The reality of Washington is now being reflected in the face of Barack Obama -- a city where politics is not the art of the possible, but business as usual, writes Hassan Nafaa* The US president's State of the Union address, delivered to a joint session of Congress in January every year, is one of the characteristic features of the American political system. Dating back to the earliest years of the American republic, the speech is more than a tradition; it is a mechanism of government accountability. Under the American constitution the president is required to give an annual report to the nation in which he describes his accomplishments over the preceding year, explains the most important difficulties that he either overcame or that prevented him from fulfilling his promises, and unveils his plans and projects for the coming year, which he then opens to public debate. It is only natural that this event draws the full attention of the media in the US and abroad, and all the more so one year into a new president's first term in office. It is one of the most important tests of his real leadership abilities and an important gauge of how far he lags behind the promises he made so generously during his electoral campaign. However, Obama's first State of the Union address on 27 January had a special flavour that set it apart from all its predecessors. In large measure this is due to the fact that Obama's electoral victory was a historic event in every sense of the term. He is the first president with African and Islamic roots. He assumed power at a major turning point in American history when the non- conservatives' enterprise was on the verge of collapse. Because of his youthful energy and great charisma he easily won the confidence of a large majority of voters in the US, in spite of his ethnic and religious origins, and the admiration of millions of people around the world who saw him as a saviour who would lead the world to safety after several years of being mired in stormy and precarious shoals. But the uniqueness of this occasion also stemmed from the fact that Obama's first year in office had proved disappointing to many, both at home and abroad. Not only has his popularity sunk below 50 per cent, for a president who swept the polls on the strength of his promise for change it is not a good sign that many have begun to wonder whether there is an essential difference between his policies and those of Bush, especially in foreign affairs. Such thoughts and sympathies naturally induced analysts to take a magnifying glass to Obama's opinion on how his country and the world stands after one year in office with an eye to determining whether the widespread hope for change that had been pinned on him was entirely misplaced or whether he had some excuse for falling short of expectations because of the heavy legacy he inherited from eight years of the disastrous Bush administration and should therefore be given more time before issuing a final verdict. As I studied Obama's speech I was struck by three major points. The first was its heavy focus on domestic issues. Although the US is mired in two wars that are draining it materially and morally, and in spite of the fact that these wars and other problems overseas have a direct impact on domestic security and daily life in the US, he gave surprisingly little time to foreign policy and the US's relationship with the world. The second was the strong undercurrent of anxiety over the future role and status of the US in the world. Obama was careful to include lengthy passages in which he affirmed his confidence in the brilliance of the American people and their strength of their determination to remain forever in the lead. However, this could not conceal a deep sense of foreboding and, interestingly, this sentiment appears to stem more from his concern for the health of the American system of government and the viability of its mechanisms for dealing with the current challenges than it does from the magnitude of the challenges that face the American people and their lack of sufficient resolve to meet them head on. Thirdly, he completely overlooked questions related to the Arab world, especially the Arab- Israeli conflict and US efforts to broker a peaceful settlement. The absence of so much as a mention of "Palestine", "the Middle East" and even "Israel" was all the more glaring when one recalls that for years virtually every State of the Union address included at least a short paragraph reaffirming America's commitment to the security of Israel and its determination to reach a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. So significant and, perhaps, ominous are these phenomena that they merit closer inspection. I suspect that Obama's heavy focus on domestic concerns, far from being a desperate bid to butter up the American electorate in advance of mid-term legislative elections, reflects his profound sense of the magnitude of difficulties the US is facing and his fear that the US's prestige and influence in the world order have slid perhaps beyond his ability to recover. On more than one occasion he stressed the superiority of economies that depended on clean energy. Countries that could create these kinds of economies were the countries that would lead the economic order in the future and, significantly, he suggested that China and India were already well on their way in this regard. True, Obama spoke at length on the many measures his administration has taken to get the American economy back on track, listing its ambitious projects in the fields of education and clean energy in particular. He also emphasised the American people's will to stay ahead and to remain at the helm of the global order in throughout the 21st century, which he stressed would be an American century. Still, there was an inescapable note of concern between every line. It is sufficient, here, to recall the figures he cited on the size of the national budgetary deficit compared to the surplus that had just begun to accumulate in 2000. That he regarded these figures high enough to justify a cap on increased allocations in all sectors apart from the most vital ones was virtually an explicit expression of his anxiety over the impact and repercussions of the economic crisis. If the economic situation is cause for dismay, the flaws he perceives in the American system of government stir an element of bitterness. Perhaps the most salient shortcomings, in his opinion, are the perpetual electioneering and excessive power of lobbies, which render policy decisions and principles vulnerable to campaign tactics or unduly influential special interest groups, sometimes even foreign ones. I doubt that grievance was Obama's way of evading responsibility for his failure, to date, to follow through on his promises for change. Rather, I believe that it reflects the shock of a relative newcomer to the decision- making maze in Washington and the frustration of one who sought to advance the interests of the more marginalised sectors in American society. Evidently the shock opened his eyes to some hard realities in the American system of government, which he now views from a different perspective at the peak of the hierarchy. Perhaps he was stunned by the degree of calcification that has gnawed away at the democratic substance of an order that some claim to be subject to the dictates of the military-industrial complex. In all events, Obama vowed to take steps to minimise the influence of the lobbies. At the same time, however, he both explicitly and implicitly made it clear that he would not be able to govern without the help of the Republican Party. In this regard he stressed how he held regular meetings with Republican lawmakers and voiced his desire to come up with a coordinating mechanism between the Republican and Democratic parties that would facilitate and speed up the passage of the legislation needed to contend with pressing challenges. As I mentioned above, what I found both peculiar and worrisome was the lack of any reference to the Arab- Israeli conflict. In fact, he barely touched upon this region as a whole, apart from a reference to the threat that nuclear proliferation poses to the US and the world and a reaffirmation of his commitment to be tougher on Iran, which has proven too intransigent on the subject of its uranium enrichment activities. His glaring omission of the Arab-Israeli conflict was not a tacit renunciation of his pledge to seek a just and comprehensive settlement to this conflict on the basis of a two-state solution. More likely it was an expression of a conviction that the domestic, regional and international conditions are not conducive to a satisfactory follow-through on his peace drive. The balance of political forces in the US are not favourable to any effective exercise of pressure on Israel by his administration, and the regional and international balances of power are not favourable to moves that would bring into reach a settlement founded on various compromises. In light of the foregoing observations, Obama clearly seems to be heading towards a crossroads, although he will not reach it before the end of this year and, specifically, until after the mid-term legislative elections in November. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not bode well. But at least he hopes to be able to withdraw US forces from Iraq by August, which accomplishment, together with a successful passage of his health insurance bill, will help settle those elections in favour of the Democrats and which, in turn, will enable him to press forward more confidently and courageously on his promise of change. However, this outcome is far from certain. Obama knows that the American right and ultra right have begun to regain their balance and reorder their ranks. He is also aware that the situation in the Middle East is heading towards renewed tension; especially since Iran or Israel have reasons to propel the region in that direction instead of towards calm. Most probably Obama will do his best to restrain these parties and maintain calm in the region until after the withdrawal from Iraq and the November elections. In the end, however, he may fail in this endeavour. The American right is desperately working to push him into a corner, forcing him to escalate the confrontation with Iran, on behalf of Israel. This is the source of impending danger. Obama's State of the Union address revealed both his helplessness and his confusion at this juncture. Sometimes a sense of weakness makes people put on a display of might. Therefore, we might wake up one day to the renewed sound of war drums and, once again, the Middle East will be the battle theatre. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
