While little has yet been achieved, it is perhaps too early in the day to judge the impact or potential of Barack Obama, writes Abdel-Moneim El-Mashat* Though President Obama's election created euphoria both in the United States and in the world at large, his first year's lack of substantial achievements shocked his supporters. He came with hopes for change, dreams of the future. However -- and especially in foreign policy -- there is very little change to be proud of. In fact, there is a lot of debate in the US concerning the efficiency of the president and his administration, where many people think that he has become a man of the media though he calls for action. This is reflected in the loss of the Democratic majority in Senate while others predict that there might be more losses in the November House elections. Moreover, and though, he was able to introduce the state, contrary to George W Bush, as a regulator of economic and financial activities, he was unable to secure the required majority to pass his Medical Care Act. However, there is some improvement in the state of the economy from a year ago in spite of the fact that the growth is still negative by 2.6 per cent. We do not want to be harsh on the president as we obviously had lots of expectations of him. We should be practical and consider all the challenges, both domestically and internationally, which he has to face and handle and that require long-term strategy. It is true that the president was able to change the political discourse with different international communities where he introduced concepts such as sharing, partnerships and smart power; however, foreign policy design and implementation witnessed very intangible changes. It is a fact that Obama is able to extend cooperative interactions with the EU, Latin American states, Russia, Japan and China. He also addressed the Muslim world twice -- from Turkey and Cairo, where he advocated partnership and tolerance and promised to solve protracted conflicts, on the top of which is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He reiterated his administration's commitment to the two-state solution where a Palestinian state exists side by side with Israel. Moreover, he called on the Israelis to stop building settlements on the Palestinian occupied territories. In addition, he appointed Senator George Mitchell, who is known for his objectivity and efficiency, as his special representative to the Middle East in order to negotiate between the Palestinians and the Israelis. However, a year later, the president acknowledged that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so complicated that he feels a different course should be taken. While he, as his predecessor, announced his full commitment to Israeli security, he only expressed his sympathy with Palestinian suffering. In fact, the US administration, the presidency and the secretary of state accepted the Israeli proposal to temporarily freeze the expansion of settlements in order to have room for negotiations. Hence, the US has, in reality, given up its stop building settlements proposal for the Israeli proposal to only put a temporary freeze on settlements. Moreover, the Israelis started leaking information about documents proposing land exchanges with Egypt and the transfer of Palestinians from Gaza to Sinai, instead of negotiating the Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian occupied territories. The US retreat from its commitment to partnership with the Muslim world and the two-state solution raises many questions about how much the US president is squeezed between the Israeli hammer and the Zionist anvil in the United States. The liberal voices in US academic institutions, political circles and civil society call for a fair and just solution to the Palestinian issue. Former president Carter, who orchestrated the Camp David process and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty in March 1979, is among the American advocates against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Both Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, in their book America and the World, emphasised the importance of solving the Palestinian issue for US security. In fact, they call on the new administration to put the conflict on its priority list as a way to release tension and limit the chances for extremism and fanaticism worldwide. One would have expected that President Obama in his first year in office would exert more effort -- a genuine effort -- to handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict instead of expressing frustration over the difficulties of reaching a peaceful settlement. It seems that Obama will fall into the same trap his predecessors fell into, achieving very little in tangible action. The continuation of this conflict due to Israeli arrogance is a sign of lack of change in US foreign policy. I must add that the strife between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority adds much complexity to the conflict, for President Obama and all of us in the region. In his election campaign, and after coming to office, President Obama declared that he would withdraw American troops from Iraq and would utilise "soft" power in handling conflict situations in the world. However, no troop withdrawals from Iraq yet took place. Moreover, the security situation in Iraq is deteriorating, though there will be elections to determine the structure of the Iraqi parliament and the next prime minister. We might add that the longer American troops stay in Iraq, the more influence in the political and strategic process Iran would have. This might be a major reason why the US is not undertaking strict measures against potential Iranian nuclear power. In this regard, the last two administrations in the US followed almost the same policy towards Iran, though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have preferred a stricter and tougher position. It might be true that the Israelis will one day attack the Iranian nuclear installations, and in this case they would entrap the US in an additional and serious regional conflict. As of now, in light of the already complex situation in the area, this is a far-fetched scenario. While Obama might have opted to use soft power in foreign policy, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- a Republican for sure -- has pushed for an increased role for the military, especially in Afghanistan and other conflict areas in the Middle East. The president ordered an increase in the US military presence in Afghanistan by 30,000 troops on the assumption that it would be possible to confront the Taliban and Al-Qaeda more efficiently, though there are strong doubts about that. Moreover, the president was about to send troops to Yemen to confront Al-Qaeda elements supported by Iran. He ended up providing equipment and sensitive and accurate information about Al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen. There was a fear that Yemen might present a third trap to American troops; indeed, it would be difficult to open a third front in the Middle East theatre. As for the administration's commitment to democracy and human rights in the Middle East, it seems that it does not have the time, energy or resources to follow through. Perhaps the administration reached the conclusion -- similar to the one Condoleezza Rice reached -- that the people of the Middle East are immune to democracy and hence it is an internal issue. Though it might be unfair and unrealistic to judge President Obama's performance after one year of a four-year term, it seems that the complexity of domestic and international challenges facing the United States are such that the president's achievements go unnoticed. In light of his Nobel Prize for peace, one would expect President Obama to allocate more time in the next three years to solving the protracted conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, in spite of Israel's rejection of a fair and just solution to the Palestinian issue. We might add that the London conference held in January in order to attract Taliban elements into the political process in Afghanistan may be a step towards a strategic shift in the handling of American and NATO military activities there. If we add that within six months American troops should start withdrawing from Iraq, one might yet imagine that President Obama has indeed started implementing his concept of smart power in US foreign policy. * The writer is dean of the Faculty of Economics and Political Science at Future University.
