms are now looking over their shoulders and have started to take action to protect their privileged positions. The GCC has invited Jordan and Morocco to become members. Neither of these countries have oil wealth or geography in common with the founding members. What they do have in common is Sunni absolute monarchies and they have strong western trained military establishments. The GCC is morphing into an association of western oriented Sunni autocrats positioning themselves to confront the so called “Shia crescent”, Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The varying outcomes of the pro-democracy uprisings have shown that just having a strong military is not enough to suppress determined demonstrators. In order to succeed the military must be willing to shoot its own citizens. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak fell because the military would not shoot their fellow Egyptians. In Bahrain and Libya the non-violent protests failed because the military, largely composed of foreign mercenaries, was willing to shoot. Learning this lesson, the UAE has hired the founder of the American private security firm, Blackwater Worldwide, and other Americans to set up an internal security battalion of foreign troops. Although Blackwater, a major US contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a well-deserved reputation for brutality, the US has supported this project. We may be in for some ugly times in the future.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
The “Arab Spring” brings policy challenges for the US.
As the pro-democracy uprisings have spread across the Middle East and North Africa sweeping from power US supported authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and threatening other regimes, US policy makers are facing a number of new challenges. The new governments that are coming to power and reflecting the views of their citizens are not going to be as supportive of US policies as the previous regimes.
For several years the US has expressed tepid support for efforts by Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to achieve reconciliation between the rival Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions. This effort was never successful because Egypt was never an “honest broker” and never genuinely wanted reconciliation. Mubarak was afraid of a successful Palestinian government in which Hamas (an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) participated would inspire his own Muslim Brotherhood opposition. The US and Israel were perfectly happy with the status quo that divided the Palestinians.
It didn’t take long for the new Egyptian government to change the landscape. Last week, after several weeks of secret negotiations, the parties announced a reconciliation agreement which is to be signed on Wednesday. Most observers, myself included, felt that the new Egyptian government, in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, would change the negotiating dynamic. What did surprise me, however, is how fast the agreement happened. While it is still possible that the agreement will fall apart over details of implementation, so far it appears to be on track.
A Palestinian unity government with Hamas as a participant creates big policy dilemmas for the US and Israel. Israel has immediately condemned the agreement, called on Fatah to back out and stopped transfer of tax revenues which they collect for the Palestinian Authority (PA). The US has issued its pro-forma statement calling Hamas a terrorist organization and repeating well-worn preconditions.
There are several possible outcomes to this state of affairs. One is that the US and Israel will succeed in pressuring the PA and Egypt to abandon the deal. While possible, it seems unlikely as Egypt has already announced that it will completely open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Another, although unlikely, outcome is that the US will recognize that Hamas is an essential player in any agreement and deal with the unity government. The most likely outcome is that Israel and the US Congress will cut off all tax and aid payments to the PA. The result of the cutoff of aid will either be a collapse of the PA or someone else filling the gap.
The collapse of the PA would not be all bad as it would throw the whole mess back on the Israelis, further straining their resources. Iran is a good candidate for filling the breach as it would further enhance their influence. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia would allow Iran to accomplish this and, therefore, they will be forced to back the PA. Whatever the outcome, the US influence in the region will decline further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)