David Dumke
And so the drift continues for American foreign policy in the Middle East. What could a decade ago be explained as the confused missteps of the world’s lone superpower attempting to adapt to the collapse of a bipolar world, today simply cannot be justified. The disastrous impact of the invasion of Iraq and the attempt to create a democratic, centralized state in fiercely tribal Afghanistan, combined with the absence of an Arab-Israeli peace process and the unexpected appearance of the Arab Spring, has seemingly paralyzed a confused Washington.
Indeed, the Obama administration seems permanently fitted with cement shoes, taking few proactive decisions to shore up its position in the volatile region. Criticism of its performance comes from all quarters on a growing list of challenges. There are no clear red lines on Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, or a host of other problematic situations great and small. The call for a new Palestinian-Israeli peace process, with the promise of massive economic support to Palestine, will most likely go unanswered.
New problems, like the potentially very serious spat between Egypt and Ethiopia over Addis Ababa’s plans for a massive new hydroelectric dam, are not even being discussed. In fact, on the dam, the only mention, made in passing by a US State Department spokesman, was a flaccid statement hoping Egypt and Ethiopia worked together “constructively” on the issue.
To be fair to Barack Obama, he never has enjoyed freedom of action. Domestically, he has had to confront the most devastating economic downturn since the Great Depression – a job he seems to have managed capably. He has also had to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, with the goal of gracefully exiting two losing issues at great financial and diplomatic cost. Congress has played an obstructionist role throughout his tenure.
But this does not excuse the lack of foresight that will continue to plague American statecraft. The fundamental problem isn’t just how the Americans are reacting to challenges, or the personnel guiding policy. The problem is the lack of policy itself. What are American objectives in the region? What are America’s national security interests? If foreign assistance and military might are tools of diplomacy, to what end are they being used?
As Lucius Annaeus Seneca said long ago, “If one does not know to which port they are sailing, no wind is favorable.” And at present, the US ship of state is in irons – endangering not only the tenuous American position in the region, but threatening to further expand the number and severity of regional problems. Because like it or not, America for the time being is still the world’s swing producer of foreign policy; its policies, pronouncements, and actions directly construct parameters around key global issues.
This week a few developments highlighted the lack of American vision, and the danger posed by it. As mentioned, control over the flow of the Nile River has long been vital to the survival of the nations through which it flows. By colonial-era treaties, Egypt has a great say in what can and can’t be constructed along its path. For Egypt, threats to the flow of the Nile have long been the one national security issue which is well known, a clear red line. In short, if Egypt’s lifeblood is blocked by the construction of a dam, Cairo will pounce – immediately declaring war.
It is a testament to Egypt’s momentary weakness that Ethiopia began constructing the Grand Renaissance Dam without Cairo’s input – and apparently without feasibility studies that would demonstrate that there was no threat to Egypt or Sudan. This is the continuation of a policy to ignore Egypt, which was excluded from a 2010 deal by Nile basin nations over water use.
How Egypt, enduring domestic instability, ultimately reacts could have enormous consequences to both Africa and the Middle East. Initial reaction from Cairo, which of course should have been on top of the issue, is of intense anger. Military threats to Ethiopia are shared among Egyptian politicians of all ideological stripes. Ethiopia’s reaction, in turn, has thus far been impetuous if not belligerent. Said the presidential spokesman about a possible Egyptian military reaction, it is, "the stuff of science fiction, not reality."
Potential military confrontation between two pivotal international players, both of whom have been allied with Washington, is cause for alarm, not hope for “constructive dialogue.”
Meanwhile, scores of NGO workers in Egypt were convicted of violating Egyptian law in a high profile court case which has served the interest of no one. The Egyptian government has the most to lose from this decision, not only on the merits of the law, but by the almost comical logic employed by the judge overseeing the case. To the international community, it is yet another sign of the unsteady character of today’s Egypt, and will almost certainly give pause to donor nations and the international business community.
US indignation over the NGO case, including a heated denunciation by Secretary of State John Kerry, has had little impact in Cairo. But almost forgotten in the whole debate is the question of what the NGOs on the ground were doing in Egypt and, most importantly, why. What interests were they serving? Why have Egyptian officials consistently complained about foreign involvement in civil society organizations? And if it is, in fact, in the US interest to fund certain groups, were the benefits of the programs sponsored worth the political backlash? In short, what was the goal here, and if an eventual confrontation with Cairo was likely to happen, what was the strategy of dealing with it?
Finally, a speech given by Obama’s 2008 presidential election foe Sen. John McCain was covered extensively by the media. While the 25-year Senate veteran is now a bit player who has never really gotten over his drubbing by Obama, he is counted as a statesman. McCain, who has long supported military intervention in Syria, pointed out the obvious: the longer the Syrian conflict plays out, the more likely it will cause regional sectarian strife. This is not to say that McCain’s idea of military intervention is correct, but the point is that without a plan, or a red line, the Syrian problem will fester and could easily spread far beyond its borders.
There was much discussion of President Obama’s recent appointments of Susan Rice as National Security Advisor and Samantha Power as UN Ambassador. Commentators pondered what this meant for the direction of US foreign policy, particularly since the pair come from the liberal interventionist school of foreign policy, in contrast to the realists Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. But these beltway debates are utterly inconsequential, because the bottom line is that it matters not who is at the helm, or which way the winds blow, if there is no policy.
— David Dumke is a veteran analyst on regional policy and American foreign policy.
