Imagine
you are appointed Czar in charge of normalizing the affairs of the Middle East.
You are told that after studying the situation, you need to issue orders as to
what must be done in the short, medium and long terms. So, you look around for
material to read and deepen your understanding of the situation in the region.
You
find books and articles of all kind, and decide to use a number of them as
reference. One of the articles happens to be titled: “America's Opportunity in
the Middle East,” and subtitled: “Diplomacy Could Succeed Where Military Force
Has failed.” It was written by Daniel Benaim and Jake Sullivan, and was
published on May 22, 2020 in Foreign Affairs.
It
is an article that was inspired by two other articles according to its authors.
One of the other articles was written by Martin Indyk; and one was co-authored
by Mara Karlin and Tamara Cofman Wittes. Both articles argue that America has
no vital interests in the Middle East, according to Benaim and Sullivan. They
recommend that America should lighten its footprint in the region, and not go
to war for any reason.
Having
said so in the introduction of their article, Benaim and Sullivan went on to
explain and expand on their point of view. Being the appointed Czar that's
supposed to go through their article among others, and formulate orders that
should be executed in the short, medium and long terms, you'll have a hard time
finding anything helpful in that article.
This
is because the authors wish to see America continue to act like the two things
that made its involvement in the Middle East––indeed everywhere in the world––a
pathetic failure during the last five decades. They want America to act like
the policeman that's dedicated to serve others; at the same time, they want
America to remain the self-centered fancier who makes everything about himself.
And so, while the two authors seem to claim that they desire improving the lot
of the people in the Middle East, Benaim and Sullivan do nothing more than
express their number one priority as being the following:
“A
better approach requires clarity about US interests and a plan for securing
them, changing the United States' role in a regional order it helped create
without leaving behind yet more chaos, suffering, and insecurity. Being more
ambitious in using US leverage and diplomacy to press for a new modus vivendi
among the key regional actors. To be clear, verifiably halting Iran's nuclear
progress in the service of a vital US interest”.
That
is, they are telling America it failed in the past to reorganize the Middle
East in a way that would have served its own interests because it relied too
much on military interventions. Because of this, it must now change its
approach and rely more on diplomacy to achieve the same old ends of serving its
own interests. It is clear that Daniel Benaim and Jake Sullivan fail to see
that serving the same old wine in a new bottle is to repeat the same old thing
and expect a new outcome. It is simply insane.
As
the Czar that's supposed to go through the article and gain insight to
formulate orders that can be executed in real life situations, you decide there
is not much that's useful in that article. So, you look for something else and find
one that came under the title: “The Future of Global Power,” written by Joschka
Fisher who was Germany's Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor for 7 years. The
article was published on May 25, 2020 in the online publication, Project
Syndicate. Here is what it says in brief:
“The
Trump administration's effort to repudiate America's global role raises a
fundamental question about its approach: what does the US under Trump want? To
lead without taking responsibility? That's unlikely to work. While the US remains
mired in short-term thinking, China is establishing itself as an alternative
source of global leadership and investment, patiently pursuing a long-term
strategy to exploit the geopolitical vacuum created by America. The blow to
America's international image will be hard to repair. Against the backdrop of
the Sino-American confrontation, Europe finds itself caught between two
opposing forces and left in the dark about America's true intentions toward
China. But China is already too big, too successful and too important to
ignore. The facts on the ground call for cooperation”.
What
Fischer is saying is that from his observations, he has determined that America
is disoriented, and that Europe is confused about what America is trying to
accomplish. While this is the reality of the situation at one side of the
world, China is acting like surefooted where it sits on the other side of the
world. It knows what it wants and has developed a realistic, though long-term
plan to achieve it.
He
wants Europe to cooperate with China, and where possible cooperate with America
as well. He also wishes that America will choose to cooperate with China rather
than confront it.