Examination of the U.S. and Russia’s positions at the UN General Assembly 71st session, 2016: A regional perspective
Talking Points
By Professor Magda Shahin
1. Reminding the audience of Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, 5 months after taking over the presidency. Looking at his farewell speech in September 2016 in the UNGA, there is no comparison between the two speeches.
2. In Cairo, Obama spoke of reshaping American policy toward the Moslem world and wanted to establish a new relationship build on trust and understanding.
3. The explosion of the Arab Spring in 2011 may have exacerbated the situation for the U.S.. Yet the Obama administration should also carry its part of the blame. In Cairo, Obama had spoken too quickly and committed himself too prematurely. Nowhere and no one has suffered the mistakes of the Obama administration as the Middle East region and its people.
4. In his farewell speech at the UN, Obama avoided to tackle any problem issues. The speech is of vital importance to Egypt and the region, not for what it entails, but rather for what it has missed. It has received minimal coverage from the Egyptian media.
President Obama and the Middle East
5. Obama tried to give an overview of his achievements during his two-term of presidency. It was not surprisingly that the Middle East was totally ignored. He had a precise message to give by missing on the Middle East, it was clear that it meant little to him and more so he wanted to leave a freehand to the next administration either to step up, step back or continue to muddle through the Middle East turmoil and many of its difficult problems. He even refrained from giving any sign of where his preference lie.
6. To Obama the Middle East problems seem all to be piling up around the identity crisis of its population and the narrow mindset of its people in contrast to the liberal societies. This he attributed to the autocratic regimes and the long prevalent leaders in the region. These leaders have extensively prosecuted political opposition or demeaning other religions.
7. Washing his hands from the entire turmoil in the Middle East, president Obama acknowledged that there were no answer to solve these problems of opposing social forces and the contrasts existing in the societies. This all boils down to the respect of the space of ‘the others’, i.e. those who are different. There should be respect to the people, their cultures, their own tradition, their religion, their ethnicity and their sense of nationhood. Preserving one’s own identity should not demonize other groups or diminish the others.
8. To all the deep-rooted problems of religious fundamentalism, aggressive nationalism and crude populism in the region, president Obama contended himself to advance ideal solutions of better integration and coexistence, which – in my view – bounds to naivety and simplicity.
9. If at any point in time the U.S. has seriously thought of stepping back from the Middle East, today U.S. withdrawal becomes all the more remote in the light of the new U.S.-Russian rivalry, as it means leaving the terrain open for Russia to step up. Today’s Russia is no longer the weakened Russia of the 1990s. Leaving the region now means the spillover of civil wars to countries like Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and maybe even Egypt or as far as Algeria. It can eventually destabilize Saudi Arabia. No administration can afford losing Egypt or Saudi Arabia. The next administration can no longer afford muddling through in the region or be put up with half solutions. The next administration has to be decisive in its choice of action.
President Obama and his world view
10. In an attempt to justify the U.S. actions as a superpower, particularly during his presidency, it was not inadvertently that he referred to the successes of the U.S. as a sole superpower in the post-Cold War era. Yet, it looked somehow odd or rather peculiar to brag about the U.S. handling well the world system as a unipolar, 25 years after the end of the Cold War.
11. President Obama used the Cold War rhetoric after 25 years to boast the successes of the U.S. as unipolar. This was a direct response to mounting criticism by Putin for the havoc the U.S. has created in the world and Russian endeavor to restore its supremacy. President Obama said that the international order throughout the last quarter of a century has been so successful that one tend to take it for granted.
12. His point was, however, that these achievements ought not to be taken as mere given. It is due to the U.S. acting beyond narrow selfishness, as it bound its powers to international law and institutions. This is the typical traditional American message, unselfish and good. Yet, unlike other U.S. presidents, Obama rejected the perception of the U.S. as the ‘world policeman’, criticizing those who believe that the U.S. is at the root of all goods and all ills, domestically as well as at the international level.
13. But where president Obama wanted really to show off was in regard to ‘multilateralism’ which he considers his true legacy. Lauding the international organizations from the UN to the NATO and Bretton Woods institutions, he took pride in emphasizing the need to mobilize allies and partners for collective action, as well as integration and coexistence between communities. Obama has always been ready to show off with his strategy of engagement, cooperation, and persuasion as the antithesis of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
14. Yet Obama’s multilateralism is more ‘à la carte’ and according to his own terms and conditions. This resulted in a blend of unilateralism and multilateralism, which in fact created more misconception and a blurred foreign policy. In many instances also Obama’s multilateralism encountered strong resistance, notably from Russia, which saw itself resurrecting as a major power under Putin.
15. For Obama, multilateralism functions with the U.S. in the lead. In this context, he bragged about the successes of his term by enumerating achievements, such as the return of the global economy to stability and growth, resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy and establishing relations with Cuba.
16. He even went on calling the minor changes in the voting system in the IMF and World Bank as a success making them more representative, by giving China’s voting power a less than 2% increase to reach a 4% in spite of the fact that China’s economy is almost 20% of the world GDP. The U.S. voting power did not budge from 17%, which is the equivalent of a sole veto power in these two vital institutions.
The right mix between globalization and equity
17. Obama devoted large parts of his speech to the economy and the right mix between policies of openness and globalization combined with fairness and equality. Sounding rather more of a Bernie Sanders, well-known as the social democratic candidate who ran against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, Obama clearly criticized the excesses of capitalism and the flaws of globalization, and referred to the American paradigm he followed during his presidency as a model to be emulated by others.
18. Obama could easily afford such a rhetoric in the UN to give a boost to Clinton domestically in the elections. It seems that views and convictions of Bernie Sanders are becoming contagious. Not denying that open markets and capitalism have raised the standards of living, Obama did not shy away from criticizing harshly the flaws of globalization having weakened workers, suppressed their wages and undermined the Unions.The international community is not accustomed to hear the U.S. president speaking out against the transnationals and their abuse of power, referring to those benefiting from globalization as exploiters of workers.
19. His quote on aiding developing countries was no less out of the ordinary, saying that if spending only a fraction of what went into Iraq, would have been a smart thing to do and could have saved many developing countries. This is in drastic contrast to the traditional and well-known U.S. positions on financing for development in multilateral forums. And then he clearly stated that just as his administration succeeded in combatting inequality and cutting in half the gap between the top one percent of Americans capturing more than ninety percent of income growth, he believed that advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe, acknowledging that this is not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict
20. The least he tackled in his speech was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. All he said was that the Palestinians should recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and Israel not to continue to occupy Palestinian land. By that Obama was not setting on par the Palestinians and the Israelis. Irrespective of the tensions between Obama and Netanyahu, it was Obama’s administration which granted Israel an assistance package with no equal in history, not even the Marshall plan, $38 billion in military aid, over the next 10 years, on which there has been no mention in his speech. The package will provide an average of $3.8 billion a year over the next decade to Israel. With such a deal the U.S. has secured Israel even if – at any time – it thought of stepping back from the Middle East.
21. If at any point in time there has been some talk by the Obama administration of making a last ditch after the November election to save the peace process, this has vanished in thin air after Obama’s speech in the UN and the assistance package to Israel. In addition, the administration will be very sensitive on any move in the lame-duck period after the election that would be unwelcome if Hillary Clinton wins, which is probably very likely.
Fighting ISIS
22. Fighting ISIS per se as the two presidential candidates vow, is a necessary condition though not sufficient to restore stability in the Middle East. The Palestinian conflict remains at the heart of the region’s instability. The U.S. has fought against El-Qaeda and thought by killing Ben Laden, it had won the war against Islamism. This was utterly wrong as the demise of one Islamist group gives nascence to another. From Al Qaeda to ISIS to Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Jihadist movement is self-generative, i.e. producing from within itself with no sight of an end to it in the foreseeable future. Furthermore they are becoming stronger and more violent. ISIS is certainly more vicious than Qaeda, and Al Nusra front will be even fiercer. And, as long as the vicious proxy wars continue between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and as long as there is no solution in sight to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the world is not safe.
1