As President Barack Obama concludes his first presidential tour of
Israel, observers have contorted themselves to explain why, after four
years of studied avoidance, he chose to suddenly head for the Holy Land.
Part of it has to do with how different the Middle East looks today
than it did when he first took office -- including a series of
convulsions so profound as to beggar comparison with anything that has
happened since decolonization in the mid-twentieth century. This
upheaval, dubbed an "Arab Spring" by optimists dreaming of an
anti-authoritarian storm front leaving democratic May flowers in its
wake, may in fact more closely resemble a bone-rattling tempest -- a
near'easter -- that might not end for a very long time, bringing neither
freedom nor peace to a region never quite sure whether such Western
luxuries are not themselves a devil in disguise.
Such developments should require a recalibration of the overall American foreign policy assessment. But to where?
The president has been widely described as a Kissinger-style
pragmatist, a "realist" for whom foreign relations must be undertaken
according to the calculus of national interest rather than esoteric
matters of the spirit, shared values, or sentimental attachments.
The new reality, however, poses a problem for realists. If in the
past, they intuitively looked to the Arab states' oil and diplomatic
power as the most reliable sources of political and economic benefit,
today these have become much less reliable.
And they have become as such precisely at a time when Israel has
stopped being the beleaguered underdog, emerging instead as a remarkably
stable regime, with the most advanced military force in the region and
arguably the sturdiest engine of economic growth in the developed world.
Just consider how far things have gone. Egypt, the greatest recipient
of American aid in the Arab world, has been overthrown and is in
upheaval. Turkey, the keystone of NATO's Middle East posture, has begun
what looks like a slouch toward neo-Ottoman authoritarianism, jailing
journalists and crushing opposition. Syria is in a brutal civil war that
may not end soon, Libya has overthrown Muammar Gaddafi and is unhinged,
Lebanon has sort of come under Hezbollah's control, Tunisia just had
its liberal opposition leader assassinated and Mali has dragged French
troops to war against al-Qaeda affiliates. And Saudi Arabia, the
lynchpin of American oil interests, is facing its most difficult
financial and political crisis in a generation. All this, while Iran
continues to pursue a nuclear weapon that could shift the balance of
power in the Persian Gulf and beyond - just when the United States needs
stability there more than ever.
Now, contrast this with the remarkably steady rise of Israel over the
last decade. Without underplaying the enormity of the Iranian nuclear
threat, Israel's conventional military edge has advanced dramatically
with the emergence of cyber-warfare, drones, satellite-based
intelligence, and missile defense. With its deepening ties with India,
Israel has become one of the top military exporters on earth.
Economically, Israel has become a world leader in innovation and a
paragon of fiscal and monetary discipline, boasting steady annual growth
of four to six percent combined with comparatively low inflation and
unemployment. Even in 2009, when most Western economies contracted,
Israel maintained a positive growth rate. While Western countries had
their credit ratings clipped, Israel's improved; when they saw their
debt-to-GDP ratios inflate, Israel's diminished.
True, Israel's economy is still smaller than Saudi Arabia's. But
while the Saudis' economy is based on a single, wildly unstable
commodity, Israel's economy is dynamic, innovative, consistent, and
fully integrated. In investment terms, Israel today may be seen as a
smoothly growing mid-sized company in a future-oriented market - like
Google a decade ago, perhaps - while Saudi Arabia and the Emirates look
more like a large, profitable airline: one that makes money today but,
for reasons entirely outside of its control, could find itself
collapsing under conditions that are not so difficult to imagine, such
as the emergence of alternatives to Middle Eastern oil. And a true
foreign-policy realist can be forgiven for thinking that in an
increasingly turbulent region, the U.S. ought to be placing its bets as
safely as possible.
So the present situation poses a real test for realists. For if they
are really as businesslike as they claim, then foreign policy ought to
look something like investment, with the periodic reassessment of
earnings and ratios and prospects. And while short-term profitability is
clearly one important element in choosing which countries to support,
another is stability.
Some might argue that the comparison is unfair: Given the $3 billion
in assistance the Americans provide Israel each year, effectively
"propping up" the Jewish state, doesn't that undermine any claim that
the U.S. should see it as strong and independent and a source of power
and wealth?
No, for three reasons. First, because the investment in Israel has
been far less costly than the huge and permanent military deployment the
United States has maintained in the Persian Gulf region, which has done
much more to "prop up" friendly regimes than anything America's done
for Israel. Second, because the relationship with Israel is a far more
healthy one than with the oil regimes. For the latter, economic success
depends on high oil prices, which in turn harms the American and
European economies. It is far less win-win, far more zero-sum, than
should be comfortable as the basis of a long-term alliance. With Israel,
the opposite is true: Israel is better seen as a partner than as a
dependent, its success becomes part of a rising tide, helping other
Western countries grow. And finally, because taken as a portion of
Israel's national budget, American aid has actually dropped
precipitously, from about 22 percent in 1985 to about 4 percent in 2011.
Israel now stands very firmly on its feet--while if anything, the
dependence that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE have felt
towards the American military has only increased in recent years.
So, what remains of the realists' opposition to support for Israel?
They must decide. Either they will remain true to their realism, and see
that the scales have shifted; or they will continue criticizing
American support for Israel regardless of what changes on the ground,
and risk accusations that there never really were any scales to begin
with.
We look forward to hearing from them, either way. With President Obama's visit to Israel, we may already have.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-hazony/israel-obama-realists-dilemma_b_2967113.html
Wednesday 27 March 2013
Israel, Obama and the Realist's Dilemma
Posted @ 23:54
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment