No One to Speak for the Arabs
Last year, outgoing American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Zayed University in Abu Dhabi and gave us a long lecture on how women should be in our part of the world. Prior to that, George W. Bush adopted a policy of forcing democracy on our governments, as if democracy is a commodity that is imported and exported. In contrast, none of our officials has ever gone to the United States to give Americans a lecture on how they should be as a people or a system. There is an imbalance in the relations between the US and countries that make up the GCC. Why so? This is a question that the average Arab asks over dinner conversations. Why don’t Arabs have a sizeable influence?
One would expect that, with the close economic ties the GCC enjoys with the US, the large arms deals that bring jobs to thousands of Americans, all the oil that energises the Western world and the trade and investment, it has an influence to match. But we still have no influence over American policy and there is no level playing field. Is the US really an ally? Or is it — in the words of Dr Abdullah Al Shayji, the renowned Arab intellectual — more of a “bullying superpower” dictating its terms on Gulf countries in an “asymmetric relationship”.
The GCC has little influence to show for all the resources at its disposal. A friend of mine once asked me why Israel — a country that has no oil, is not strategically placed by the Strait of Hormuz and buys much less weapons from the US — wields so much influence on the US, including on its foreign policy. Next year, the Gulf is slated to buy from the US arms worth $18 billion (Dh66 billion), generating thousands of jobs for American citizens. Some, most notably pro-Israel writer Mitchell Bard who authored the book “The Arab Lobby”, have claimed that the Gulf countries exercise their influence through the oil and defence companies with which they deal. Nonetheless, these companies in no way constitute a sustainable lobby for GCC governments. Their lobbying is restricted to their interests in the deals they are actively negotiating with the GCC.
When US defence companies lobby with their government, their narrative is the importance of a particular arms deal to the economy. When an arms deal with a particular GCC country needs to be cleared by the US Congress, the defence company’s lobbyist does not tell the Foreign Relations Committee congressmen how great an ally that country is. His selling point is jobs: the jobs that a particular defence deal will create in a congressman’s district. Losing the deal means losing these jobs. And if these jobs are lost, the votes of these employees’ families might be lost too — an outcome that a legislator wants to avoid at all costs. In short, the GCC’s American business partners have historically only advanced their own interests. The GCC, therefore, has not exacted long-term influence or presented a cohesive narrative on behalf of the Arabs to the US government.
Last year, when US President Barack Obama asked Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to negotiate a peace settlement with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders, Netanyahu had no qualms about criticising American policy in the US Congress. And he received multiple standing ovations. This rather surreal reaction is due in great part to the efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobby. AIPAC is a sustainable and indigenous US-based organisation that influences the and the people of the US. AIPAC’s members are American citizens who form constituencies to whom congressmen are accountable. The organisation is made up of Americans who support Israel. Members regularly send their local congressman briefs on the situation in the Middle East, support election campaigns and vote for him. This support is premised on the congressman’s support for Israel.
Despite a sizeable Arab diaspora in the US, and the GCC’s strategic and economic ties with the US, the GCC doesn’t wield much influence. The missing component is a platform that can integrate all these elements and convert them into influence. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who criticised Arabs for not working towards influencing the US government and public, said: “There is no serious Arab voice in this country organised by Arab-American citizens, maybe with support from Arab countries, to make the case for the Arab position.” He asked, “Why haven’t you organised one? Expecting the US not to support Israel is not being very realistic.” He went on to say, “If you want that to change you have to organise a serious, long-term political effort to influence American thinking on this subject and by both actions and deeds and organisational efforts to create a dialogue in this country which is somewhat more even. But you have not done it … Arabs sit there and complain and complain.”
Learning from the others
Not everyone sits and complains to Uncle Sam, they resort to action. Many interest groups have organised themselves along ethno-religious lines and they have a strong impact on foreign policy. The US policy on Cuba is to a great extent dictated by the Cuban lobby. It favours retaining sanctions on the Castro regime, even when they block American agricultural exports to Cuba. Although foreign policy is the responsibility of the executive branch, namely the State Department and the president, the Congress has the final say on foreign policy matters.
The US Constitution gives the Congress great powers in shaping foreign policy. According to Article 1, Section 8, the Congress has the power to “provide for common defence”, “to regulate commerce with foreign nations”, “to define and punish piracies and felonies committed in high seas”, “to declare war”, “to raise support Armies”, “to provide and maintain the navy”, and to “make rules for government and regulation of land and naval forces”. The Congress has more general powers to appropriate government funding and to confirm cabinet officials. More importantly, it is composed of elected officials, who are accountable to their constituencies. No congressman is willing to upset a sizeable community in his district and risk his re-election.
Then comes the power of ethnic lobbies in foreign policy formulation. The members of these lobbies are American citizens who can vote and fund election campaigns of a candidate or his opponent, depending on the candidate’s position on certain aspects of foreign policy. This is possible because matters of foreign policy that are important to a particular ethnic group don’t mean much to the rest of the voters, the average American. Therefore, it is very likely that the elected official will give in to the demand of this ethnic group without alienating the rest of his voters. Therefore, even a small minority can play an important role when it comes to foreign policy formulation, provided it is politically active. At the end of the day, the US is a democracy and a candidate needs to please enough people to get re-elected. And we see this every single day.
When Secretary of State Clinton said illegal Israeli colonies are not sustainable and President Obama asked Israel to stop these colonies, the Israeli lobby, with its supporters’ votes and contributions, was able to get the US Congress to support its position. Israel is not the only country with a lobby. Other countries were also able to get generous perks and favourable policy terms due to their American lobbies. Sonia Gandhi, the head of the Indian National Congress party, thanked the Indian-American community for its crucial role in the signing of the nuclear deal between the US and India.
Another example where an ethnic lobby was able to ensure a favourable outcome for its country of origin was when the Greeks lobbied to turn a provision into law. The 7/10 law stipulates that for every ten items in military aid Turkey would get from the US, Greece would get 7 of the same. As the US Congress stated, this law was passed “to ensure the present balance of military strength among countries of the region”. The Reagan and the Bush administrations criticised this ratio as it imposes the wrong criteria in determining military aid. This was premised on the fact that Turkey is an important Nato ally, with a strategic location. Turkey lay on the border of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and was immensely important during the Gulf War. In 1997 the Congress watered down military aid to Turkey, which subsequently led Turkey to cancel a helicopter purchase from the US. A Turkish military official defended the cancellation: “Turkey cannot allow its defence requirements to be held hostage by hostile lobbies.”
Benefits of an Arab lobby
What does both America and the Gulf gain from empowering and mobilising the Arab-American community? During the Arab Spring, when people demonstrated for their dignity and freedom, the issue of Palestine came to the fore. In Egypt, demonstrators waved the pictures of Jamal Abdul Nasser, who confronted Israel in pursuit of the liberation of Palestine. As long as the Palestine issue is not resolved, the average Arab will continue to require a stronger stance from his government on US foreign policy. The Arab governments are faced with the dilemma of gaining popularity with their own citizens at the expense of compromising their relationship with a longstanding ally.
General David Petraeus did criticise Israel for compromising America’s position in the Middle East. Unfortunately for us, the US military is ultimately “accountable” to the Congress, and the congressmen, in turn, to their constituencies. So an effective Arab lobby can capitalise on statements such as that of General Petraeus and provide suitable backing and influence. Crucially, it can empower Arab governments to preserve or increase their popularity with their citizens keeping their relationship with the US intact.
An effective lobby is also a great tool for Arab governments to fight terrorism, and the religious extremists who portray the US as the evil enemy and seek to implement their own agenda. Anti-Americanism is a breeding ground for extremists who seek to fight the state. Terrorism is not only affecting the US, but it is coming back and hitting Arabs in their homeland. The Khobar bombing in 2004 showed how extremism could boomerang. If US foreign policy undergoes favourable changes vis-à-vis the Arab world, resentment towards the US will recede. Then, the religious extremist rhetoric will become ineffective. In addition to those two benefits, a lobby will enable Gulf states to negotiate on better terms with their ally.
For the Americans, the benefits are more material. The military can never safeguard the American people and interests in an area where there is resentment towards US foreign policy. Even genuine American efforts to provide aid or assistance to Arab countries are regarded with suspicion. In the US, a journalist told me: “We helped the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi, and they raid our embassy for a video that America had nothing to do with, and they kill our ambassador. I simply don’t know how we should deal with Arabs.
“And Arab Americans and American Muslims are shocked when one of them gets incidentally beaten up on the streets of an American city”.
Thus, a positive change in US foreign policy, as a result of effective Arab lobbying, can break this vicious cycle in which dissatisfaction with American foreign policy leads to anti-Americanism, anti-Americanism leads to terrorism, and terrorism and anti-Americanism lead to anti-Arabism and Islamophobia in the US.
Furthermore, a more balanced Gulf-American relationship on a stronger Arab footing, together with a better perception of Americans in the Arab world, should decrease military presence in the region. Every military confrontation has led to an increase in the price of oil, which has meant, for the average American, more money spent to fill his tank, to buy his flight ticket, whether to go on a business trip or on vacation. The price of oil is reflected in all aspects of the American economy. Well, if no one resents the US, then no one would want to fight it, and the risk of disruption in the flow of oil becomes minimal. In the long run, the eradication of anti-Americanism can reduce regional tensions in the Arab world as well as the potential of a military confrontation. The Iraq War cost the $10 billion every month. The cost was borne by the average American tax-payer who would have rather seen these funds spent on education, health care or jobs creation.
Another benefit to American society is an increase in the efficiency of democracy. James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the US, said that liberty is to factions the same thing that air is to fire. There are two remedies to cure factions and to prevent their dominance. One option is to eliminate freedom. This represents a remedy that is worse than the ailment; the other remedy is for factions to balance each other out and for democracy and good policy-making to prevail. Today, with the absence of an Arab voice in the US, the Israeli perspective on our region dominates the public discourse. A counter narrative from within the US will enable the American government to make better and more balanced and informed decisions.
While we can’t claim that a lobby will totally change US foreign policy on the Middle East, it will, for sure, benefit the Arab governments and people, Arab Americans and — the biggest beneficiary of all — Uncle Sam himself.
Dania Khatib
Gulf News