We are experienced a substantive difference these past two days over the previous administration as President Barack Obama wades into his new job. The rolling out of the new Middle East special envoy, George Mitchell, who will spearhead the latest attempt at achieving peace in the Levant, is heartening.

Resolving the conflict there should be foreign policy issue number one. Many who read this are probably saying this is a crazy notion. We are in two wars and we are less than a decade from being attacked on our own soil. But as we have learned about the Middle East, as Jerusalem goes, so goes the rest of the region. One of the overriding reasons why terrorists struck us in 2001 was over our support of Israel. This fact is not going to change. Our guilt of recent Jewish history and over a half a century of a shared alliance, Israel’s dependence on American support is an established component of our foreign policy. Even though this alliance has outgrown its usefulness when the Soviet Empire crumbled, the strength of the Israel lobby has grown so strong in the halls of Congress that  to abandon the Jewish state now seems unlikely. Though President Obama will not change our policy toward Israel significantly, he does have an opportunity to be fair.

The situation in Gaza is a disgrace and Israel shares a large portion of the blame for what is going on there. Gaza is a ghetto. It is the repository for six decades of displaced Arabs who were forced from their homes in the aftermath of WW II and the holocaust. Jews, who had experienced such oppression, should know better than to treat the indigenous people of Palestine in such a way. Leaderless, poverty stricken and filled with the rage of injustice, those living in the slums of Gaza have no concept of hope. Some  have joined Hamas in an attempt to even the score of 60 years of destitution and humiliation.  Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza has further fueled rage and resentment.

The other Palestinian enclave, the West Bank, is not much better. Israel has encroached on Palestine, building settlements and further reducing the land reserved for Arabs. After the second (and more violent) intifatha, Israel constructed a barrier, further isolating Arab communities within the West Bank. After the death of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, the leadership in the West Bank has become more moderate. Mahmoud Abbas seeks peace. Unfortunately, the Israelis are unwilling to return their gains. With events these past two months, now is not the best time to begin peace talks, but it is necessary.

For America’s security it is vital that the conflict be resolved. If Obama’s diplomatic team can find a way through the maze of war there, America will be a champion within the region once more; not with bombs but with treaties.

It would be satisfactory if Israel simply traded all the land they have occupied since the 1960s for peace. Not probable, but there is a better solution. Palestine is fractured and divided. Gaza festers against the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt with most of it surrounded by Israel. It depends on the Jewish state for most of its resources. No true people can live under such an arrangement, especially dependant on the country they distrust the most. This is one reason the enclave has radicalized. There is another solution but the terms would be much harder to initiate. The territory of Gaza should be turned over to Israel. The land of Gaza should be measured and the exact same amount of land should be extended to the West Bank along its Northeastern border east of Nazareth. All Jewish settlements should be returned to the Palestinians in the West Bank. To ensure a lasting peace, prosperous Persian Gulf states should become benefactors in the process. Many of these states provide free education abroad for their citizens. This program could be extended to Palestinians. The new Palestine will need massive improvements in infrastructure. The land size is not vast and wouldn’t require unrealistic amounts of wealth to make the area livable. For the world, it would be worth resolving the situation. To fix the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like unlocking the key to the region. If America can lead the world and find the solution, the US will gain the respect of the Arab world, something lacking in recent years. Nations like Syria and Iran will have no choice but to buy into the changes that are created by a peace deal and this would take away their ace in the hole. Middle Eastern despots have always used the Palestinians as a cause by which they can divert the focus away from their own internal problems. And for the United States, bringing peace to the Holy Land and withdrawing successfully from Iraq  would shift the entire focus toward completing the final step in making America truly secure. We would be Afghanistan away from returning to normalcy.

The task before President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell is a daunting one, it is one that involves the future security of the United States. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can broker a lasting peace.

Can George Mitchell Fix the Middle East?

ADDRESSING THE NON-ARAB MIDDLE EAST

To say the Middle East is confusing is an understatement. One must remember most of the hijackers aboard the planes on 9/11 were Saudi and their leader, Osama Bin Laden (OBL), is a Saudi national also. But Al-Qaeda is a stateless organization and their headquarters was in the heart of a country, Afghanistan, that had no true government. When America turned their might against those who did us harm on that warm September morning it wasn’t with the full power of our military. The US wasn’t going after a nation-state, we were attempting to eradicate an organization whose members’ loyalty belonged not to the nations from which they came but instead to a virulent ideology. Al-Qaeda in the 21st century is not a lot different than the  pirates who plied the seas in the 17th and 18th centuries. The only significant difference are the goals. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group who wishes to recreate the Caliphate, a pan-Islamic state with Shari’a  as the basis of law. During the Afghan-Soviet war of the 80s, the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in the mujahadeen battles against the godless communist invaders. These “holy warriors” were being funded in part by the US who wanted to see the Soviet Union become bogged down in the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan. The Islamists also received safe haven and material support from Pakistan, a largely Sunni state.

During this same time Shia Iran, fresh from their Islamic Revolution, was fending off an assault by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces whose intention was to seize vital oil regions within the Iranian state while Iran was weak. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who led a largely Shia state had no reluctance in invading his neighbor. He intended to be the great Arab leader who would unite the Sunnis under his own version of Pan-Arabism. His aims, unlike Al-Qaeda, were secular. Throughout the 80s the entire region was in flames. American aims were to ensure no one got the upper hand, flame the fires of instability and to humiliate the Soviet Union without turning the Cold War hot.

The events of the 1980s would lay the foundations for the current problems in the region. The Iran-Iraq War was fought to a draw with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq deeply in debt. This led the dictator to invade Quwait in an audacious gamble to seize oil from a weaker nation. The oil revenue would enable Iraq to get back on its feet again. The world was not prepared to allow Saddam to control such a strategic position in the Gulf and the notion he invaded a fellow Sunni state with such brutality sent a warning shot across the bow to his fellow Sunni states to the west.  Saddam’s aggression to both his own people and to his fellow Muslim neighbors created the climate that led to his defeat in the First Gulf War and the Bush policy of preemption in the current Iraq War.

In Afghanistan, those who defeated the Soviets in the 80s went on to radicalize the failed state. The Taliban, also  Sunni, is an anti-modern, ultra religious organization who ruled large swaths of Afghanistan in the power vacuum created by the withdrawal of the Soviets and the complete negligence from the west. Their rule returned Afghanistan to a bygone century and their strict interpretation of the Quran brought about hardships for most of the the citizenry of the impoverished nation. Their association and acceptance of Al-Qaida was a natural byproduct of their beliefs. The strong ties with the Sunni tribes between Pakistan and Afghanistan had been solidified during the Soviet war and reaffirmed during the period of Taliban rule. As 2001 approached, a very anti-western Islamic militancy flourished in Afghanistan. The bonds between Al Qaeda and the Taliban stretching over the borders of two tenuous nation-states would show their resilience in the period following 9/11. The challenges facing the United States in the months and years to come will be daunting as we struggle to address how to confront these two groups and find a solution in the Hindu Kush that doesn’t resemble the Soviet experience.

The situation in Pakistan is also complex. The government in Islamabad has had direct ties to the Taliban and to those who are in Al-Qaeda ever since the Soviet war next door. Members of Pakistan’s intelligence service still remain connected to the two groups and some even assist their endeavors. There seems to be some resolve these days  within the new Zadari government to fight against the radical elements in the lawless northwest provinces. This is a welcome sign in the wake of several US strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets within Pakistan’s border.

To the west of Pakistan and Afghanistan is Shia Iran. Their recent history is one of immense change combined with conflict. As Iran threw off their pro-western King and imposed a theocracy, they were thrust into a war with their Arab neighbor that bled the nation severely. After almost a decade of struggle, Iran emerged weakened but resolute. They continued to use the US as a tool to divert the people’s attention away from Iran’s economic and political troubles. In recent years President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad has shown a strong measure of resolve (if not a modicum of craziness) by denying the holocaust, funding radical organizations in Lebanon and Palestine, and voicing the desire to obtain nuclear energy which would also give Iran the ability to make nuclear weapons. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech was the most destructive words spoken by a President in recent times. The separation created by those words has created the climate that makes the notion in Iran that a bomb is necessary to prevent an American attack.

Obama’s route through this geography of uncertainty is tricky. Iran can be pacified. Iran has a weakness. Most of Iran’s citizens love America since they have contact with someone within their family who left during the Islamic Revolution and now lives comfortably in the US. Americans who travel to Iran are greeted warmly by the Iranians. This notion is their Achilles heal. Direct contact with Iran along with a multilateral approach will bear fruit under Obama. Since the Islamic Revolution there has not been direct diplomatic relations with Iran. Their strategy until recently has been to demonize the US and in that way has kept us at arms length. In the runup to the Iraq War Khatami, their President, reached out to the US. He was a moderate and favored improved relations but the Bush Administration was riding their neo-con high and saw weakness in Iran’s position. With US troops on either side in 2003 it would have been an ideal time to engage Iran. Removing Saddam enhanced Iran’s position. With the Shias assuming control in Iraq, their western neighbor was turned from an enemy into an ally. This fact has emboldened Iran and when Ahmedinijad was elected his bravado further alienated the already toxic relationship. Obama has the tools with which to change the dynamic, and he should. Iran can be bartered away from their nuclear ambitions. The nation’s people can be co-opted to move in a direction away from the current hard line approach.

Afghanistan has become dangerous. The problem with our commitment there is the poor nation has nothing to offer the US in return. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has no oil. In fact there are no resources at all in the mountainous state. The only product that generates wealth is opium, something the Taliban had nearly eradicated prior to the US invasion. The growing of poppies has exploded since 2001. Obama is going to need a large commitment from western nations to resolve the conflict there. America can’t go it alone in Afghanistan or else more than likely the end result will be a brokered peace with the Taliban; one that involves their return to prominence in Afghanistan for a movement away from their association with Al Qaida. This would be disastrous for the Afghani people and would ensure a continuation of civil war into the foreseeable future. If Obama is to be successful in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan he must form the bond with influential world capitals and encourage their full commitment in the fight. Afghanistan is the one issue outside of the US economy that could cause a demise in the good feeling Obama currently enjoys.

There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US today. More than half of them, roughly 57 percent come from Mexico and another 24 percent make their way here illegally from other Latin American countries. Many of these immigrants fill jobs that others are unwilling to do, or at least that was the case before the current economic crisis. We have no way of knowing how bad the economic situation will get, but if it continues to spiral our of control citizens will surely begin to take the jobs now done by illegals. Most of those who make their way across the deserts of the Southwest become hard working, law abiding citizens with strong family values. Their work ethic and dedication make them yet the latest immigrants to carry on the great tradition that has made the United States so vibrant. But now is the time to put an end to the flood of undocumented people crossing our borders. With unemployment rising above seven percent along  a trajectory that certainly will rise higher, there is no longer any room for illegal immigration.

Where once closing the border seemed necessary to protect us from terrorist attack, the more important reason now is an economic one. If Americans are having trouble locating jobs what will the climate be like for those without proper papers? Now is the time to secure our borders. Perhaps this goes counterintuitive with this lists number ten (to improve relations with Latin America) but steps can be taken to soften the blow of a border crackdown. Create a cutoff date, say 10 years at which an illegal immigrant can be allowed to purchase a green card as long as they are sponsored by an employer after which all employers will be heavily fined for employing illegal immigrants. All illegals who have been in the US less than 10 years will be required to return to their country of origin. Tightening the border would not be an impossible task, it just would take resolve; a resolve the government hasn’t mustered to this point despite the cry by conservatives. As the economic crisis deepens, the number of illegal immigrants who will require government assistance will surely climb and this is money we cannot afford. Taking preemptive steps before the coming storm only seems wise. This is why securing our borders comes in at number five on Obama’s to-do list.

On June 25th 1950 the Cold War turned hot. A large North Korean force invaded South Korea with the moral backing of the Soviet Union. Dean Acheson, US Secretary of State, had placed Korea outside of America’s defense perimeter in Asia and Kim Il Sung took this as a sign that South Korea was ripe for the taking. The US quickly responded, sending a detachment of soldiers known as Task Force Smith from Japan. This small under-equipped and vastly outnumbered blocking force was quickly swallowed up by the massive North Korean communist army. Thus began a war that would last for three years and consume the lives of 36,000 Americans with another 103,000 wounded. The war would end just where it began with both sides staring each other down across the 38th parallel. The US military never left Korea. Today over 29,000 servicemen and women protect prosperous South Korea from their destitute kin in the north.  

With the economic situation as it is, now would be the moment to begin to engage North Korea in a lasting peace to eliminate the threat of war between the two Koreas. South Korea, since the war, has had one of the most effective armies in the region. Stories of South Korean bravery in action alongside the US military during the Vietnam War is legendary. South Korea’s industry is progressive and it is time they begin to use this wealth to provide for their own defense. Fifty Eight years has been enough of a buffer for South Korea. This is not to say we wouldn’t come to their aid if North Korea got obstreperous but the time of the current large scale US commitment in Korea has passed. The United States could use those assets elsewhere and the drag on our budget is high. Coming in at number six is a need to draw down our forces in South Korea.

If the world wasn’t so messed up number seven on Obama’s to-do list could easily be number one. There is nothing like a festering sore that extends just a few short miles from our shores. Cuba was one of the first lands where Christopher Columbus landed back in the 15th century. Its rich heritage, blending the Spanish with the African, brings a unique soul to the Caribbean’s largest island. Despite a history of struggle, Cuba’s people and culture are one of the Americas’ gems. Anyone who is moved by the smooth rhythms of Ibrahim Ferrer comprehends Cuba. For most Americans, Cuba has remained blanketed; shielded from us by an antiquated policy whose origins are of our own making.

Cuba was “liberated” from the Spanish during the US war against Spain. Liberty was just an illusion, however, as America seized control of the island. Businesses thrived in Cuba during the period prior to WW II. Self government existed on a local scale but the US remained deeply interventionist. Cuba became a pariah following the Communist Revolution in Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis under JFKs watch further distanced the US from Castro’s Cuba. Despite being almost as close neighbors as Canada and Mexico, the US has treated Cuba as a non-entity. This policy has largely been dictated in recent years by the Cuban community in America that fled Cuba under Castro and who long to see his demise. Most of these elder Cubans reside in Florida, a state that has had some significant electoral weight in recent US elections. Religious and cultural exchanges have occurred since the end of the Cold War but no trade, and the US government has imposed a travel restriction on Americans who wish to go there.

It is well past time to change American policy towards Cuba. Cuba no longer poses a threat to the US (not that it really did after the Cuban Missile Crisis, anyway). The way communism can be defeated in Cuba is to flood the country with the fruits of capitalism which will cause their broken system of government to whither on the vine. The Cuban people are yearning to break from their strict society. With our economy on life support why not open up the floodgates between our two nations and allow Cuba to buy American products. Have you ever seen their cars? They continue to operate cars from the 1950s. What a great time to begin to introduce US automobiles into a new capitalist Cuba. I guarantee when Americans begin to go into the lazy humid bars of Havana and restfully sip on a cuba libre they will ask themselves, “Where has this been all my life?”. President Obama, change should come to Cuba also. This is why the American policy to open up Cuba after over a century of sanctions comes in at number seven.

During the Great Depression many of the nation’s men were employed through FDR’s New Deal. By the time the Second World War struck America, the country was accustomed to duty and service. The generation that followed “The Greatest Generation” was not so keen to serve. Despite Kennedy’s famous line in his inauguration speech about doing for one’s country, few willingly did. The baby boomers have left a legacy of greed and selfishness.

But their children are a different story. The children maturing today have been raised by helicopter parents. Their lives have been organized from cradle to college. These kids have had full lives and devotion to community service is almost part of their DNA. It seems to be a perfect time in this country to implement number eight on the Obama to-do list: mandatory service. There are many ways in which to serve the country besides military service. If one looks at all the problems facing this country it seem logical that there be a required two year volunteer service for those Americans either completing high school or college. Think how fast the victims of Hurricane Katrina could have their lives restored if two million young people descended on New Orleans. The burden of the nation’s wars would not fall just on a few selfless Americans and the nation’s leaders would be required to show more intelligence in committing these troops or else they would taste the wrath of the country’s majority. The Peace Corps would flourish with independent minded college graduates willing and able to disperse around the globe spreading democracy through noble deeds rather than through the rifle. New aspiring teachers would educate in rural Appalachia or in DC, helping to erase decades of inequity. The ranks of policemen and firemen would always be full. There would be ample boots on the ground along our borders to prevent illegal immigration to our nation. But the most important component of this policy would be a tradition of democratic service. Though mandatory, the options of service would be great and the rewards would be shared by all Americans. This is why a two year compulsory national service comes in at number eight.

As images came across the screen of the Mumbai terror attack most Americans were curious why radicals were so angry at India. The targeting of Westerners in the attack was more understandable, but why Indians?

When India achieved independence in 1948 the nation split. All Hindus fled the Muslim designated states of Pakistan and East Pakistan (later forming Bangladesh). A large minority of Muslims however remained in India and became an oppressed subgroup. The eruption of violence over the mountain state of Kashmir has acted like fuel for a religious fire ever since independence.

For much of its 60 years of existence India has struggled to achieve modernity. Its massive population (now well over a billion people) has acted as India’s greatest strength but also it largest weakness. Much of this time India’s focus has been on how to feed its people. Its social system, revolving on an ancient premise of social castes, has suppressed modern India’s economy. Social mobility is the engine for capitalism. India refused to get sucked into the Cold War and kept both the Soviet Union and the United States out of all components of their state. Throughout the Cold War India experimented with socialism and capitalism and for the most part failed to achieve significant advancement. As communism collapsed so did India’s restraint. The country blossomed economically just in time to ride the information technology boom. Its population now became a source of great minds. Though its education system is based on rote learning, it was ideal for mathematics and science. Linear learning produced great computer scientists, engineers and doctors from a pool of over a billion people. India is on the rise.

So what does this mean for America? One fact that few realize is India is the world’s largest democracy. They have a vibrant free press and a tradition of free speech. Women have played a key role in India’s recent history including a woman as Prime Minister in the 60s and 70s. Because of India’s coolness toward the US during the Cold War, India was not looked at as a fellow democratic state. The relationship between the US and India has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Indians are now finding a second home in the US. Trade and business ties between the two nations are now burgeoning. Our two nations on opposite sides of the globe now have more in common than ever before.

As conflicts rage in lands to India’s west, India itself is quickly becoming a powerhouse in the region. Confident, India could provide an ally for America that counterweights India’s northern neighbor, communist China. If China’s dynamism results in a more aggressive stance it would be nice to have a friend in the region. India can provide just that. Surely an American tack toward India would frighten Pakistan but continued aid to the Islamic state would allay most fears. (Stabilizing extremism there will be addressed further up the list.) Obama’s administration should further partner with India and make  strides to build a friendship that will bring the two nations separated by great distance closer together. This is why India comes in at number nine on the list.

With ten days until Barack Obama is inaugurated it seems like a good time to detail ten issues that Obama should address. Since the economy would be number one and that issue is much too grand for this venue, it will remain out of this top 10 list. Most are foreign affairs matters since that is what this blogger is most comfortable writing about but it is not exclusively about foreign policy. Each day for the next ten you can return here to see the countdown.

 LATIN AMERICA

The United States relationship with Latin America has been contentious for well over 150 years. The Monroe Doctrine spelled out early America’s intention to hold sway over the nations to our south. This simple policy has dictated the US relationship with our Latin neighbors. The land grab against Mexico in the 1840s has worked out well for us but it laid the groundwork for how far America was willing to proceed to meet our policy goals. The Spanish American War, where Cuba fought to secure independence from Spain only to be devoured by America during the wave of Imperialism that was sweeping the world in the waning years of the 19th century, removed the last significant European power from the Western Hemisphere and guaranteed US hegemony in the region. The fallout with Cuba over this war has tainted our relationship with the island nation (Cuba will reappear further up the top 10 list) The early 20th century saw US intervention in the Panamanian insurrection which wrested Panama from Columbia. The aim was a canal project that would shorten the route between America’s east and west coast for shipping. Haiti was the first Latin American country to gain independence  but the US has intervened in Haiti on several occasions since, as the nation has been the poster child of instability.

America’s experiences in Latin America in the last half of the 20th Century continued to reduce our credibility in the region. Eisenhower used the CIA to overthrow a democratically elected government in Guatemala over business interests. The Latino government that was installed proceeded to carry out genocide against their indigenous people. Our failed policies toward Cuba in the first half of the 20th century ultimately led to a communist pro-Soviet government run by Castro in the second half. This in turn spawned conflict in the Banana Republics in Central America. Civil War ravaged Nicaragua and El Salvador and the violence was fueled by US support of non-communist forces. Tens of thousands perished in the proxy wars of the 1980s. As a result the beacon for democracy in the world has more often than not enhanced despotism in the region and left the American label tarnished.

Today, Latin America is at a crossroads. There are some great success stories. Brazil has evolved into an emerging economic force in South America. They have found a way through sugar cane biofuels to become energy independent. Columbia, once devastated by narco-terrorism is now on the road to recovery. Many Latin American nations have experimented with socialism and democracy and most have found a combination of the two systems best for them. Venezuela has found, through Hugo Chavez, that anti-American rhetoric has increased their popularity in certain circles but Chavez is finding that this approach only succeeds in the short run. His economic policy, despite huge oil revenues, has been largely a failure. Mexico ended one party rule in the 1990s and their future seemed to be brighter once their monetary policy issues were rectified but our southern neighbor is dealing with its own drug war. Gang violence, fueled by drugs, has ripped through their northern states. Lawlessness is the norm in many parts of Mexico. This will surely be on the plate of Obama in the near term, especially if the violence spills across the border.

FDR initiated what was called the Good Neighbor policy and was intended to bring Anglo America and Latin America together but the good feelings that the policy may have brought were very short. FDR’s policy didn’t hold but Barack Obama has a great opportunity to improve relations with Latin America in our time. We can learn much from Brazil’s energy policy. Emerging nations in the region can provide willing markets for American goods. It is time the US eliminate the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine and begin to treat the nations  in our hemisphere as potential partners and not states by which we will exert our dominance. It is time to tidy up our neighborhood. This is why Latin American policy comes in at number 10.

What You Don’t Know About Gaza

By RASHID KHALIDI

Published: January 7, 2009

NEARLY everything you’ve been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.

THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.

Continue

I wrote a letter to Clair McCaskill tonight over Gaza and our foreign policy in the region. I would like to share it with my readers:

Dear Senator McCaskill,

The current situation in Gaza and our foreign policy in the region has me quite agitated these days. Why is it that Israel has 435 Representatives and 100 Senators that carry out their agenda? There are 1.7 million Palestinians crammed into a narrow strip of land whose existence is controlled by the nation that would most do them harm. Why is it that Gaza is so crowded? Could it be that those who are cornered there were once the owners of the land that is now habited by Israel? Furthermore, what strategic significance is Israel for the US now that the Cold War is long over? It is time that Senators that are strong like yourself stand up to the Jewish lobby in this country and make foreign policy that is in the best interest of America. Our continued unequivocal support of Israel is a significant reason why many in the Middle East work against us. Some would contend it was a significant reason why a handful of radicals acted as human missiles on 9/11. As a Missouri Democrat I implore you to stand up for justice and take back the reigns of our policies in the region. Doing what is right does not make you an Anti-Semite, it makes you a representative of your constituency.  

The National Journal has an interesting forum about whether Israel is a viable strategic ally of the US. For those who are interested in the current events centered in the Eastern Mediterranean head on over to the forum for an interesting debate:

Is Israel A Strategic Liability For The United States?