Dina Ezzat takes stock of Obama's policies in the Middle East during his first year in office "It seems that Obama is very confident about winning a second term. This is the only way to explain his slow pace on all issues related to this region, especially the Middle East peace process," commented a Cairo-based diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity. According to this and other foreign, especially Middle Eastern, sources who spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly, the great expectations that many had of the then newly elected US President Barack Hussein Obama have dissipated since January of last year. Some are even arguing that it is only pessimism that has not now largely been dispelled. Since his speech before a large and appreciative audience at Cairo University in June last year, Obama, Middle Eastern critics charge, has not delivered on anything that he promised, or at least on what he led people to believe he promised. Subjects of particular dismay are Obama's failure to stabilise Iraq despite his promise to pull out the best part of US troops from the country by the summer, his confused policies in Afghanistan, and above all his conspicuous failure to put the Arab-Israeli peace process back on the rails, not to mention his failure to put pressure on Israel to halt its illegal settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. After nine trips to the region and as many consultations held in the US and Europe with regional and Western allies, Obama's special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has been reported by one regional diplomat involved in the peace process to be "in the middle of nowhere". Some Hamas and Palestinian Authority (PA) officials have said as much in so many words, and, in an impressive show of agreement for organisations that are otherwise adversaries, have also said that Mitchell "is lost in the maze of Israeli conditions, arguments and analyses." This impression is shared in the three Arab capitals closest to Washington. Mitchell comes and goes. He throws in ideas here and there. He listens carefully and tries hard, but he is still negotiating terms for the resumption of negotiations. The most optimistic of Arab diplomats involved in the peace process say they are hopeful that some form of indirect talks "at a technical level" could start over the next few months. However, these same diplomats doubt both the sustainability and, indeed, the productivity of such talks. Arab diplomats are particularly dismayed by what they term the "clear backtracking by the Obama administration on the settlements issue." The Obama administration had promised its Arab allies, as well as the PA, that it would work to get Israel to impose a settlements freeze for the duration of the final status negotiations, but it has now changed its posture. The message that US diplomats are now giving their Arab allies is that it would be better to by-pass the "settlements block" and start negotiations under the current ten-month partial settlements freeze announced by Israel. Even the most moderate of Arab allies have been unable to get the Obama administration to provide requirements for the resumption of the negotiations in the absence of the settlements freeze. The Obama administration has not cooperated with an Arab request that the US provide worthwhile international guarantees of the recognition of a viable Palestinian state within two to three years if the Palestinians agree to negotiate irrespective of settlements construction. A PA minister who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Weekly that the US had offered "an empty letter" of guarantees that would be worth nothing if the Palestinians went to the negotiations and got nothing from Israel but stalling. Furthermore, an Egyptian proposal presented to the US administration earlier this year on the basis of a limited Arab consensus to start negotiations on the borders of a projected Palestinian state and the status of East Jerusalem was not picked up on by the Obama administration either, or, for that matter, by the Israeli government. Despite Egyptian views that the US "will come around" to the Egyptian proposal, those concerned have failed to offer credible indications to support any such optimism. Arab diplomats in Washington are sober about what Obama will ultimately be able to offer, despite his best intentions. He will be able to offer very little in the near future, they say, especially if the current Israeli government led by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continues in power. Obama does not have enough congressional support to exercise pressure on Netanyahu, Arab diplomats say, while the Israeli prime minister can count on the "sharp and effective" influence of the Israel lobby both in the White House and the Capitol. If Obama wakes up in November 2010 to find a more Republican Congress following the mid-term elections, then he will be in a position to do even less, they add. Such concerns are echoed by people in the Middle East, particularly regarding the lack of progress on Palestinian- Israeli negotiations. If the current state of stagnation continues, then the stability of already fragile Palestinian institutions may be threatened. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose legitimacy is bound up with the peace process, has already found himself with his back to the wall, and he is considering stepping down this year should the current stagnation continue. This could mean the collapse of the PA itself, and Egypt and Jordan, the two countries neighbouring Gaza and the West Bank, are particularly worried about this scenario. According to Arab moderates, the prolonged stagnation in the Middle East peace process is playing into the hands of those who support militant resistance rather than negotiations with Israel. Hamas and Hizbullah, not to mention their supporter Iran, would both be strengthened by the collapse of the peace process. While Egyptian and Middle East diplomats say that they are still hopeful that Obama will announce "parameters for the resumption of peace talks", perhaps during a visit to the region later this year, no one can be sure that this will take place. Equal concern reigns over the Obama administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. "Obama will pull out his forces and go, but he does not know what he is leaving behind him. We will work things out, but his decision to pull out troops might be a bit premature," said one Iraqi diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity. Concern over the situation in Iraq after the withdrawal of US troops is far from being a strictly Iraqi concern, and no one in the eastern Arab world would argue that such a withdrawal will not bring costs with it. Many Arab capitals are concerned about growing Iranian influence in Iraq following the departure of the best part of the US troops. Others worry about the expansion of arms smuggling in the region. However, most are worried about the stability of Iraq over the medium to long term. "Iraq could be a headache, but the focus of Obama is on Afghanistan and Iran," commented one Turkish diplomat. Neither he nor other Middle Eastern diplomats have been impressed by the Obama administration's policies towards Iran, something that links them with the Iranians themselves. There seems to be agreement that Obama is still not close to reaching a deal with Iran on Iran's nuclear programme, and, worse, there is growing agreement in many diplomatic quarters in the region and among some European diplomats that if push comes to shove Obama will not necessarily be able to stop Israel from hitting Iranian targets or attacking Iran's allies, such as Hamas and Hizbullah. Egyptian Assistant Foreign Minister Hisham El-Zimaity argues that one year after Obama's taking office the only change has been one of style. However, this is not necessarily a small change, he said, since style is of the essence in conducting diplomacy, especially at a time when many in the region and elsewhere were exhausted by the less than tactful style of the previous Bush administration. Obama's change of style, El-Zimaity said, has helped garner the support of US allies in the region and has supported their initiatives. Egypt has been forthcoming in trying to find a way out of the stagnation of the peace process as a result, for example. El-Zimaity said that there has been a significant change in the style of the Obama administration in discussing disagreements with regional allies. This has been helpful in bridging gaps and pushing forward "in-depth and dense consultations," at least between Cairo and Washington, he said. However, El-Zimaity added that this change of style would need to be complimented with a change of policies once Obama's first year in the White House was over. Washington needs to proceed faster and more firmly with getting Israel to cooperate on re-launching Middle East peace talks, El-Zimaity said. It also needs to take the concerns of the Muslim world into account in its own legitimate concerns over terrorism. Washington will need to find an answer to the stand-off between the West and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme, given that an agreement with Iran could help significantly in stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. El-Zimaity is not alone in voicing such opinions. Other diplomats in the region have been more blunt and have suggested that one year after he entered the Oval Office Obama needs to move beyond eloquent speeches to constructive policy making. Even Syrian diplomats, who acknowledge a rapprochement between Damascus and Washington that has evolved into the nomination of a US ambassador to Syria, say that the peace process in the region needs to be supported by direct dialogue. "President Obama inherited unprecedented challenges at home and abroad," says the opening line of an article posted on The White House Blog to mark the first year of the president's term in office. The article goes on to describe the grim situation left by the previous administration of George W Bush. From the global economy and the climate to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and from the situation in Iran to the US healthcare programme, the article argues that Obama has been doing and not just talking. The line from Washington asks readers to think of what things could have been like had it not been for Obama. Obama has slowly but surely moved on a wide range of issue, this line says, arguing that Obama has moved to open up peace talks in the Middle East after the Israeli war on Gaza, and that he has moved in Iraq from a heavy military presence to a considerably reduced number of American troops. In Afghanistan, Obama has moved from the exclusion of the Taliban to their partial inclusion, and he is adjusting Washington's posture on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the issues of energy security and climate change. Obama, the official US line goes on, is as committed as ever to bringing about the changes he offered during his speech at Cairo University last summer. However, when and how he will do so are questions that remain to be answered over the next three years of his presidency.
