‘Change’ itself may be changing

Sunday November 9, 2008
‘Change’ itself may be changing
Behind the HeadlinesBy BUNN NAGARA

The election over, Barack Obama is set to ‘adjust’ his policies against his campaign rhetoric.
US President-elect Barack Obama has begun to select his administration team, with an initial focus on pressing domestic issues like the economy.
But the novice president-to-be will also inherit a host of foreign policy concerns. Among these are the following dozen issues, where any wrong move could squander his international goodwill or worse.
First, Iraq remains the most immediate concern for the controversial and costly US invasion and occupation, and because Obama won the presidency partly on his opposition to the war.
A messy Iraq has legitimate nationalists among the militia as well as terrorists simply out to create mayhem, besides the convoluted local politics of shifting alliances. Making sense of varying loyalties to repel foes without upsetting current or likely allies still needs improvement.
Next is Afghanistan, where Obama wants to move thousands of troops from Iraq. While paying more attention to Afghanistan is correct, simply moving more firepower there can be counter-productive as occupation violence against civilians had helped the Taliban’s four-year resurgence.
Obama has pledged to defeat the Taliban when pro-Taliban lawmakers are now part of the government, and President Hamid Karzai and some US analysts acknowledge the need to work with them. Afghan fighters had humbled occupying Soviet forces before, so moving more foreign troops there may also not work.
Third, Obama wants Pakistan to act more resolutely against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, such as in areas bordering Afghanistan. There is no indication how this can succeed when Bush had failed for years already.
Bush had given Pakistan US$10bil (RM35.5bil) to fight terrorism, to little effect. Now Obama wants to give the same amount to Afghanistan for the same purpose, and no doubt it will be happily received.
Fourth, the enduring problem of seeking a lasting solution on Palestine impacts on the United States resoundingly through special ties with “closest regional ally” Israel.
Bush virtually gave up on a solution when he passed the problem to Obama just days ago.
Yet the huge challenge of brokering a just and meaningful peace remains. It requires Washington to act fairly and be seen to do so, which is difficult when some of Obama’s Jewish senior aides have problems with Palestinian leaders.
Fifth, Hezbollah is also part of government institutions in Lebanon, so no lasting solution with Israel is possible without being able to work with them.
It may be tempting for Obama to act on Israel’s behalf by allowing repeated Israeli invasions of Lebanon, as Bush did, but that would only enlarge the problem and minimise any solution.
Much the same applies to Syria, which Bush ordered US forces to attack only two weeks ago. If Obama does not move swiftly and decisively to end US aggression there, it may fester and grow to sap US strength and credibility.
Seventh, Iran likewise awaits more positive moves from the White House on bilateral relations. Obama can expect Teheran to reci­procate on either constructive or inflammatory policies.
Even more than Lebanon or Syria, Iran is depicted by Israel as a deserving target justifying a US attack. The Bush White House had resisted this Israeli pressure before, but “change” for an inexperienced Obama could mean succumbing to such pressure.
With Cuba and Latin American countries critical of Washington, Bush had kept tabs without over-reacting. Obama should leave well enough alone, since the focus of their criticism has been Bush himself.
Ninth, Bush rightly moved with caution on Pyongyang while keeping a wary eye there, as North Korea trundles towards implosion. Patience is crucial in six-party talks on dismantling nuclear facilities, particularly given the lack of intelligence on the ground.
Rash action by “lancing the boil”, as upon an overt power struggle in Pyongyang, could trigger a political explosion with deadly fallout in South Korea, Japan, China and elsewhere. Left to itself, North Korea is no threat to anyone but itself.
Tenth, Russia is no longer the Soviet Union but it still expects some respect as a major country with a rising economy and a redoubtable history and culture. Provocative US moves like siting missile bases on its doorstep are unnecessary and may not be worth the costs and gamble.
The same is true for excluding and containing China with projects like an “alliance of democracies”, which are likely to backfire. Beijing’s biggest worry now is disruption of its ties with Taiwan, and there is little anxiety about that with today’s Taipei.
The biggest current pitfall in US-China relations is US pressure on revaluing the yuan, which Obama said he would exert. US analysts had advised Bush against such pressure, as that is no answer and many China producers are US firms based there.
Twelfth, how much can or will Obama change relations with Israel towards neutrality? Since so much in US global interests hangs on this lopsided axis, how or if it changes can be seen as a test of Obama’s promise of change.
US intelligence officials in recent days briefed Obama on their version of events, and Bush himself will brief Obama from tomorrow.
Deciding which of Bush’s policies to change and which others to continue will make a world of difference.