U.S. Middle East Diplomacy: Course Reversed?

  2013/10/21 source：

The recent developments in America’s Middle East diplomacy were dramatical, showing favorable signs of improvement not only in the Israel-Palestinian issue but also in Syria’s chemical weapons crisis and Iran’s nuclear proliferation. Nonetheless, all this does not mean that the U.S. has reversed the downward course in its Middle East Policy since the Bush administration.

The recent moves in America’s Middle East diplomacy were indeed admirable. Secretary Kerry’s repeated visits to the region and his enthusiastic mediation between Israel and the Palestinians which helped relaunch the peace negotiation process revived the international community’s hope and the Israelis’ and Palestinian’s confidence in the peace process.

The U.S. also made a breakthrough in the significant yet complicated U.S.-Iran bilateral relationship. Though failing to cross Rouhani’s path at the UN General Assembly, President Obama was finally able to have a fifteen minutes’ phone talk with Rouhani before the latter left the U.S.. Mr. Kerry had a private conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister at the “6 1” Ministerial Talks. Friendly atmosphere breeds favorable results and it is likely that the Iranian nuclear negotiations due on Oct 15th and 16th will be held in an equally friendly atmosphere.

The Obama administration also scored a goal on the Syria issue. Some in America were frustrated when the administration did not launch a military strike against the Assad regime for the chemical weapons attacks and regarded Obama’s reactions as a failure. But it is still doubtful who should be held responsible for the chemical weapons attacks. In fact the U.S. has already achieved the goal of morally defaming the Assad regime and earned the legitimacy of taking possible tougher measures against the regime.

There are several reasons why Obama has made successive breakthroughs in its Middle East diplomacy. To begin with, the U.S. has a solid diplomatic foundation in this region as a result of its longtime presence, superpower strength, and multiple assets. Besides, the hard work of Secretary Kerry is the direct reason. A senior Democrat, Mr. Kerry regards himself as an enthusiastic and qualified Middle East expert. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he headed a delegation visiting Syria, trying to persuade the country not to follow Iran in terms of foreign policy. After becoming the State Secretary, his main focus has always been on the Middle East, mediating among all related parties. His diligence is certainly undeniable.

Yet it’s still debatable whether the the U.S. has already found the answer to the multiple thorny questions and whether its diplomatic passivity in the Middle East since the Bush administration has been changed.

Without doubt, the relaunched Israel-Palestinian peace process showed encouraging signs. Yet given the Israeli firm position, the prospect is still doubtful. How can the international community believe that there will be substantial progress in the peace negotiations when Israel does not yield at all on suspending its construction of settlements and the U.S. is reluctant to take tough measures against an unshakable Israel. The discussion of Syria’s chemical weapons issue certainly meets the demand of the whole international community for eliminating weapons of mass destruction. But the issue of chemical weapons is only part of the Syrian crisis and the successful disposal of chemical weapons does not mean the final settlement of the Syrian issue.

Though easing the U.S-Iran tension is the common aspiration of the international community, Iran and the U.S. only nominally denounce their rivalry position, neither change their thinking and logic. Rouhani stressed that the U.S. and Israel are the destabilizing factor of the world and called for “constructive contact” with the U.S. “based on mutual respect and benefit”, while Obama believed that deterrence and negotiations are the means towards agreement, sticking to the traditional carrot and the stick approach. Rouhani’s predecessor commented that the carrot and the stick are used to treat the donkey. But Iran is not a donkey. Will the U.S. change its policy which shows no respect?

Of course, it must be pointed out that the intensive American Middle East diplomacy does not mean that the Asia-Pacific’s role is diminished in its overall diplomatic planning. There are two reasons why the Middle East stands out in U.S. foreign policy agenda. First, Secretary Kerry hopes to make a breakthrough in what he is good at. Second, the U.S. believes that the North Korean nuclear issue and Asia-Pacific regional issues are manageable for the time being while Middle Eastern issues are escalating which the U.S., as the world police cannot afford to overlook. The importance of the Asia-Pacific, as the region bearing on the U.S. economic stability and strategic interests, will not be lessened.