US Foreign Policy in the Middle East - Research Paper Example

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Introduction: Much has been written about the US foreign policy in the Middle East because of the evolving andthought-provoking nature of the subject. There is a growing body of literature which focuses on scrutinizing myriad priorities of the US government in this region. The American foreign policies for Middle East are among the most complex policies found anywhere in the world. This is because this region is crowded with troubled states each of which is encountered with different challenges. This turbulence or insecurity plays a big role in shaping the US foreign policies for Middle East. From Syria’s on-going civil war to Kuwait’s funding of extremist groups to Israeli raid in Palestine to decentralization in Iraq, Middle East is a region characterized by a lack of functional states. This research paper aims to illustrate the nature of impact produced by the US foreign policies on Middle East. General consensus is that there is little to none democracy seen in Middle East. So, the US foreign policies are designed to democratize Middle East. Present research can surely benefit from more illuminating discussion about how the US policies work to affect outcomes of nasty conflicts in Middle East to assess the extent to which they are really able to secure democracy in the region. Following discussion aims to reinforce this idea that there is little opportunity for further democratizing Middle East because of a gigantic difference between the Western and Middle Eastern perspectives on democracy. America and her motives are generally eyed suspiciously by a majority of Middle Eastern Arabs. They are sceptical about the Western nature of democracy. This attitude works to slow down development of true democracy and promotes a brand of democracy which protects the interests of dictatorial and autocratic systems. The countries covered in this discussion are Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Palestine, and Syria. Iraq: The state of democracy is not as bad in Iraq presently as it was in the days of Taliban. There is certainly a transition towards democracy, yet the spirit of dictatorial regimes still haunts the country. There is a desperate struggle seen to keep the provinces together as research has it that two-thirds of Iraq’s provinces are “in open conflict with the capital” (Ottaway, 2014). Instead of rebuilding a strong center to ensure that Iraq does not reach the brink of disintegration, the US policymakers went for the impossible option which is “federalism, decentralization, Kurdish autonomy, but also a strong central government” (Ottaway, 2014). It is the result of this foreign policy approach that the Kurds are now happy to have their interest secured and the chances of Iraq’s disintegrations have increased. Due to a budget deficit, the central government’s control has also promoted Shia-Sunni conflicts over finances in Iraq. These conditions suggest that Iraq has yet to recover from the failing model of governance created under the US governance by foreign policymakers. Chances for developing democracy are further strained by the fact that there are so many conflicts in Iraq that it is hard to keep a count. These conflicts make it hard to establish the true kind of democracy. Moreover, there are still many autocratic leaders who on the surface act like no one in the world supports democracy more than they do. But in reality, they do not waste any opportunity to use duplicitous means to protect their flawed ideals of government. Research also claims that Iraqi leaders are “leery of relinquishing control to the voting public of their regimes” (El Sisi, 2006). This means that inherent resistance of leaders to accept the US ideals of democracy and suspicions of public about the US’s motives explain why the US foreign policies do not hope to achieve much in near future. It is worth mentioning here that the US policies to establish democracy should be designed with important Islamic figures of Middle East. Religion is the dominant and most influential ideology on both social and political levels in Middle East. It is almost impossible to separate Islam from the politics of Iraq also. The two entities are inextricably linked to one another. Because Iraq has a solid religious base, people pay more attention to their Islamic leaders than to anyone else. If their religious scholars denounce an American policy as “the black law”, many emotional people get ready to act on extremist whims. The amount of influence which such leaders can have on common people is astounding. This is why it is important for the US foreign policies to especially include Islamic leaders. They should be urged to convince the Iraqis that “democracy is good for the country and is not in conflict with moderate Islamic ideals” (El Sisi, 2006). Kuwait: Organising charities to fund rebel groups has been in political vogue among Sunni Muslims in Kuwait for quite a while now. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been sent by Kuwaiti individuals to Syrian rebel groups, many of which are extremists (DeYoung, 2014). Research claims that since the onset of civil war in Syria, Kuwait has spawned a large number of private and political financers who are influential enough to financially support Syrian rebels. This is done in hopes to prepare “Jihadists for the sake of Allah” (Dickinson, 2013). It is claimed that this practice has generated “legions of public figures seeking to associate themselves with support for the Syrian rebels” (Dickinson, 2013). This support, which began to assist Jihadist groups in Syria to overthrow Assad’s nondemocratic government, has now become quite uncontrollable. Here, the difference between the US and Middle Eastern perspectives on freedom and democracy is worth mentioning which hinders further development of true democracy as intended by the US. The freedom of Kuwaitis to fund Islamic groups is strongly criticised by the US government and this practice is equated to promoting extremism. Foreign policymakers in Washington have pressurised many Gulf countries to monitor the flow of funds from their people to jihadists in Syria. But, this attitude of the US towards people’s right to donate has only served to anger the Kuwaitis further who do not have a very high opinion about the American government. The US continues to forget the importance of religion in Middle East. The Syrian President Assad himself hails from the Alawite branch of Shia sect. Alawites are known to relate quite well with Shias. Though the population of Syria is predominantly Sunni Muslim, the ruling family is Alawite. Kuwait, like other Sunni Muslim states in Middle East, dislikes Assad for barbarically treating a large number of Sunni protestors. For Kuwaiti donors, the meaning of democracy is “having the freedom to donate to Islamic charities” (Ratnam, 2014). In contrast for the US government, such democracy is a flawed concept based on Middle Eastern interests which only seeks to consolidate rebels. Kuwaitis believe that the US has tried time and again to impose the Western ideals of government and democracy on Middle East. Like there are people in the US who passionately defend their gun rights and the Second Amendment helps to protect them, there are people in Kuwait “who feel strongly about citizens contributing to charities in an unfettered way” (Ratnam, 2014). Democracy is not a stable datum, rather it has a different meaning in different parts of the world. Giant differences between Middle Eastern and American cultures form the reason why the US policies have little opportunity for further developing democracy. Syria: Research claims that the US foreign policy to defeat ISIS in Syria is “doomed to failure” (Bonsey, 2014). ISIS stands for the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria. This is a well-established jihadist group speculated to act from Iraq and Syria. The strategy used by the US policymakers to destroy ISIS has so far achieved exactly opposite of what it was actually intended to achieve, that is more doors to pandemonium have opened instead of controlling evil. Full attention has been granted to the challenge of the Islamic State after isolating it from “other aspects of the trans-border conflict in Syria and Iraq” (Bonsey, 2014). Research has dubbed this strategy flawed and short-sighted. This is because the approach taken to Syria’s problem by the US is not based on a broader vision. The problem with the US’s foreign policy for Syria is that it acknowledges the wrong attitude of Syrian regime and yet, it does nothing to practically denounce this regime. This regime is purely dictatorial and autocratic. It has nothing to do with democracy which is proved by the way thousands of protesters have been ruthlessly thrashed. The very nature of Assad’s regime is wrong and also a potentially strong factor responsible for nurturing the rise of ISIS. Syrian government has by now killed more innocent civilians than ISIS has. Yet, the US policy invests all efforts in eliminating ISIS, while Assad’s government continues to thrive. This policy conflicts with the interests of Syrians which is why it has not been able to establish true democracy in Syria. It is even hypocritical when the objectives of this policy are compared to what it is actually doing in Syria. The principal objective of the US foreign policy for Syria is to change the role played by Assad’s regime which contributes to ISIS’s rise, but “in practice, U.S. policy is emboldening Damascus and undermining the very rebels it is ostensibly designed to support” (Bonsey, 2014). Masses of Syrians want to see Assad leave the office and hope to establish democracy in the country, while the US strikes continue to ignore the Assad regime and attack Ahrar al-Sham which is not a threat. There is no rational explanation for the US strikes which is why the US has not been able to establish democracy in Syria. Palestine: The US foreign policy for Palestine is a very good example of double standards (Cadman, 2014). This is because it ensures no sense of equality or justice. The US has always been a staunch supporter of Israel. Manu brutalities suffered by Palestinians go ignored and as long as this treatment is not condemned by the US, disparity in treatment will continue to plague Palestinians. There is a stark difference between the way Israel treats Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinian children are treated like second-class citizens and they are beaten up brutally by the Israeli force, but the US policy does nothing to protect them despite popularizing a peach approach taken to Palestine. When any other Muslim country in Middle East acts in breach of international law, the US air strikes pick momentum to nip the evil in the bud. However, Israel has time and again breached international law and yet, no criticism has ever been heard from the US. This is the reason why research claims that “there is a need for a wholesale change in attitude, particularly from the US” (Cadman, 2014). Masses of Palestinians are living in deplorable conditions, but nothing significant has been done by the US peace approach to change their living conditions for better. Despite claiming to be the peace ambassador, the US policy has actively worked against Palestine. The US has animatedly collaborated with Israel to prevent implementation of the two-state solution. The approach taken to Palestine by the US is so flawed that it can never solve the conflict or establish democracy. This is because it is not an objective approach, rather it seeks to favour one party over the other. The role of the US is not impartial, rather it is biased because Israel is never openly or even indirectly condemned for her unfair actions. This is because in the minds of the US policymakers, Palestine offers no real value in contrast to Israel which is a strategic partner in every area (Hammond, cited in Douglas-Bowers, 2013). Israel: Research has dubbed the US foreign policy approach for Israel as one based on “beyond alliance” (Mansour, 1994). The US has always whole-heartedly supported every action of Israel over changing times regardless of the nature of that action. Such incessant support for Israel has been often questioned by the world, but it has remained just the same. This support for Israel is partly due to the fact that Israel is the country which helped the US extend “its influence into the Middle East” (Mansour, 1994). This means that Israel is seen by the US for what it is, a remarkable strategic asset. For this reason, the US cannot take risks by applying any such policy in Israel which does not help the Israeli government further its interests. Then, Israel also has a very strong hold on the US owing to several domestic political factors like “the Israeli lobby, Jewish vote, pro-Israeli PACS, shared values” (Mansour, 1994). The Israeli influence is entrenched in the roots of every major US organisation. This is why the US cannot take the chance of being at loggerheads with Israel because of sufferings of Palestinians. Research analysis based on 45 years of data also shows that the US foreign policy for Israel is about nothing, but concrete alliance which knows no bounds. The results reveal that “American support for Israel is more rooted in values (culture, ideology) than in anything else” (Mansour, 1994). The US and Israel have shared values and both derive immense benefit from blindly supporting each other. Israel gets financial and military support from the US in return for helping the US in establishing influence on Middle East. Research also claims that Israel, for protection, takes massive military and financial aid from the US “(over $3 billion annually) as well as diplomatic support” (Hammond, cited in Douglas-Bowers, 2013). The kind of foreign policy which US has for Israel makes this state stand in stark contrast to rest of the Middle Eastern states. Conclusion: Concluding, the US foreign policy in Middle East hopes to bring an end to terrorism and autocratic leadership. But, reality is that it has done more harm than good. When people protest, they are brutally thrashed. But, instead of considering such issues along with extremist groups like ISIS, the US foreign policy addresses the Islamic State in isolation. This is a wrong strategy due to which there is still no democracy to be seen in Middle East. Another reason why the US policy in Middle East has not been successful is that it does not mirror the interests of Arabs. It does not prioritize their religious and cultural values either. Instead of ensuring people that the US is not the enemy, the foreign policy for Middle East primarily seeks to strike ISIS which is not a thoughtful strategy. Large financial investments are made in the name of fighting extremist groups, while masses of people remain neglected without basic needs of life like water and electricity. More attention should be awarded to the issue of budget deficit in Iraq than bombarding groups like Ahrar al-Sham which pose no threats to the system. Another important reason why the US foreign policy has failed in Middle East is that it is not impartial or objective. Rather, it slides towards that party which offers more value as a strategic partner like in case of Israel-Palestine conflict. All these reasons for failure of the US foreign policy explain why there is rising disgust in Middle East among Arabs with the US approach. References: Bonsey, N. (2014, Nov 26). What Obama Doesn’t Understand About Syria. FP. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/11/26/obama_administration_syria_policy_review_islamic_state_rebels_militias Cadman, T. (2014, Jul 15). US foreign policy: Absurdity of double standards in Palestine. AlJazeera. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/us-foreign-policy-absurdity-dou-201471062240646909.html DeYoung, K. (2014, Apr 25). “Kuwait, ally on Syria, is also the leading funder of extremist rebels.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kuwait-top-ally-on-syria-is-also-the-leading-funder-of-extremist-rebels/2014/04/25/10142b9a-ca48-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html Dickinson, E. (2013, Dec 04). Shaping the Syrian Conflict from Kuwait. FP. Retrieved from http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/04/shaping_the_syrian_conflict_from_kuwait Douglas-Bowers, D. (2013, Dec 02). The U.S. Role In the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Foreign Policy Journal. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/02/the-u-s-role-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ El Sisi, A. (2006, Mar 15). Democracy in the Middle East. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/war-college-paper.pdf Mansour, C. (1994). Beyond Alliance: Israel and U.S. Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/50496/william-b-quandt/beyond-alliance-israel-and-us-foreign-policy Ottaway, M. (2014, Mar 04). Mission Impossible. FP. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/04/mission_impossible_iraq Ratnam, G. (2014, Oct 06). Joe Biden Is the Only Honest Man in Washington. FP. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/06/joe_biden_is_the_only_honest_man_in_washington Read More