Obama's diplomacy team: Leading the charge will be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (c.), who started her new job Thursday, Jan. 22. Joining her will be Richard Holbrooke (far left) and former Sen. George Mitchell (far right) as special envoys to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Middle East, respectively. (Charles Dharapak/AP)
With Obama, what change for Mideast?
On Thursday he named George Mitchell as a special envoy, and he has already signaled that the US will reengage the region.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer/ January 22, 2009 edition
Reporter Howard LaFranchi talks with CSMonitor.com's Pat Murphy about the Obama administration's approach to the Middle East peace process.
Washington
President Obama has lost little time upon taking office in keeping a campaign promise to ramp up US diplomacy, especially in the Middle East.
On Thursday, he joined Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Joseph Biden, and his national security advisers at lunch at the State Department to discuss ways of implementing “the administration’s pledge to enhance diplomatic efforts to advance American interests,” the White House said.
The meeting also served as the venue for naming two special envoys: former Senate Democratic leader George Mitchell for the Middle East and former ambassador Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Perhaps the key question now is whether reinvigorated American diplomacy will find the partners in the Middle East it needs to move forward such daunting challenges as Arab-Israeli peace and Palestinian statehood.
The naming of special envoys follows the signal Mr. Obama sent of a new US involvement in the region “from Day 1” of his administration. On Wednesday, he took time out of a busy first full day in office to call the leaders of Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA), Egypt, and Jordan, discussing his intentions for the United States to play a key role in building on a cease-fire in Gaza.
Also on Wednesday, Obama reviewed with his national security team and top military commanders prospects for the troop withdrawal he wants from Iraq.
Although Obama’s quick focus on the Middle East underscores how important stability and peace there remain to US interests, it also drew attention to the leadership void in the region that will complicate, if not stymie, US diplomatic efforts.
Israel is approaching elections Feb. 10 that may not result in a new government for several weeks after that. After having united behind the Saudi-launched Arab peace initiative, Arab countries face new schisms among their leaders in the Gaza war’s aftermath – over how to deal with Gaza and Hamas and over what approach to take with Israel. And most daunting of all, the divide between the West Bank’s Fatah leadership and Hamas is deeper than ever, with PA President Mahmoud Abbas weaker and further marginalized.
Given the flux, Obama may find the seeds of his good intentions falling on rocky and arid soil, some experts in the region say.
“Obviously if you wait for everything to fall into place in the Middle East, you’re going to wait a long time,” says Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“But you also need to have Israeli and Palestinian leaderships in place, people who can make a deal on behalf of their people, and that isn’t the case right now.”
The US “shouldn’t do nothing” while awaiting Israel’s elections, says Mr. Alterman, a former member of the State Department’s policy planning staff. But on the other hand, attempting a major diplomatic push before the elections “is hasty and misdirected energy,” he says.
The state of Palestinian leadership makes the moment all the more difficult, he adds. “One of the greatest consequences of the Gaza war is how it undermined Abbas’s credibility. He didn’t emerge as a great national leader,” Alterman says, “and that has deep implications for how the US might move forward.”
Indeed, the US will have to decide the approach it is going to take to Palestinian leadership before launching any major diplomatic effort concerning postwar Gaza.
Obama assured Israeli leadership in his phone call Wednesday that the US will be an active participant in efforts to shut down cross-border arms smuggling into the hands of Hamas fighters in Gaza. But the Obama administration will have to decide whom among the Palestinians it will work with in addressing Gaza’s humanitarian and reconstruction needs, other regional experts say. Another issue these experts see for the administration: What kind of Palestinian leadership can it realistically hope to see that could return to peace negotiations?
“There’s going to have to be the equivalent of a [Palestinian] national unity government,” says Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel now at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “We are far from that at the moment, but unless there’s some kind of political accommodation between Hamas and Fatah,” it will be very hard for Mr. Abbas to make concessions to the Israelis and move toward a final settlement, he says.
Another possible choice is for the Obama administration to continue in the path taken by the Bush administration – focusing on building up the Fatah-governed West Bank as a model for Gaza residents, who voted Hamas into power.
Perhaps the best the Obama administration can do in the current context, Mr. Indyk says, is to launch a major humanitarian and rebuilding effort for Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority’s technocratic government run by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. In a recent discussion with reporters, Indyk suggested this would be a way to “reintroduce” the Palestinian Authority back into Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Naming such a respected figure and tested negotiator as Mr. Mitchell to the Middle East dossier immediately communicates the president’s seriousness about the region’s importance, analysts say. Mitchell previously headed a commission formed by President Clinton to report on solutions to Middle East violence.
Mr. Holbrooke, who was named the administration’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, was the architect of the Dayton Accords that brought peace to Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. Holbrooke is now being tapped by Secretary Clinton and the president to pursue what Clinton called “an integrated strategy” for pursuing the war in Afghanistan and the impact Pakistan has there.
Obama’s aims on the diplomacy front would be bolstered, some regional experts add, by another anticipated naming: longtime Middle East diplomat and former Clinton administration peace coordinator Dennis Ross to assist Clinton on Middle East issues, including Iran.
Given the particularly difficult regional context the administration confronts as it seeks to honor a campaign pledge about reinvigorating Mideast peace efforts, the best Obama can do may be to signal his determination by naming envoys and then wait for a more propitious moment.
“With so many crises demanding his attention and definitely the economic situation in this country having to be his first priority, it doesn’t make sense for him to engage in the Middle East in a way that could lead to an early failure that will affect his credibility,” Indyk says. “But it’s a hot situation and he’s made a commitment to try to move the Palestinian problem toward resolution. So he has a need to do something there, and it’s an urgent need.”
Comments
2. Keith | 01.22.09
It’s a no-brainer that Hamas MUST be directly involved in any REAL progress towards ME peace. Anything less is simply wasting time, money and, most importantly, many more lives!
3. sunny | 01.22.09
It is time that our government stand for justice and not blindly by Israel. Israel should not be allowed to make the life of millions of Palestinians miserable anymore and slaughter thousands of civilians without any accountability.
4. Tassos Chronopoulos | 01.22.09
The world will be looking carefully as to how our new goverment will address the Palestinian /Israely conflict, especially after the the latest results of the war in Gaza.
People the world over viewed the US policy in this region not even handed but much in Israels favor and so there is a great opportunity this time for the US to prove otherwise.
Yes we are Isreals best friend but good friends have the responisibility to stop their actions if the result is detrimental to our countries security and prolong’s Isreals conflict with all the countries sorounding their borders.
Children no matter their nationality or origin need not to suffer or be killed by soldiers -Actions such as those reported in the latest conflict must not be allowed to take place and must be panished, just as we never allowed our soldiers to execute inocent civiliens in Vietnam , Irak or any other military conflict that our arm forces were ever involved.
Palestinian refugee camps ,without having available basic services for humans or even animals, create the sources for a stronger Hamas army and probagate the development of young terorists who in their opinion they have nothing to lose by blowing themselves up since death avoids looking towards a life with constant suffering something that their parrents and grand parents have experience for almost a century now.
We have a chance to difuse the animosity which exists bewteen us and the Moslem world, if we can just deal this time with an honest hand ,become once more an honest and impartial partner seeking the establishement of peace and a place that all palestinians can call their country and so providing the opportunity for their young and old to survive in peace under the guidance of their own goverment and institutions and hope for the future.
To acomplish this task it will not be easy for it will require a political ethos not seeing before amongst our politiciens.
5. texan4ever | 01.22.09
The USA needs to reconsider it’s policies concerning foreign aid. At present the world is in a financial downturn, and a worldwide effort should be used to help the most in need of help. We give billions to Israel, but what do we give to Palestine? If all nations would simply support the United Nations and allow the UN to receive and then disperse all financial aid on an equal basis, then a lot of problems would be eliminated.
Many will say the UN is not qualified, but it is an existing facility, and if everyone would agree to give it a chance or completely replace it, the world would be a better and safer place. All aid should go through the UN, and if a country privately donated aid to a country of their choice, then that country would have that amount subtracted from it’s UN donation.
6. AJC | 01.22.09
Once again, no mention of the non-stop expansion of Israeli Settlements. This nonsense about peace will never happen while the US coddles Israel’s excesses.
7. Anthony | 01.22.09
Words of Pope Paul VI: “If you want peace work for justice”.
Stop expansion of Israeli Settlements which are contrary to Genevan convention.
Palestinians are god’s people also!
8. Marilyn | 01.23.09
I thank the CSMonitor for covering the conflict in the Middle East and the Gaza offensive. It has not been covered extensively in the major US media and has had very little coverage on Democratic blogs.
I am very encouraged by the appointment of Mr. Mitchell who also was involved in the IRA cease fire in Ireland. I am hopeful there will be a new “process” in solving the Israeli/Palestine conflict since the old ways did not work.
pacem in terra
9. Paul | 01.24.09
The answer to finding peace in the middle east is simple. Go back to the original partion boundries and enforce them.
Paul
10. Hasib | 01.25.09
Israel as a European-American project has failed. The only solution is one-state solution. Israel will loose its exclusive ‘jewish’ state status no matter what. The demographic trend of Israel not in favor of jews. To ensure justice, all Palestinian refugees living in exile around the world must be given the option to return to Israel (Palestine).
The problem with two-state solution is the right of return of 1 million plus Palestinians and Jerusalem. I don’t think Israel will compromise on that. Even if Two-state solution could somehow be implemented - it would be injustice to Palestinians .
11. Suha | 01.25.09
Peace plan that can have a chance is the Clinton’s proposal. West Bank And Gaza can be given back in return for peace which translated to arabic means, no terror, no suicide bomibing, no violance against Israel. The problem is not to convince Israel to give back West Bank and Gaza. The problem is who to give it to? Hamas does not want Palestine state, they want an Islamic khalifat. So that already does not solve any palestinian problem. Second, the khalifat hamas talks about does not leave a room for Israel. That is to make sure Hamas charter state at the start there can be no State of Israel in the region.
No one should be ask to lay their neck to be sluaghter even not Israelis. So the toughest assignment for Mitchell, the US and Europe, forget about ventriloquist arab countries, can Palestinians come up with a unified from having a clear majority for peace under Clinton Proposal. In this equation hamas can only be a small noise that could be ignore.
Egypt got back all Sini and sign a peace with Israel. Jordan too signed peace making sure to condition it on making a break from palestinians in the West Bank. Thus, Israel as a partner to peace has been tested twice successfully. With Hamas and its dreams of khalifat achieved by killing and more killing there is a little toom for progress. It’s the bad grass that has to be mowed by the international community and the palestinians people before peace negotiation can take place.
12. Charles | 01.25.09
A couple of observations - trying to bring peace via extremists on both sides is a waste of time - they aren’t willing to change and their historical behavior over 50 years confirms this fact. Working with the oppressed, frustrated but more open minded larger population, who just want stability and dignity for their families and a homeland is best. Another observation is that a few extremists often can control a much larger, more docile population. Given these two observations we should ask Abbas to consider physically relocating extremists from the West Bank and moving them to Gaza. Then start building peace with the willing.
13. seania | 01.28.09
Rosa sat so Martin could walk and OBAMA can run and win the election.
I love you Obama. I hope you bring a change
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Kathy | 01.22.09
George Mitchell demonstrated his integrity Tuesday evening when he appeared at a speaking engagement in St. Louis, to which he had agreed before realizing the date to be Inauguration Day. When he was told the speaking date could not be changed, he forsook the opportunity to be in Washington D.C. to honor his commitment. Hearing him speak about his role as special envoy to Northern Ireland gives one hope for the Middle East. In answer to a question, he said that he was not free to comment on the possibility of being appointed as special envoy to the Middle East — intimating that it was not out of the question. I appreciated confirmation in this timely Monitor story.