Obama’s victory: what does it mean really?

S P SETH

Barack Obama’s re-election as the US President reinforces the historic nature of his election first time around in 2008. He is the first Afro-Asian to be elected and re-elected the country’s President. Despite history being made in America, one cannot say that it marks the country’s progression into a post-racial era. This is because many Americans have never regarded him as a legitimate President by questioning his true American identity (whether or not he was born in the United States) and his patriotism  (being a closet Muslim). As a result, they have cast his policies, whether domestic or foreign, as designed to harm the United States.

Take, for instance, his domestic policy. Obama’s advocacy of a fairer tax system where rich pay more to help the country’s economy has been characterized by his opponents as an attempt to destroy the American dream and usher in a socialist system in the country. In other words, he is not a true American. In the foreign policy arena, as a closet Muslim, he is not hard enough on Iran and is not supportive enough of Israel on the Palestinian question. Which means that he will continue to struggle with the legitimacy issue, as much in his second term as he did in the first.

Identity issue apart, his situation vis-à-vis the US Congress remains unresolved. Which is to say that the Senate retains its Democratic majority but not enough to impede the Republican filibustering of important legislation by the Obama administration. And in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party retains its comfortable majority. In other words, the political gridlock, imposed on the country by the Republicans, will continue as before, unless they reach out to Obama’s overture of a bipartisan solution to the country’s problems made in his victory speech. If his first term experience is any guide, the Republicans are not likely to respond positively to this to legitimize Barack Obama and his Democratic administration.

This will soon be tested on the question of resolving the “fiscal cliff” the US must traverse requiring mandatory spending cuts and tax increases on the rich, unless the Congress works out a compromise. And if this measure goes ahead on January 1, as it will if the Democrats and Republicans cannot work out a compromise before that, it is estimated to cut growth by 4 per cent pushing the US economy into recession, costing another 2 million jobs. This will create a very messy situation, having serious ripple effects on the global economy. Besides it will set the tone for political infighting for the next four years of Obama presidency.

But in foreign policy arena, President Obama has relatively more freedom, especially in his second term. And this might, hopefully, allow him to reach out once again to the Muslim world, as he did in 2009 during his then famous Cairo speech. Which enraged Israel. And with this began a certain testiness in US-Israeli relations, particularly between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that has persisted and indeed deepened with Netanyahu featuring in Mitt Romney’s election advertising.

Now that Obama will have more leeway, one might hope for some forward movement on the Palestinian issue, regarded by him, early in his presidency, as an important area of bridging differences with the Islamic world. Israel, and its US lobby, has succeeded in crowding out the Palestinian issue to put the spotlight on stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.  Netanyahu indeed wanted the Obama administration, and the west in general, to commit to military action were Iran to cross some redlines in its nuclear programme. Which, sensibly, the Obama administration refused to do, though further tightening economic sanctions against Iran. And this is starting to bite Iran. At the same time, Obama has said that the US wouldn’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Therefore, Israel is assured that, short of immediately bombing Iran into submission on the nuclear question, the US would stop it from reaching the nuclear status. Even that was not enough for Netanyahu, and he sought to pressure Obama into a specific commitment to attack Iran to tap into Obama’s electoral vulnerability.  Despite the Netanyahu factor, Obama is likely to maintain US’ strong commitment to Israel’s security because it is an issue that cuts across the party lines. But the personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu is unlikely to make them into close partners.

Though it is difficult to envisage any significant change in the US policy in the Middle East, with Washington continuing to follow the contradictory policies of supporting monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms and being cautious about changes elsewhere in the wake of the Arab Spring, Obama should now prevail on Israel to implement the policy of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.

Another useful initiative would be to promote a nuclear free zone in the Middle East to also include Israel that has the largest nuclear arsenal. That will create a pathway for Iran to move in that direction. Any regional security architecture shouldn’t simply be premised on presumed threats to Israel’s security but also threats to the region from Israel. There is need for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, including Israel. Otherwise, the region will continue to lurch from one crisis to another. The re-elected President Obama has an opportunity to take some bold initiatives in this direction.

As for Pakistan, Obama is not likely to relent on drone strikes, as well as maintaining pressure on Pakistan to do more against the terrorists. In some ways, Obama has come to personify, for most people in Pakistan, their hatred for the United States, intensified with the killing of Osama bin Laden and compounded with drone strikes. The impending US withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to further test this relationship. There is a strong belief in the United States that Pakistan’s military, especially its intelligence agency, ISI, has never been a serious partner in the fight against al Qaeda and terrorism. They are said to continue to harbor Taliban leadership with a view to foster a friendly Taliban regime in Afghanistan after American withdrawal.

Another area demanding Obama’s attention will be China’s increasing assertion of its regional leadership, bringing it into conflict with some neighboring countries that are also US allies. Obama has already reset the button on his country’s regional strategy in favour of a “pivot” to Asia-Pacific region. China is deeply unhappy about it and the region is likely to see some difficult times ahead.

All in all, even though Obama will have fewer constraints in refashioning some of the United States key foreign policies, he might not have much time and energy, in the country’s highly polarized political landscape, to expend his political capital in this area. In other words, expect more of the same nationally and internationally.