The Obama Administration has plans to sell $60 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia, which is obviously intended to counter Iran's position in the Middle East. The deal includes F-15 fighter jets, helicopters, and many bombs, missiles, and other accessories like night-vision goggles and could become the largest arms deal in US history. But how will it affect the balance of power in the region? Will a strengthened Saudi Arabia subdue Iranian aspirations for regional dominance?
I see the logic of this move and think it will have positive effects in the region, but those effects will be limited. Because I believe Iran's biggest threat to be Israel (and think Iran sees it that way as well), Iran won't put a stop to its nuclear development program until that threat is removed or neutralized. For that to happen, either Israel has to reduce its nuclear capabilities (if it indeed has nuclear weapons) or Iran has to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Obviously, the former would be the ideal situation but is also the least likely of the two. That leaves the latter situation, and that option is less than desired. Washington has taken a position of supporting the rivals of Iran to balance Iranian power, but despite these efforts, Iran still wants a nuclear program to counter the Israeli threat. Does Washington need another strategy, or will policies like the mass sale of weapons to KSA or continued support of Israel eventually work?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Palestinian Plan B
Back from break and feeling pretty refreshed!
Anyways, I saw this article (by Ethan Bronner) on the New York Times website and thought it was quite interesting. Evidently, while Palestine waits for the US and Israel to work out an extension of the freeze on settlement building, its leaders are working towards finding other means of gaining support for its push for statehood. Because Palestinians are becoming less and less optimistic about the two-state solution, they are turning to international bodies for support. The idea is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and an admission of Palestinian statehood. This support, if attained, would put pressure on Israel to make some kind of decision on the matter. On the other side of the matter, Israel believes this to be a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords (which govern Israeli-Palestinian relations) and reject the move. Ultimately, Israeli leadership wants Washington to take a firm stance against Palestine's Plan B.
Personally, I like the move. Firstly, I have little faith in the current push for peace and a two-state solution and think something else needs to be done. I think Palestine has just cause to be fed up with Israel and its unwillingness to negotiate or seriously consider a Palestinian desire for statehood. However, even if Palestine does get support from these international organizations, Israel is still not obligated to recognize Palestinian statehood, and some Israeli officials are saying that this move would "kill a negotiated settlement."
All things considered, will this move achieve anything for Palestine? And even if Palestine received recognition of statehood from other state and non-state actors, would a lack of recognition from Israel take something away from that?
Finally, I thought the last two paragraphs from the article were interesting. Here they are in full:
"If the Palestinians were to go to the United Nations Security Council, they might well face an American veto. Therefore they might start in the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where dozens of countries would be likely to support them.
While that would be less binding, it would also provide a kind of symmetry — dark or poetic, depending on one’s perspective — with Israel. It was in the General Assembly in November 1947 that the Zionist movement achieved success through a resolution calling for the division of this land into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Israel has long viewed that vote as the source of its international legitimacy."
Anyways, I saw this article (by Ethan Bronner) on the New York Times website and thought it was quite interesting. Evidently, while Palestine waits for the US and Israel to work out an extension of the freeze on settlement building, its leaders are working towards finding other means of gaining support for its push for statehood. Because Palestinians are becoming less and less optimistic about the two-state solution, they are turning to international bodies for support. The idea is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and an admission of Palestinian statehood. This support, if attained, would put pressure on Israel to make some kind of decision on the matter. On the other side of the matter, Israel believes this to be a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords (which govern Israeli-Palestinian relations) and reject the move. Ultimately, Israeli leadership wants Washington to take a firm stance against Palestine's Plan B.
Personally, I like the move. Firstly, I have little faith in the current push for peace and a two-state solution and think something else needs to be done. I think Palestine has just cause to be fed up with Israel and its unwillingness to negotiate or seriously consider a Palestinian desire for statehood. However, even if Palestine does get support from these international organizations, Israel is still not obligated to recognize Palestinian statehood, and some Israeli officials are saying that this move would "kill a negotiated settlement."
All things considered, will this move achieve anything for Palestine? And even if Palestine received recognition of statehood from other state and non-state actors, would a lack of recognition from Israel take something away from that?
Finally, I thought the last two paragraphs from the article were interesting. Here they are in full:
"If the Palestinians were to go to the United Nations Security Council, they might well face an American veto. Therefore they might start in the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where dozens of countries would be likely to support them.
While that would be less binding, it would also provide a kind of symmetry — dark or poetic, depending on one’s perspective — with Israel. It was in the General Assembly in November 1947 that the Zionist movement achieved success through a resolution calling for the division of this land into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Israel has long viewed that vote as the source of its international legitimacy."
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Oil as a source of stability or instability in the Middle East
In class today, we discussed oil and the effect it has on the Middle East. One of the discussion questions addressed was: Does oil promote stability or instability in the region?
For starters, there's no doubt that oil is a major source of revenue for Middle Eastern states. Oil has also been a basis for cooperation, leading to trade agreements and multinational organizations between the nations in the region. In this sense, oil has had some effect on stability. However, I would argue that the presence of oil has made the Middle East more unstable than stable. This is not to say that oil is the main cause of instability amongst states, but it does contribute.
If we imagined a world without oil, i think it's fair to say that the Middle East would be a more peaceful place. Sure, there would still be political and economical disputes amongst states. Cultural differences would still be sources of contention. But without oil, the Middle East would be reduced to a region that would be largely irrelevant within the international system, and internal struggles between and within states over what to do with their reserves wouldn't exist. The states of OAPEC wouldn't jockey for position and influence within the cartel, and Iraq wouldn't be facing the internal problems over oil amongst its ethnic groups. With that said, I think much instability is caused by foreign presence in the region, which is largely in part to their want for oil. Countries like the US are involved in peacekeeping policies in the Middle East, but their motives aren't purely altruistic. Washington is concerned about the dynamics of Middle East politics because it wants oil and it wants to obtain it as easily as possible. Thus the US tries to impose its influence and power on the region so that it can get oil. However, Middle Eastern states see this as a form of colonization and an attack on their sovereignty and therefore are aggressive towards the US among others. While directed towards the US, this is still a source of instability in the region, and the root cause is oil.
Again, even without oil, these states would still be caught up in power politics, which would lead to instability, but I think that the presence of oil contributes to that instability. Thoughts?
For starters, there's no doubt that oil is a major source of revenue for Middle Eastern states. Oil has also been a basis for cooperation, leading to trade agreements and multinational organizations between the nations in the region. In this sense, oil has had some effect on stability. However, I would argue that the presence of oil has made the Middle East more unstable than stable. This is not to say that oil is the main cause of instability amongst states, but it does contribute.
If we imagined a world without oil, i think it's fair to say that the Middle East would be a more peaceful place. Sure, there would still be political and economical disputes amongst states. Cultural differences would still be sources of contention. But without oil, the Middle East would be reduced to a region that would be largely irrelevant within the international system, and internal struggles between and within states over what to do with their reserves wouldn't exist. The states of OAPEC wouldn't jockey for position and influence within the cartel, and Iraq wouldn't be facing the internal problems over oil amongst its ethnic groups. With that said, I think much instability is caused by foreign presence in the region, which is largely in part to their want for oil. Countries like the US are involved in peacekeeping policies in the Middle East, but their motives aren't purely altruistic. Washington is concerned about the dynamics of Middle East politics because it wants oil and it wants to obtain it as easily as possible. Thus the US tries to impose its influence and power on the region so that it can get oil. However, Middle Eastern states see this as a form of colonization and an attack on their sovereignty and therefore are aggressive towards the US among others. While directed towards the US, this is still a source of instability in the region, and the root cause is oil.
Again, even without oil, these states would still be caught up in power politics, which would lead to instability, but I think that the presence of oil contributes to that instability. Thoughts?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
More on Israeli-Palestinian Talks (or lack thereof)
When I last posted, talks between Israel and Palestine had stalled due to Israel's decision to end the freeze on settlement building in the West Bank. To keep the sides at the table, the US tried to make deals with both sides, but since then, no deal has been struck and the only "freeze" that is currently in place is on the talks themselves.
At this point, I'm fed up with the two sides' inability to peacefully negotiate (and who am I to complain given the longevity of this disagreement?). I realize that neither side wants to concede to the other, but during negotiations, concessions must be made in order for any progress to occur. But to me, it appears as though no side is willing to put differences aside and work with the other.
What is more is that I don't understand Israel's apparent unwillingness to settle this issue as peacefully as possible. I respect the fact that the disputed land is part of the Holy Land, but in being so stubborn and uncooperative with Palestine, Israel is angering (and has been for a long time) the entire Arab world. It's a wonder that no major action against Israel by the Arab world has been taken (aside from launched rockets and suicide bombings). It appears as if Israel's unwillingness to negotiate is caused by the support it receives from the US. Israel figures that any attack from an Arab state would trigger an equally (or more) response from its ally in Washington, and of course, for any Arab state, that alone is enough of a deterrent. But what would happen if an Iran or Saudi Arabia attacked Israel? One can imagine that Israel would have some sort of response, but would the US respond with an attack of its own? Given its current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe that the US would jump at the opportunity to get involved in yet another violent Middle East conflict. It's a major gamble on Israel's part to continue ruffling the feathers of the Arab world, especially given those states' continued attempts to match Israel's military might. And if the situation gets even messier, Israel may find itself fighting without its biggest ally.
In my mind, Israel's best option is to reach a settlement with Palestine. But if this does not occur, what should the US do?
At this point, I'm fed up with the two sides' inability to peacefully negotiate (and who am I to complain given the longevity of this disagreement?). I realize that neither side wants to concede to the other, but during negotiations, concessions must be made in order for any progress to occur. But to me, it appears as though no side is willing to put differences aside and work with the other.
What is more is that I don't understand Israel's apparent unwillingness to settle this issue as peacefully as possible. I respect the fact that the disputed land is part of the Holy Land, but in being so stubborn and uncooperative with Palestine, Israel is angering (and has been for a long time) the entire Arab world. It's a wonder that no major action against Israel by the Arab world has been taken (aside from launched rockets and suicide bombings). It appears as if Israel's unwillingness to negotiate is caused by the support it receives from the US. Israel figures that any attack from an Arab state would trigger an equally (or more) response from its ally in Washington, and of course, for any Arab state, that alone is enough of a deterrent. But what would happen if an Iran or Saudi Arabia attacked Israel? One can imagine that Israel would have some sort of response, but would the US respond with an attack of its own? Given its current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe that the US would jump at the opportunity to get involved in yet another violent Middle East conflict. It's a major gamble on Israel's part to continue ruffling the feathers of the Arab world, especially given those states' continued attempts to match Israel's military might. And if the situation gets even messier, Israel may find itself fighting without its biggest ally.
In my mind, Israel's best option is to reach a settlement with Palestine. But if this does not occur, what should the US do?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Talks continuing between Israel and Palestine?
Peace talks between Israel and Palestine came to halt in recent days as Israel allowed a freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank to end on Sunday. While no side has officially left the negotiation table, it is clear that talks will not move forward until the construction freeze resumes. According to this article, in an attempt to jump start talks, the Obama administration is trying to secure with Israel a 60-day renewal of the freeze in exchange for various security guarantees. These guarantees include weaponry or even continued support of Israel; however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far not agreed to the renewed freeze. Furthermore, to pressure Israel further, Washington has considered a fallback plan that would include a pledge to Palestinians that the US would "formally endorse one of their central demands for the borders of a future Palestinian state."
Now, in general, I am a supporter of President Obama and his administration, but I am having trouble seeing the logic behind this proposed deal. Sure, if Israel accepts, talks would continue between the embittered rivals for 60 days (and Washington hopes longer), but the pessimistic side of me is having trouble dismissing the fact that these two sides have been talking for decades over this land dispute and with little success. So what will 60 days do for negotiations?
Furthermore, I find it unjust that we're offering Israel security guarantees in exchange for their continued cooperation. I understand that this is part of diplomacy, and without these incentives, Israel would (and still may) keep on building, leading to a Palestinian withdrawal from the negotiations. No one wants that, obviously. However, Palestine regard the Jewish settlement building as illegal and, as stated in the article, are upset that the Israelis should get anything for being "thieves". The US is already looked down upon by Arab states (and that's putting it lightly) for its relationship with Israel, and "siding" yet again with Israel by offering them support cannot help improve that perception.
In my mind, the US should take a firmer stand against Israel on the matter. After all, it was Israel that continued building on disputed land. Whether or not the Israelis see it as their right to do so is not the point. They knew that doing this would only anger Palestinians and lead to a setback in negotiations. I know that the US and Israel are allies, but it's time for Washington to put its foot down and not let Israel take advantage of our relationship. If we are going to be mediators in these talks, it can't appear to others that we're playing favorites. Now, maybe that's not what we're doing, and if I'm wrong, please inform me, but I think perception plays a big part in this. So even if Washington isn't meaning to "favor" Israel, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Palestine (or the rest of the Arab world) saw it as favoritism.
With that said, I do hope that some progress can be made through these policies.
Now, in general, I am a supporter of President Obama and his administration, but I am having trouble seeing the logic behind this proposed deal. Sure, if Israel accepts, talks would continue between the embittered rivals for 60 days (and Washington hopes longer), but the pessimistic side of me is having trouble dismissing the fact that these two sides have been talking for decades over this land dispute and with little success. So what will 60 days do for negotiations?
Furthermore, I find it unjust that we're offering Israel security guarantees in exchange for their continued cooperation. I understand that this is part of diplomacy, and without these incentives, Israel would (and still may) keep on building, leading to a Palestinian withdrawal from the negotiations. No one wants that, obviously. However, Palestine regard the Jewish settlement building as illegal and, as stated in the article, are upset that the Israelis should get anything for being "thieves". The US is already looked down upon by Arab states (and that's putting it lightly) for its relationship with Israel, and "siding" yet again with Israel by offering them support cannot help improve that perception.
In my mind, the US should take a firmer stand against Israel on the matter. After all, it was Israel that continued building on disputed land. Whether or not the Israelis see it as their right to do so is not the point. They knew that doing this would only anger Palestinians and lead to a setback in negotiations. I know that the US and Israel are allies, but it's time for Washington to put its foot down and not let Israel take advantage of our relationship. If we are going to be mediators in these talks, it can't appear to others that we're playing favorites. Now, maybe that's not what we're doing, and if I'm wrong, please inform me, but I think perception plays a big part in this. So even if Washington isn't meaning to "favor" Israel, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Palestine (or the rest of the Arab world) saw it as favoritism.
With that said, I do hope that some progress can be made through these policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)