Posted by Shyam Moondra
President Barrack Obama's handling of four major foreign policy challenges generally gets high marks. By nature, Obama tends to be cautious which usually is the right way to handle crises, except in some cases where his overly cautious approach makes him appear timid. Overall, Obama has demonstrated an even temperament and is on the right track. Following are the troubled spots, starting with the one with the most successful execution and ending with the one that could have been handled a little better.
Pakistan-Afghanistan:
Obama's firm policy on Pakistan, making financial and military aid conditional upon Pakistan's getting tough on extremists, is paying off. Of course, this policy was helped with the Taliban's strategic blunder in attacking Islamabad that triggered the alarm among Pakistanis and the rest of the world that the nuclear arsenal could fall in the hands of Islamic extremists. Pakistani civilian and military leaders deserve credit for rising up to the challenge and doing an incredible job in driving out the extremists from the Swat Valley. Many of the local tribal militias, fed up with the destruction that the Taliban brought to their communities, are also teaming up with the Pakistani military in driving out the Taliban from their villages and cities. Pakistan is now focusing on South Waziristan, the stronghold of the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, so this is still work-in-progress. If Pakistan continues to show resolve and finishes the job of flushing out the militants there, the U.S. should resume financial and military aid to Pakistan, as promised. However, the aid must be focused on strengthening the Pakistani democratic institutions and providing services to the Pakistani people. The U.S. must refrain from using the aid money to provide offensive weapon systems to Pakistan that could potentially be used against India and destabilize the region. The U.S. should also insist that Pakistan dismantle the training camps of Kashmiri extremists that carried out the terrorist attacks in Mumbai recently, thus paving the way for peace talks between India and Pakistan to finally settle the Kashmir issue.
Obama is correct in strengthening the military capabilities of NATO to root out the Taliban extremists from Afghanistan. Obama is also correct in impressing upon the Afghanistan's government that Afghanistan's future depends on eliminating government corruption, strengthening Afghanistan's security apparatus, providing services to the people of Afghanistan, and dismantling the drug trafficking infrastructure. Like in Iraq, we need to have an exit strategy so that eventually we can leave that area and let Afghanistan's people govern themselves without the presence of the NATO forces. We need to develop a plan which would enable us to start withdrawing our forces within five years.
Middle East Conflict:
Obama deserves credit for drawing a line in the sand on the issue of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Israelis have consistently behaved as if they want to maintain the status quo, meaning continue to build settlements on occupied lands and keep collecting billions of dollars in the U.S. aid without giving any consideration at all to the suffering of the Palestinian people. That policy has served the interests of Israelis, as is evident from the considerable improvement in their living standard, but at the expense of Americans (who paid a heavy price over the years including the September 11, 2001 attack on our soil) and Palestinians, who have been forced to live in sub-human conditions. Obama is right in taking a more impartial and moral approach in resolving this longstanding conflict in a fair way. Israel must surrender the occupied territories in exchange for recognition of Israel by all Islamic countries in the region. Palestinians must have their own free sovereign country because that is the right thing to do. Obama should make financial and military aid to Israel conditional upon achieving the two-state solution as soon as Palestinians are ready with the governing institutional infrastructure in place – we need to increase the cost to Israelis for any unreasonable delay in achieving a comprehensive solution in the Middle East. Resolution of this conflict is essential for improving the relations between the U.S. and the Muslims and for de-radicalizing the Islamic world. Obama must be prepared to impose a solution if Israelis and Palestinians fail to achieve one on their own.
Now that the Obama administration has decided to reestablish diplomatic relations with Syria, it's important that Israel and Syria settle their conflict over the Golan Heights. If Obama continues to proceed on all Middle East issues in a fair and impartial way, it is conceivable that a comprehensive agreement involving Israel, Palestinians, and Syria could be hammered out within the next two years. If that happens, all Arab countries and Iran should recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.
Iran:
A vast majority of the younger population of Iran is challenging the unelected mullahs that took over the government in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution. The Islamic revolution is failing because it has not evolved with the changing times of the Internet era and because of its rigidity that's unacceptable to the younger generation. Iranian authorities appear to have successfully used extreme violent means against its own people to stop people's peaceful protests against the fraudulent election that gave the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a big victory. However, the country is now fractured. The dreadful image of Neda Agha Soltan, a young woman, who was shot dead by a government militiaman, is way too powerful for the people to ignore. Only time will tell if the sacrifices made by the courageous Iranian people will bring any positive changes in Iran. If history is any guide, dictators, who oppress and terrorize people using their militias (or thugs, as many people would call them), eventually fall. It would be hard for Ahmadinejad to survive as a president, if he is viewed as illegitimate, not just by the outside world but by the Iranian people themselves. Hopefully, what will come out of the popular dissent is a reformed moderate Islamic government that will provide more freedoms to its people and the press and treat women with equality.
President Obama's approach to the Iranian crisis has been the right one. Obama could have used hard-hitting rhetoric, but that would not have changed the situation on the ground there. The fight for freedom has to be fought and won by the Iranian people themselves. Obama's strong condemnation of the violent means used by the Iranian authorities against peaceful demonstrators was all he could do under the circumstances. By not directly commenting on the election process itself and focusing on the brutality of the Iranian police, Obama has taken a high moral road. This approach has given Obama an upper hand in any future negotiations with much weakened Ahmidinejad. There seems to be a good chance that Iran will agree to a deal whereby it continues with the civilian nuclear program with appropriate U.N. monitors and inspectors in place to make sure that they do not pursue a clandestine weapons program. In return, all sanctions against Iran will be dropped and Iran's isolation will end. A country, which is not isolated, is more likely to play a constructive role in addressing the problems of mutual interest.
North Korea:
Obama has had mixed success on the question of North Korea. The U.S. was able to get an anonymous vote in the U.N. Security Council on the resolution that imposes tougher sanctions on North Korea. However, North Korea has not only conducted a second nuclear test but has also fired more missiles in defiance of the demands of the international community.
North Korea has apparently calculated that the U.S. is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus would have no stomach for initiating yet another bloodier military confrontation with North Korea. North Korea may have planned all along, while still participating in the Six-Party talks, they will continue with their nuclear weapons and medium- and long-range anti-ballistic missile programs. The nuclear weapon and missile technologies may become a trophy in their hugely successful armament export business. By selling illicit technologies and weapons to other countries such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they can earn badly needed hard currency that they use to buy the essentials for their population.
North Korea is militarily much stronger than Iraq with proven missile technology and possibly a few nuclear bombs. A military option is thus not viable. North Korea's economy is in bad shape. Therefore, if the international community is able to choke off the armament sales and thus shutdown this source of hard currency, it would be virtually impossible for North Korea to survive as a self-sustained country for long. Also, the banking sanctions will bite the elite members of the government, making them more agreeable to reach a negotiated settlement incorporating the following elements:
· Nuclear and missile weapon systems and development efforts to be shut down in a verifiable way and North Korea to fully comply with the Non-proliferation Treaty.
· The West to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea and provide security guarantees.
· North Korea be given economic development aid and supplied with much needed food and energy.
· North Korea to agree to respect human rights and grant its people more freedoms.
· Emphasis be placed on people-to-people contacts, cultural exchanges, and tourism (providing another source of hard-currency).
