Change or Chess?

Things are changing rapidly in the Middle East. Popular uprisings are popping up though out the region. From Tunisia and Egypt to Syria and Yemen people have taken to the streets in opposition to autocratic rule. Even Saudi Arabia has experienced unrest. The U.S. claims to support the democratic aspirations of the Arab people. It has championed and applauded the toppling of autocratic governments and actively encouraged the rise of popular governments. In Libya the U.S., along with NATO, is participating in the unrest by providing military assistance to ensure the rebellion's success. I wonder if the U.S. has truly thought the issue through.

The U.S. very much wants to see Assad out of power and a democracy established in Syria. But what if a democratic Syria demands the Golan Heights back? We applauded the departure of Mubarek in Egypt only to find that Egyptians were not as content with Egypt's foreign policy as we had thought. There are already rumblings in Egypt regarding Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. There is even talk of abrogating the 1979 treaty with Israel. What if a democratic Egypt goes further and demands that Israel withdrawal from the West Bank? What if a democratic Arab world demands Israel return to the pre-1967 borders and pay reparations to the Palestinians? What will the U.S. do then? Will we still be as supportive of the political aspirations of the Arab people or will we act to stymie their desires?

In regard to the Palestinians, there is only one nation in the Middle East that stands to lose anything if an independent, sovereign Palestinian state is recognized, Israel. As it turns out, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East the U.S. is truly committed to. Because of this, the U.S. looks at events in the Middle East through the prism of Israeli concerns. U.S. and Israeli policy in the region has the potential to affect the nature of emerging regimes, to say nothing of a whole new generation of Arabs. The question is what that affect will be. Will it be to alienate the new democracies, or accommodate them? If the U.S. is reluctant to adjust its policy to reflect the new political realities in the Middle East it risks becoming marginalized, as the recent Palestinian effort to move beyond U.S. brokered discussions and appeal directly to the U.N. reflects.

While Israel has much at stake in the political turmoil in the region it has much to gain as well. By accommodating the Palestinians and agreeing to withdraw from the West Bank and consenting to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state Israel could go a long way in disarming its foes. A thriving, independent Palestine would remove the single greatest animus to Israel's existence which in turn would go a long way toward establishing an enduring peace in the region. By refusing to do so Israel is ensuring tension and conflict for generations to come. The U.S. has much at stake too. It can be a friend or an obstacle in the political transformation of the Middle East. More than 120 of the 193 nations that make up the U.N. have recognized a Palestinian state based along the lines of the 1967 border. Of the 73 that haven't, only the U.S.really matters.

Nothing will change regarding Israel without U.S. involvement. Everyone knows this. That is why the U.S. is in the middle of things. That is why the U.S. can be viewed in the region as either a help or a hindrance to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Secretary of State Clinton stated that she hoped that the U.S. would be able to support the movement towards democracy in the region. "We are going to do as much as we can... to deal with the opportunities I see from Tunisia to Libya, and Egypt and beyond." That question is does the U.S. really care about the Arab people or does it see the Middle East as a chess board? Does it really welcome representative government or is it simply relishing an opportunity to reshape the Middle East in a manner more suitable to its interests? Do democracy and independence apply to the Palestinians or does the right to self determination end at the Jordon River?

It is unlikely that the people in the street in Egypt, Morocco, and elsewhere, consider themselves to be actors in political theater. I doubt that they have given mind to the geopolitical opportunities their protests may or may not provide the U.S. They are in the streets for change. What that change will be remains to be seen. Whatever their aspirations you can be assured they do not have the U.S.'s interests as a motivation. It is possible that the U.S. will be disappointed by events. But that does not mean that the people seeking change will be disappointed. When it comes down to it, they are the ones that matter. The U.S. threatens, prods, and entices them at its own risk. Whatever else protesters might be, they are not chess pieces in some strategic game. It would be a serious mistake to treat them as such.