Harry Targ
From the standpoint of peace movements, much of
modern history has required mobilizations against United States imperialism. In
this century, peace activists have mobilized against major wars, such as those
in Afghanistan and Iraq; interference in and promotion of civil wars as in
Libya and Syria; and U.S. defense of regimes that violate human rights such as
Israel and Honduras. Peace activists have demanded that their government
support, not oppose, grassroots movements which have sought to overthrow
oppressive pro-United States rulers, as in Egypt in 2011. In addition, peace
activists continue to mobilize against exorbitant military spending, drone
warfare, violations of the privacy of citizens and non-citizens alike, and the
training of the officer core in Latin America at the School of the Americas at
Fort Benning, Georgia.
However, from time to time peace activists need to
bring their pressure to bear in support of government policies. Now is such a
time as the United States has shifted in the direction of negotiating a
de-escalation of tensions with Iran and promoting an end to civil war in Syria.
Last summer, President Obama indicated he was giving
serious consideration to selective bombing of military targets in Syria. The
proposed scenario sounded a lot like the US/NATO war on Libya in 2011 that
facilitated the overthrow of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi and the
disintegration of Libyan society into a maze of warring factions.
Anti-war activists around the country hit the streets
to protest impending war. Vocal
opposition in Congress to a war on Syria expanded. As a result of this growing
resistance to war, the President postponed indefinitely an attack on Syria.
Shortly after, Secretary of State Kerry flew to Geneva and began the latest
round of discussions with Iranian leaders to eliminate the “threat” of Iran’s
nuclear program coupled with the end of the Western economic blockade of that
country.
The result of this flurry of activities is a
recently signed six-month agreement between the United States and Iran to give
time for further diplomatic negotiations. In addition, the administration
announced that negotiations would begin in January to end the civil war in
Syria.
New
York Times reporter Mark Landler wrote that “…the two
nearly simultaneous developments were vivid statements that diplomacy, the
venerable but often-unsatisfying art of compromise, has once again become the
centerpiece of American foreign policy” (“Obama Signals a Shift From Military
Might to Diplomacy,” New York Times,
November 25, 2013).
Landler referred to 2008 candidate Obama’s pledge to
audiences at home, in Europe, and in the Middle East that his administration
would use the traditional tools of diplomacy rather than force to help solve
world problems. His 2008 rhetoric stood markedly in contrast to the neo-conservative
vision of a foreign policy which would use force as a first resort rather than
a last one.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a
right wing lobby group, advocated in the 1990s for a foreign policy based on
“…the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military
that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign
policy that boldly and purposely promotes American principles abroad; and
national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.”
The neo-conservative approach to foreign policy
which dominated the Bush Administration was unilateralist and militarist,
rejecting diplomacy, international institutions, and securing support from
friendly nations. A centerpiece of the policy was the Doctrine of Pre-emption,
attacking a group or nation that the United States feels might be planning to
attack the United States.
Obama in 2008 sided with a more pragmatic view—secure
support from allies, work within international organizations to achieve goals,
develop policies to deter threats rather
than pre-empting them with offensive
military action, and, most of all, use diplomacy to solve conflicts. From the
pragmatist viewpoint military force should only be a last resort (see Harry
Targ, “Globalists vs. Pragmatists: Two Styles of Imperialism,” Diary of a Heartland Radical, www.heartlandradical.blogspot.com, May 31, 2010.)
Once elected, Obama embraced the pragmatist approach
to foreign policy for much of his first two years in office—meeting with the
G20 countries, loosening restrictions on American contacts with Cuba,
criticizing Israel’s expanding settlements in the West Bank, and mildly
rebuking the Honduran military for carrying out a coup in that country.
Importantly, the president withdrew most U.S. troops from Iraq.
However, after 2010, his policies reflected more the
policies of his predecessor. The United States expanded U.S. military bases in
Colombia, stalled the de-escalation of tensions with Cuba, and ignored the
refusal of the Honduran military and civilian elite to reestablish its elected
government. Criticism of Israeli policy declined. And, most significantly,
Obama sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and supported a NATO-led air war
against Libya. Finally, some “boots on the ground” were replaced with an
escalated drone anti-terror program against targets in Pakistan and Yemen.
Recent developments in United States policy toward
Iran and Syria suggest that the “pragmatist” Obama may be returning. As Phyllis
Bennis recently asked: “Could we be seeing the rising role of diplomacy instead
of military force as the basis of U.S. foreign policy?”
The neo-conservatives and other legislators, who are
guided in their policy perspectives in the Middle East by what the government
of Israel supports or opposes, are objecting to the Administration’s pursuit of
diplomatic solutions to conflicts with Iran and Syria. Many legislators, both Democratic
and Republican, are calling for increased sanctions against Iran which would
scuttle the U.S./Iranian agreement.
This time the peace movement should step up to
support the foreign policy of the Obama Administration rather than oppose it.
If not, the United States will return to the traditional neo-conservative
approach to world affairs; send in the military now and think about diplomacy
later.
As Phyllis Bennis wrote in reference to peace
activists: “As usual, it’s up to us to keep the pressure on. We need to make
sure the agreement with Iran holds, and we need to make sure the U.S. doesn’t
continue to exclude Iran from participating in Syria peace talks” (“Iran
diplomacy Works, Afghan War Winding Down, Palestine Crisis Remains,” New Internationalism, Institute for
Policy Studies, 2013, Phyllis@ips-dc.org).
