Presidents and Prime Ministers are flocking to the United Nations this week, some of them full of expectations, some burdened with depression and others less enthusiastic about meeting US President Barack Obama, after his international flame has waned as a result of internal battles that were waged against him or that he provoked, weighing him down. Making use of the momentum of the opportunity provided by Barack Hussein Obama reaching the White House having shrunk amid international and local astonishment has brought back to the forefront fears of increasing tension and extremism, as well as confrontation and defiance not just on the international scene, but also within the US. Indeed, internal American division is frightening because it is violent and ideological, sometimes isolationist and arbitrary, lacking the dimension of political awareness of the choices being promoted, at times designed with extreme hatred, spite and determination to wreak havoc, and at others driven by fear and ignorance brought together. Such division constitutes ammunition for the leaderships of countries that want to disparage the US's aura and to take advantage of the US President's dedication to dialogue, even after those he would engage in dialogue with have informed him that they refuse to address the main issue at the dialogue table, as Iran's leadership does in what regards the nuclear issue. It is also a factor of encouragement to continue violating international law and committing “war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity”, as has Israel and the Hamas movement, according to the report of the UN board of inquiry over the Gaza war. And because the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu has arms spread like an octopus on the US scene, it deals with the US President with much contempt, refusing to stop violating international law by insisting on continuing to build settlements. Sudan is also benefiting from US and international division to make the elements of stability and interests prevail over those of justice, and to believe that the International Criminal Court will necessarily chew on justice and spit it out. As for Syria, it has adopted a new method of dealing with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to try those involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and his companions. Indeed, it has addressed the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council, calling for an investigation over “abuses” allegedly committed by former Commissioner of the UN International Independent Investigation Commission, German judge Detlev Mehlis, based on the claims made by General Jamil Sayyed. Damascus aims at exerting pressure on the tribunal in order to frighten General Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare, armed with the insistence of the Obama Administration to gain its favors within the policy of dialogue and openness. American debate over the use of “Obama's war” in Afghanistan is still taking place within the US arena, but the world is listening. Indeed, what the US decision will produce towards Afghanistan concerns the rest of the world, because the US battle against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has international dimensions for Afghanistan, for dialogue with Iran, which does not want the Taliban to return to power in its neighborhood, as well as for extremist organizations regaining the confidence to wage terrorist attacks outside the United States and within it. The American people are divided, yet the message that accompanies Barack Obama as he heads to the United Nations is that there is an isolationist tendency signifying that Americans want neither to engage in wars nor in building states, nor even in confronting terrorism, as long as it stays far away from American cities. On the other hand, there are those among Americans who consider that engaging in dialogue harms the dignity of the US and grants concessions to extremism, dictatorship and even terrorism. Those Americans are blaming Obama for his policies towards Iran and Syria, especially after the Iranian response to the demands of the six countries came like a slap in the face, as Tehran refused to discuss the nuclear issue, and after the Obama Administration turned the other cheek, accepting the slap and insisting on dialogue. By taking such a stance, the Obama Administration has saved the Iranian government from international pressures during the session of the UN General Assembly next week, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will attend, mocking those who had wagered on the success of the Iranian popular uprising against him following the elections. In fact, the timing of the negotiations of the 5+1 with Iran on October 1st is tantamount to a shield protecting the Iranian government from being held accountable and subjected to pressures, as well as allowing it to buy time, in compliance with its wishes and according to its plans. Indeed, it is in no hurry at all, especially since no one is holding it accountable for what it is doing in Iraq, Palestine or Lebanon. Americans holding Barack Obama accountable is what is meeting with interest and wonderment in much of the world. Yet there are also those who hold Obama responsible for not realizing the meaning of leadership in rule and power. Indeed, he has initiated battles that he did not need, as he did with the parents of school students or with Wall Street banks. He has contributed to stirring up the debate on “race” and “racism”, not because he has initiated such a base discussion, but because he did not rush to neutralize these issues as he should have. Indeed, some Americans who are angry at Obama's plans regarding health insurance for example oppose his proposals primarily because they are “leftist” or out of fear of the country being driven towards a “socialist” system. As much as such fears are misplaced, discussing them is not necessarily an attack against the President because of the color of his skin, as some of the leaders of the Democratic Party claim. Of course there are extremist racists who are frightening because they hold a violent ideology, and are also armed. And of course they should not be allowed to take away America and turn it into a racist country. Yet falling into bitter, color-based, ideological and armed division is dangerous, and must be avoided. Barack Obama needs to be in a position of leadership in such efforts, not just because it is necessary at the domestic level, but also because US leadership at the international level would suffer a dangerous setback if such division and conflict were to continue. Israel's leadership, which is skilled at analyzing US politics and at making use of opportunities, rushed to take advantage of the weakness, confusion, mistakes, inexperience and poor performance within the Obama Administration. Indeed, the Israelis, like the Iranians, are experts at the art of eluding and of waiting until the momentum has gone, until opportunities have waned, and until there is neither ability nor will to pressure and impose. Obama has waited long, has opened up many fronts, and has been unlucky, as his Special Envoy to the Middle East, Senator George Mitchell, committed a series of mistakes and proved unable to carry out the task entrusted to him. Reviving the momentum is not easy, and there are fears of a vicious circle and of the current situation being maintained under the guise of “practicality”, a “gradual process” and general ideas and principles. George Mitchell made the biggest mistake when he did not start by defining the aims of the negotiations and the final resolution, and when he reduced the negotiations to the formula of freezing illegal Israeli settlement-building in exchange for Arab normalization with Israel. When Barack Obama speaks before the General Assembly next week, he must have more than just an announcement of resuming general negotiations – that is if he succeeds at holding the tripartite meeting between himself, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after the failure of US efforts to convince Netanyahu to freeze settlement-building. Indeed, the problem now is an American problem, but the embarrassment will be a Palestinian one, considering Obama's insistence on holding the tripartite meeting. What the Palestinian President needs to do is come to New York with a mechanism to put forth Palestinian stances in an initiative that anticipates Israeli elusion and procrastination, one that does not drive Abu Mazen to a meeting that would “legitimize” settlement-building. Indeed, he has spoken to Arab ambassadors in Washington about ideas that revolve around demarcating the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state, then negotiating over the issues of Jerusalem, the refugees and security. Perhaps he will arrive with a comprehensive proposal that leaps on settlement-building as a problem facing negotiations, without confirming that Israel will keep all the settlements that it wants. Indeed, there has previously been talk of swapping lands between Israel and Palestine that would allow to get as close as possible to the 1967 territories as well as communication between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There have also been prominent ideas over the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Palestine, on the condition that its capital be East Jerusalem. It is of the utmost importance for Obama to assert before the General Assembly the stance he had announced in his Cairo speech regarding the illegality of settlement-building. And it is necessary for him to talk about his notion of the shape of the final resolution and the demarcation of borders, without determining in advance the fate of Jerusalem until the end of negotiations over it. It is also important for him to announce that the US will continue to play an active role during Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, and that the role of the Quartet on the Middle East will be activated in supporting the negotiations and driving them forward. The US President should also be prepared to deal with the report of the board of inquiry over the Gaza war headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, because this report will impose itself on the General Assembly and on its sidelines, no matter how much the US Administration tries to ignore it and no matter how much Israel wishes for Libyan Leader Muammar Al-Qaddafi to steal the spotlight. And because Candidate Barack Obama embraced justice and made a commitment to accountability for war crimes, this report will embarrass him or will increase the campaigns that accuse him of going back on his promises as candidate after becoming President. Another option is for this report to constitute ammunition for him and for the US Security Council to put an end to Israeli impunity. Here the role played by Ban Ki-moon becomes prominent, having been invited by Goldstone to put forth the matter before the Security Council. Goldstone also called for the Security Council to take action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court – if Israel continues to refuse allowing an internal investigation, as does Hamas, which loudly demands justice yet refuses to be held accountable. This shared discourse between the leaders of extremism and defiance, Israeli and Arab, wagers on toppling justice, accountability and international tribunals by keeping stability and democracy hostage, as well as by threats, fear-mongering and outbidding. Thus these leaders meet in condemning parts of reports that they do not like or stand against tribunals they fear will threaten their fate.
