If you intend to visit an Arab country, you will likely come across many indignant people criticizing the so-called international community for being a self-serving gathering of countries or an interest group. No matter where you will be, whether at street corners, cafés, recreational facilities, social clubs, or at any political gathering, you will meet many people denouncing the iniquity of Obama foreign policy and condemning the dormancy of the United Nations (U.N.).
This new-sprung actuality, however, came up as a consequence of the U.N. dereliction, the inaction of the self-absorbed European Union, and, in response to the substandard foreign policy of Obama administration. Actually, this unreserved pattern of expression has emerged because Arab resentment is maxed out to an unprecedented level.
Since the Syrian revolt as yet, Arabs and Muslims along with human rights advocates are unremittingly criticizing the U.N. Security Council for being impotent to champion its human rights charter or, at least, to maintain regional peace—let alone world peace. Besides branding all dozy Arab leaders, Arabs openly mock much of Barack Obama, president of the foremost world-leading country. They see him—especially after Mr. Obama retreated from honoring his asserted red-line about the usage of chemical weapons in Syria, as a hesitant leader who hides his frail leadership traits by delivering empty speeches and false ultimatums.
It is not hard to conclude, long before the Syrian tragedy, why Arab and Muslim people do not trust the United States and United Nations. This long-acting case of mistrust stems from a long history of U.S. partiality to Israel, indifference of the most powerful twosome (U.S. and U.N.) to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all, and for giving a cold shoulder to more than six decades of Palestinian agony. Yet what is new, at this historic political juncture, is to see U.S. central key allies in the Middle East, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, conjointly with many Arab governments taking the front lines to decry Obama’s policy toward Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and other countries.
A look at the current dysfunctional American-Egyptian relations, for instance, and how and why Egypt’s leadership together with the masses angrily dismiss the wishes or bits of advice (commanding instructions) of Obama administration, and hence the recent revitalization of Russian-Egyptian connection, should portray to all what is in the minds of most Arabs, politicians and people alike. Concurrently, mulling over why and how Saudi Arabia has spurned its delegated seat in the U.N. Security Council should infer to everyone that Arab frustrations will turn into actions. Add up the negative message behind the recent announcements of Saudi chief of Intelligence about the future of American-Saudi relations to realize that there is a serious downslope in the strategic cooperation between the U.S. and Arab world.
Patently, such strong remonstrations are very alarming political signals. At one instance, it is so because it reveals the severity of Arab malcontent and disagreement with the United Nation and its American godfather. And, more crucially, because it substantiates the shadowed fact that Arab-U.S. governmental relations are torn down to a very worrying level.
It is significant to call to mind that Arab authorities, at large, used to align their policy-making orientation in concert with the U.S. administration even when they were at odds, like on Iraq and Iran. Yet, in view of the current U.S. strategy concerning Syria and Lebanon, Arab governments became so provoked at which they publicly rebuff Obama’s Middle East policy and rebuke the dead-end approaches of the United Nations.
Over and above Arab objections, one cannot minifies the impact of the recent official criticism of Israeli authorities and the ongoing strong argufy between Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Obama over Iran’s nukes program and some other issues. Besides those transnational disapprovals, we witness many U.S. top officials picking apart Mr. Obama faulty Middle East strategy much more than most Middle East politicos. The most recent explicit critiques and tough statements of Obama’s Middle East strategy brought forward by his two voluntarily resigned defense secretaries (Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta) and other prominent American politicians have added much weight to the question of lack of competency and credibility of the current president of the world’s sole superpower
Such being the case, it is sensible to review, fairly and squarely, whether these serious allegations have grounds or it is just a moment of political adverts. Alas, given the record of president Obama misplays, it is almost impossible to any observer or political analyst to deny the factuality of all blame.
Actually, the ongoing criticism of Obama’s faulty policies is not solely limited to his ill resolutions towards the massacres in Syria (where more than 120,000 people have been slaughtered—and still counting) or for his retraction from penalizing Assad’s regime for serving Syrian women and children with chemical weapons. It is as much about Obama’s support to the reign of Muslims Brotherhood in Egypt and his shortcoming to firmly deal with Iran’s nuclear challenge (seven years of sanctions, and counting). It is also about why Mr. Obama has forsaken Iraq’s political arena to the Iranian mullahs and radical revolutionary guards, let alone turning a blind eye to the terrorist acts of pro-Iranian militant groups and pro-Assad malefactors in Lebanon and Syria. Like or not, those are more than enough instances, even in the realpolitik world, to adjudge the incompetency of any world leader or international body.
In most of the world, the relevancy of the ceremonial United Nations and credibility of its veto-crippled Security Council are now in question, which could diminish the future role of the organization to observational levels, at best. However, the real call into question is whether the Arab world, chiefly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, can stomach the soft leadership qualities of President Obama for the next three years. It is also about whether the present U.S. administration can afford to disband Arab-U.S. strategic alliance in their attempts to neutralize (instead of denuclearizing) Iran, and hence regain some ground in Iran and Iraq.
Apparently, the likelihood that the U.S. is en route to lose its preference and momentum in the Arab world is growing like never before. This is, however, because prominent Arab governments, especially those who maintain strong ties with the U.S., are reviewing the pros and cons of their alliance with the United States.
Thereon, they find that they do not see the promised self-governing Palestinian state on the world map nor have regional security advantages or political prerogatives in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Sudan, for example. On top of that, they see Iraq roving in the Iranian orbit, while the possibility of losing Syria, Bahrain, and Lebanon to pro-Iran factions is on the rise. Meanwhile, the U.S. is busy in delivering falsifications for leaving the Arab world to skin-dive Middle East’s deep waters alone. Contrastingly, Arabs and the world are witnessing the decisiveness of the Russian leadership and commitment of the Iranian regime in defending and supporting their Syrian ally, despite Assad’s proven war crimes.
In fact, although Arab leaders condemn the immoral Russian and Iranian course of actions; nevertheless, they look up to see their western allies similarly standing firm with their causes—or, at least, not to sell them out to the first buyer.
Apart from discussing, at this instance, the required remedies to pacify and redefine the Arab-U.S. relations, which should have been done years before, so that a genuine strategic partnership can be reborn to serve the mutual interests of both ends—not only those of the U.S.
The fact remains that the primary cause for the on-going political feebleness in the western world is not correlated to the presence of domestic degenerative economic factors in the west, as they claim. It is rather the contrary. In large part, it is so because most western leaders do not possess the integrity and the nerve to epitomize their national civil and human values outside their borders at which they burned-out their credibility as guardians of human rights.
However, once you look to the United States, the issue is more decisive and very momentous since America is the sole world-beating power of this era. Unfortunately, there is a worldwide belief that America, and hence the world, needs now more than ever leaders, like Abraham Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt, who have the capability, fortitude, and political morality to cope with the profound challenges of our time.
Arab and western statesmen alike should think over how the resoluteness and decisiveness of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher saved and revitalized the United Kingdom, and how the integrity and credibility of Charles de Gaulle salvaged and revived France, so that to vivify their countries and, most importantly, create a safe world to future generations.
Until then, the current U.S. Administration should bear in mind that once its bald eagle dares not to fly, eastern raptors will take over.