The Arabs are growing tired of waiting for the promises the new US president made to be fulfilled, writes Hassan Nafaa* On 30 November, one day before the US president went to West Point to announce his new strategy for Afghanistan, filmmaker Michael Moore sent Barack Obama an open letter. Having heard of the president's intention to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Moore asked if Obama wanted to be a war president. Moore warned Obama of what his actions mean. If Obama sanctions a surge in troops, Moore said, he will "destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in (him)." Obama should stop listening to the generals, the filmmaker said. Recalling that the collapse of the Soviet Union was brought upon by its invasion of Afghanistan, Moore told the president to fire General McChrystal, just as Truman fired General McArthur when he wanted to invade China during the 1950 Korean War. In a civilian-run government such as that of America, the generals should listen to the politicians and not the other way around, Moore said. Moore must have been disappointed after Obama's West Point speech. There is a legitimate concern that more American lives and money would be wasted in a pointless war, in a war that may accelerate the end of the American empire just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moore is not the only one disappointed by Obama's performance. Many, inside and outside the US, are dismayed. Even those who may not care for the future of America are worried about international peace and security. They are worried about the future of a world order that many -- including myself -- were hoping would improve in Obama's time. Much of the hope once pinned on Obama is about to disappear, if not gone already. And no Nobel Prize can redeem that. Those who cheered Obama into office, millions around the world, now feel betrayed. The Arab world was horrified, to say the least, when the president of the mightiest nation in the world gave way to the like of Netanyahu, to someone who snubbed the international community when the latter asked him to stop all forms of settlement in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Netanyahu's subsequent proposal to freeze settlements for no more than 10 months was just a joke. The Israeli prime minister excluded Jerusalem. And he is allowing units that had been issued permits to be built, which means that Israel may actually double its rate of building settlements. And yet Obama welcomed the Israeli position as a step in the right direction. Obama considered the Netanyahu scheme as an opportunity the Palestinians and Arabs should grab. He even urged the Arabs to resume negotiations without delay. Now there are signs that Israel may have succeeded in changing the main thrust of US policy in the Middle East. The Americans may have bought the Israeli argument that the Iranian nuclear programme, and not the Palestinian issue, is the main threat to US interests in the region. Consequently, the Americans are judging their allies and enemies of the US in the region by their position on the Iranian programme, by how willing they are to cooperate with the Americans in removing its potential danger through all possible means, including military force. Many around the world are losing confidence in Obama's ability to change US policy on such issues as the International Criminal Court, global warming, human rights, and despotic regimes. In Latin America, few now see any difference between the policies of Obama and those of previous US administrations. Even in Europe, which had been hoping for an equal partnership with the US, much doubt surrounds the intentions of the new US administration. The Europeans are miffed that Washington is asking them to take up greater military and economic responsibilities in crisis zones, Afghanistan and the Middle East included, but without asking for their input in policymaking. It may not be long before Europe openly rebels against the Americans. One sign is the recent Swedish project concerning the declaration of the Palestinian state. The new US strategy in Afghanistan is likely to draw much criticism as well. Some people still hope that Obama may be able to do what he promised, especially in foreign policy. They say that Obama needs more than one year to reverse Bush's legacy and debunk the still powerful neocons. But no one is expecting Obama to do everything in one year. The problem is not that Obama is failing to meet his targets. It is that he hasn't even begun to prepare the Americans for the changes he promised to introduce. Everything that happened in US policy in the last year suggests that Obama's is losing interest in change. Perhaps he sees things in a new light now that he is in office. Perhaps he is thinking of his second term already. And maybe this is more important for him that the promise of change that rallied so many behind him before. Therefore, Obama seems to be reining in his once overriding urge. As days go by, he seems to show more sympathy to the needs of the military-industrial complex. This being the case, the Arab world has to watch closely what is happening on the US scene. The Arabs can no longer keep on making concessions just to help the American president along. To use Obama's words, we have to help him to make the change. One way to help him would be to pressure Israel, not oblige its every wish. I believe that Arab countries should use all possible means to introduce the UN as a party to the search for a settlement in the Middle East. Two documents are of crucial importance in this regard. One is the report by the International Court of Justice on the wall of racist separation that Israel calls a "security wall". The second is the Goldstone Report concerning the recent Israeli war on Gaza and the war crimes committed in it. The first report confirms the right of the Palestinians to establish their state on every inch of the territories Israel has occupied since 5 June 1967. The second report can be used not only to hunt down Israeli leaders through criminal courts around the world, but also to deter Israel from using military power again as a bargaining chip. The US administration will most probably tell us that we should stay away from the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the International Criminal Court in order not to slow down negotiations or compromise the political process. The Americans will also tell us that the Iranian nuclear programme must be stopped before it is too late. And some in the Arab world may listen carefully to such talk and offer help, if only to promote their own short-term interests. Such behaviour can only damage our higher national interests, assuming we still have any. We cannot listen to the Americans in things that would compromise the long-term interests of all Arab countries and regimes without exception. We cannot resume negotiations without guarantees of an acceptable outcome. We cannot be distracted by pointless negotiations while preparations are underway to strike at Iran, just to please Israel. Perhaps some Arab countries would be happy to see Iran being hit. But it is unlikely that their happiness would endure, for Arab countries would discover sooner or later that they had been deceived and that a strike against Iran can harm them too. Is it too late for Obama to champion change? Not necessarily. But as far as changes in the Middle East are concerned, we need to take the initiative. In particular, we need to change our policy towards both the US and Israel. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
