The extraordinary events taking place in the Arab region represent a historical opportunity to radically reform the American-Arab relationship to the benefit of both parties. They also represent a rare opportunity for President Barack Obama to formulate a strategy towards the Middle East that would be consistent with the aspirations and promises he brought with him to the White House when he entered it, crowned with the aura of change. The Arab Youth Revolution will perhaps become the gift that never stops giving, not just for the New Arab, who has introduced reform to the lexicon of Arab rulers, but also for the US President – if he makes good use of this timely opportunity. All of this requires blending aspirations and realities wisely, coherently and with moral courage and political boldness. It might be lucky for Obama that the New Arab's uprising coincides with his preparations for the battle of holding on to the US presidency for a second term. Indeed, the political map of the Middle East is no longer what it had been, regardless of what developments lead to, and it promises a better regional order – at least logically. Bad luck is still a possibility for the US President, in case the situation in the Arab region deteriorates into fragmentation, partition, civil wars and vacuum in the wake of the overthrow of existing regimes – then no one will escape being held to account. There is now a situation that requires collective brainstorming among the leaders of change in the Arab World and in the West- particularly in the US. The time has come for a new language in political discourse and in addressing the people. The time has come for a near-uprising against traditional American policy towards the Middle East, including policies that have arisen under Barack Obama. And even if the US President is listening in the Situation Room to ideas and suggestions, it would be useful for him to hear about the expectations and the fears of those who are making change in the Arab region. The New Arab who has emerged from the Jasmine Uprising in Tunisia and the January 25 Revolution in Egypt approves of the resolve of the international community and the Arab community in dealing with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. He wants to put a stop to bloody repression, and supports the Security Council Resolution freezing the Gaddafi family's assets and banning them from travelling. He is extremely glad that human rights violations and the crimes against humanity that have been committed are being brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). And yes, he wishes to stop the bloodshed as quickly as possible and by the most accurate means, to avoid the triumph of repression. What the New Arab fears is for Libya to become the milestone of confusion and later to become the steppingstone for the slippery slope. After American nationals were brought out of Libya, the Obama Administration unleashed what it held back in terms of diplomatic and economic measures, not just at the bilateral level but also within the UN Security Council. Its achievements are not to be taken lightly as it worked together with Arab and African delegations to convince China and Russia to join the consensus in support of the unprecedented Security Council Resolution. The Libyan delegation at the United Nations led by Ambassador Abdel Rahman Shalgham and Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi played an essential role, recording a historical precedent by addressing the Security Council as representatives of Libya to urge measures of accountability and the prosecution of Muammar Gaddafi and his regime. Lebanon's representative, Ambassador Nawaf Salam, the only Arab member of the Security Council, played an important role both within the Council and in the General Assembly, where he led a campaign to gather the largest possible number of countries to co-sponsor a draft resolution to suspend Libya's membership in the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo rushed to implement the Security Council's recommendation within 4 days, in turn recording yet another precedent. All of this is good, important and necessary. However, something new and different emerged on the American domestic scene the day after the diplomatic escalation led by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. It came from the American military establishment, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who poured water on the idea of imposing a no-fly zone in Libya that the Libyan opposition had requested. The opposition also requested military air operations that would be carried out either by the United States alone or through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against specific targets. The opposition stressed that military intervention must be exclusively by air without foreign troops entering Libyan soil. There is a big difference between lifting morale and exaggerating expectations. Beware of lifting the Libyan people's expectations such that they would find themselves disappointed, and in fact in grave danger, if those handing out promises were to reconsider. If the military and political establishment in the United States is determined to carry out specific operations against specific targets and requires secrecy, then that is understandable. If however there has been hasty talk of protecting the Libyan people by taking measures to impose a no-fly zone before verifying whether there is willingness to bear it, then it is necessary to quickly tone down promises and expectations. It seems as if it is maybe too late to turn back from such escalation, including taking military measures that would be carried out by NATO with US participation, after putting forward the idea of taking such measures openly in public stances. It also seems too late for Muammar Gaddafi to back down from his escalation and playing the cards of tribes and clans to regain control. He believes that the weapons on the ground will determine the outcome, not foreign promises, threats and measures from air. What will happen if Gaddafi, his children and his regime cling to military escalation to the extent of a civil war erupting? This is the question that is on the New Arab's mind. Will the United States and Europe wash their hands of the issue because they are not willing to enter as parties to a civil war? The answer is yes, but the wager is on matters not reaching such a juncture. Yet such an answer does not suffice to reassure. Then there is the East of Libya where Al-Qaeda really is present. What is the strategy towards this area? There is talk of making arrangements regarding the oil fields, and there is talk of working on taking measures against the countries that are exporting mercenaries to Libya. However, it is not clear whether there is a strategy in the case of Muammar Gaddafi prolonging the military campaign he is carrying out, wagering on the powerlessness or on the internal restrictions of the US. So if it is too late for striking bargains, and it is too late to go back, it seems logical that the decision is to persevere through various means. The ICC will not be able to produce immediate change on the battlefield, but military airstrikes could produce change. This is what the opposition wishes for in relying on the role of the US and Europe, in hopes of Arab support of a different kind. The Libyan revolution carries the features of the Youth Revolution, although the leaders of the regime who have turned against it are at the forefront of those who would form the Transition Council. This is why there are similarities among the developments of North Africa. In Yemen, the situation is different, as there is what could be considered a traditional opposition – not a Youth Revolution like in North Africa. President Ali Abdullah Saleh entered this week into dialogue with the opposition, after it recently answered him with specific demands, while it had previously refused to engage in dialogue asserting the overthrow of the regime. Yemen's President has understood that there was no going back to the past and that the winds of change have reached Yemen. He may lose his temper sometimes and control it at other times, but at the end of the day there is no escaping for Ali Abdullah Saleh to recognize that the best fate for him and for his country would be for him to carry the banner of change himself, sincerely, in all seriousness and on the basis of a clear and detailed timetable. American policy towards Yemen appears coherent but it seems fragmented to the analysts who are monitoring Yemen. Either there is a strategy that deserves to be clarified and explained or there is confusion American and Yemeni officials pretend does not exist. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries rushed to work together after the events of Bahrain with an eye on Yemen. They too are listening and there are demands for serious and detailed reform from intellectuals and professionals who have put forward petitions demanding the undertaking of serious reform within the framework of respecting the monarchies. Tearing down the wall of forbidding self-criticism is of the utmost importance for reform and for ensuring that change is more methodical in the Gulf region. All of this change will have a brilliant effect on how the New Arab will assess himself or herself and both their capabilities on the local, regional as well as international scene. The United States remains at the forefront of Arab concerns, yet the American-Arab relationship has always suffered from a kind of schizophrenia, misunderstanding or a lack of mutual trust and respect, despite shared interests. American policy is based on exempting Israel from being held to account for everything it does, including human rights violations, excess in occupation and even war crimes – as per the reports of the UN and the Human Rights Watch organization. And the time has come to place such exemption on the necessary dialogue table with the New Arab. It is true that the New Arab is rebelling today over his internal situation and holding his rulers to account – as he should do as a priority. Nevertheless, the necessary chapter of the new American-Arab relationship must address the reasons for continuing to dwarf Arabs in the American-Israeli-Arab relationship. It would be very healthy to start such a discussion not in order to lay the blame, but rather in order to repair the defect in this relationship- one which is fateful for all. A New Chapter in the American-Arab Relationship Raghida Dergham, Washington Al-Hayat, 04-03-11 The extraordinary events taking place in the Arab region represent a historical opportunity to radically reform the American-Arab relationship to the benefit of both parties. They also represent a rare opportunity for President Barack Obama to formulate a strategy towards the Middle East that would be consistent with the aspirations and promises he brought with him to the White House when he entered it, crowned with the aura of change. The Arab Youth Revolution will perhaps become the gift that never stops giving, not just for the New Arab, who has introduced reform to the lexicon of Arab rulers, but also for the US President – if he makes good use of this timely opportunity. All of this requires blending aspirations and realities wisely, coherently and with moral courage and political boldness. It might be lucky for Obama that the New Arab's uprising coincides with his preparations for the battle of holding on to the US presidency for a second term. Indeed, the political map of the Middle East is no longer what it had been, regardless of what developments lead to, and it promises a better regional order – at least logically. Bad luck is still a possibility for the US President, in case the situation in the Arab region deteriorates into fragmentation, partition, civil wars and vacuum in the wake of the overthrow of existing regimes – then no one will escape being held to account. There is now a situation that requires collective brainstorming among the leaders of change in the Arab World and in the West- particularly in the US. The time has come for a new language in political discourse and in addressing the people. The time has come for a near-uprising against traditional American policy towards the Middle East, including policies that have arisen under Barack Obama. And even if the US President is listening in the Situation Room to ideas and suggestions, it would be useful for him to hear about the expectations and the fears of those who are making change in the Arab region. The New Arab who has emerged from the Jasmine Uprising in Tunisia and the January 25 Revolution in Egypt approves of the resolve of the international community and the Arab community in dealing with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. He wants to put a stop to bloody repression, and supports the Security Council Resolution freezing the Gaddafi family's assets and banning them from travelling. He is extremely glad that human rights violations and the crimes against humanity that have been committed are being brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). And yes, he wishes to stop the bloodshed as quickly as possible and by the most accurate means, to avoid the triumph of repression. What the New Arab fears is for Libya to become the milestone of confusion and later to become the steppingstone for the slippery slope. After American nationals were brought out of Libya, the Obama Administration unleashed what it held back in terms of diplomatic and economic measures, not just at the bilateral level but also within the UN Security Council. Its achievements are not to be taken lightly as it worked together with Arab and African delegations to convince China and Russia to join the consensus in support of the unprecedented Security Council Resolution. The Libyan delegation at the United Nations led by Ambassador Abdel Rahman Shalgham and Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi played an essential role, recording a historical precedent by addressing the Security Council as representatives of Libya to urge measures of accountability and the prosecution of Muammar Gaddafi and his regime. Lebanon's representative, Ambassador Nawaf Salam, the only Arab member of the Security Council, played an important role both within the Council and in the General Assembly, where he led a campaign to gather the largest possible number of countries to co-sponsor a draft resolution to suspend Libya's membership in the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo rushed to implement the Security Council's recommendation within 4 days, in turn recording yet another precedent. All of this is good, important and necessary. However, something new and different emerged on the American domestic scene the day after the diplomatic escalation led by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. It came from the American military establishment, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who poured water on the idea of imposing a no-fly zone in Libya that the Libyan opposition had requested. The opposition also requested military air operations that would be carried out either by the United States alone or through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against specific targets. The opposition stressed that military intervention must be exclusively by air without foreign troops entering Libyan soil. There is a big difference between lifting morale and exaggerating expectations. Beware of lifting the Libyan people's expectations such that they would find themselves disappointed, and in fact in grave danger, if those handing out promises were to reconsider. If the military and political establishment in the United States is determined to carry out specific operations against specific targets and requires secrecy, then that is understandable. If however there has been hasty talk of protecting the Libyan people by taking measures to impose a no-fly zone before verifying whether there is willingness to bear it, then it is necessary to quickly tone down promises and expectations. It seems as if it is maybe too late to turn back from such escalation, including taking military measures that would be carried out by NATO with US participation, after putting forward the idea of taking such measures openly in public stances. It also seems too late for Muammar Gaddafi to back down from his escalation and playing the cards of tribes and clans to regain control. He believes that the weapons on the ground will determine the outcome, not foreign promises, threats and measures from air. What will happen if Gaddafi, his children and his regime cling to military escalation to the extent of a civil war erupting? This is the question that is on the New Arab's mind. Will the United States and Europe wash their hands of the issue because they are not willing to enter as parties to a civil war? The answer is yes, but the wager is on matters not reaching such a juncture. Yet such an answer does not suffice to reassure. Then there is the East of Libya where Al-Qaeda really is present. What is the strategy towards this area? There is talk of making arrangements regarding the oil fields, and there is talk of working on taking measures against the countries that are exporting mercenaries to Libya. However, it is not clear whether there is a strategy in the case of Muammar Gaddafi prolonging the military campaign he is carrying out, wagering on the powerlessness or on the internal restrictions of the US. So if it is too late for striking bargains, and it is too late to go back, it seems logical that the decision is to persevere through various means. The ICC will not be able to produce immediate change on the battlefield, but military airstrikes could produce change. This is what the opposition wishes for in relying on the role of the US and Europe, in hopes of Arab support of a different kind. The Libyan revolution carries the features of the Youth Revolution, although the leaders of the regime who have turned against it are at the forefront of those who would form the Transition Council. This is why there are similarities among the developments of North Africa. In Yemen, the situation is different, as there is what could be considered a traditional opposition – not a Youth Revolution like in North Africa. President Ali Abdullah Saleh entered this week into dialogue with the opposition, after it recently answered him with specific demands, while it had previously refused to engage in dialogue asserting the overthrow of the regime. Yemen's President has understood that there was no going back to the past and that the winds of change have reached Yemen. He may lose his temper sometimes and control it at other times, but at the end of the day there is no escaping for Ali Abdullah Saleh to recognize that the best fate for him and for his country would be for him to carry the banner of change himself, sincerely, in all seriousness and on the basis of a clear and detailed timetable. American policy towards Yemen appears coherent but it seems fragmented to the analysts who are monitoring Yemen. Either there is a strategy that deserves to be clarified and explained or there is confusion American and Yemeni officials pretend does not exist. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries rushed to work together after the events of Bahrain with an eye on Yemen. They too are listening and there are demands for serious and detailed reform from intellectuals and professionals who have put forward petitions demanding the undertaking of serious reform within the framework of respecting the monarchies. Tearing down the wall of forbidding self-criticism is of the utmost importance for reform and for ensuring that change is more methodical in the Gulf region. All of this change will have a brilliant effect on how the New Arab will assess himself or herself and both their capabilities on the local, regional as well as international scene. The United States remains at the forefront of Arab concerns, yet the American-Arab relationship has always suffered from a kind of schizophrenia, misunderstanding or a lack of mutual trust and respect, despite shared interests. American policy is based on exempting Israel from being held to account for everything it does, including human rights violations, excess in occupation and even war crimes – as per the reports of the UN and the Human Rights Watch organization. And the time has come to place such exemption on the necessary dialogue table with the New Arab. It is true that the New Arab is rebelling today over his internal situation and holding his rulers to account – as he should do as a priority. Nevertheless, the necessary chapter of the new American-Arab relationship must address the reasons for continuing to dwarf Arabs in the American-Israeli-Arab relationship. It would be very healthy to start such a discussion not in order to lay the blame, but rather in order to repair the defect in this relationship- one which is fateful for all.
