I have posted this comment on the HQ blog; However I am fascinated by this long interview by Senator Obama so I created this post. Here is the interview:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1194723479-KxbzNiZPxBeH2GlCDDYQcg .As someone familiar with the Middle East, I have to say I am really impressed with Senator's plans on Iraq and Iran.There are several points which are extremely important in his plan which are unprecedented in recent American foreign policy approach.1) He considers the people of Iraq as an important entity in his plan. Unfortunately this has been neglected by US policies in recent years. He limits the US assistant to a unified Iraqi government, not taking side with one faction against other sides which will create more instability in the long run.2) His plan is comprehensive. All of Iraq's neighbors are taken seriously in his plan. Not just so called US friends. So he understands nothing will be achieved without Iraq's neighbors and US really NEED them as well as international community.3) His plan towards Iran shows he is one of the extremely rare politicians who understands NEGOTIATION and how it is done. He understands a negotiation first of all must be without precondition and second it should be done with equal stands for both sides and not with threatening the other side or bullying them.4) He understands no option could be considered in isolation. That is why his plan is comprehensive. He understands that how people in the world view America, is an important factor in negotiation ability of the US.Generally his vision and his views are professional, effective and rare among today's politicians. I commend him for it.
There was this reply for my comment :
Q: I have a couple of questions: 1) Given the fact that many folks in the Middle East have extremely long memories, will they be willing to accept such a plan? 2) And would their acceptance truly ameliorate the sitation on the region or at least begin the process?Here is my answer:
A: You are absolutely right about the long memory and significance of history in the Middle East. However the reason it has been hard for the people to overcome their mistrust, is the continuous effect of some of the US policies on people's lives. Let me give you an example, you have a village and there are two parties with a conflict in the village and nobody in this village has a gun, now some powerful force comes and give one side of the conflict weapons, obviously the group which does not have the gun will loose and they will hate that external power. Now the US has done this in the Middle East, not only that but US has shifted its support sometimes for one side of the conflict other times for other side of the conflict. Most of the times US has supported the dictators instead of people, this has caused people to be suppressed by their government and prevented people from doing reform in their government. Now having said that, if US changes its approach in which instead of taking side in the conflict or threatening a government, help the people with humanitarian effort (as this is the case for Senator's plan for Afghanistan and Iraq) or supporting a unified government instead of meddling in the internal struggles between different groups in the country, obviously that would have a direct positive impact on the people’s lives. Now add to that the fact that US makes it clear that they don’t want to create permanent bases in the Middle East (As this is Senator’s intention). That would significantly change the US perception among the people and alienates those organizations such as Al-Qaeda and take away their reason to recruit new members. Changing this image which only would happen with a serious shift in foreign policy, can change that memory and at least start a new phase in US –Middle Eastern relations.
Comments are closed for this post.
