Obama’s muddled foreign policy

Last week a UN resolution tabled by Lebanon, condemning Israel’s settlements as illegal, was vetoed by the United States. This came despite overwhelming support for the resolution from most of the international community, including the other fourteen Security Council members – even the United Kingdom, France and Germany did not abstain. Rather, the representative of Israel’s European allies, British ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, described the settlements as “illegal under International law.”

Considering the history of the USA and Israel in the UN, this seems like business as usual. After all, the USA has vetoed 10 different resolutions condemning Israel since 2000. The tendency of other Western powers to support or abstain from such resolutions is often seen in Israel and the United States as a political populist move. Unsurprisingly, the USA is seen as the only ally for a country surrounded by states that at best mistrust it and, at worst, want it wiped off the map. However, given the Obama administration’s general policy regarding Israel as well as its fear over protests rocking the rest of the region, it is a strange political move.

Continued inconsistency has rapidly eliminated the United States’ credibility at a time when a trustworthy arbitrator is vital for peace

After all, since coming to power, the Obama administration has taken a markedly less supportive view of Israeli policy than under George W. Bush. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have openly disagreed over Israel’s right to continue building in occupied territory. In November, Hilary Clinton said “The United States was deeply disappointed by the announcement of advance planning for new housing units in sensitive areas of east Jerusalem,” describing the new construction as “counterproductive.” Netanyahu openly rejected the criticism, describing Jerusalem as their capital, not occupied territory. While being sure to guarantee Israel’s security, Obama has, nonetheless, continued to push for a two state solution.

Let’s be clear; this UN resolution, like so many others, did not hold practical implications but was one of principle. The settlements are already deemed to be illegal by the International Court of Justice and there was no serious talk of sanctions, let alone troops or peacekeepers, against Israel if the resolution was passed. In other words, it simply reflects the current policy of the Obama administration.

It also comes at a time when Western policy towards other countries in the region is coming under close scrutiny. The potential transition from autocratic dictatorships to popular democracy in the Middle East and North Africa ought to excite liberal democracies. Instead, Arab peoples are asking why these governments, particularly the USA, so actively helped prop up these unpopular leaders whose ideology was apparently opposed to their own. Unfortunately, the cynical answers of “oil”, “money” and “to protect Israel” are popular.

The issue here is not simply whether or not it is right to support the resolution – it is what message the United States wants to send to the rest of the world. Openly disagreeing with Israel and then not supporting this symbolic move will anger both Israel and the Arab world. This continued inconsistency has rapidly eliminated the United States’ credibility at a time when a trustworthy arbitrator is vital for peace in the world’s most unstable region.