Turning Africa Into An Economic Powerhouse

In Nicholas Kristoff’s July 1st article in the New York Times, he writes about the economic progression seen in Africa over the past decade. The position China was in twenty years ago – gradual privatization of industry, infrastructural development, and a greater emphasis on improved healthcare and education – is where much of Africa finds itself today. Between 2007 and 2011, countries such as Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nigeria all had more than a 6% increase in their annual GDP. On average, the continent’s labor force has increased by 2.7% each year since 2007. There are reasons to be optimistic about what the future holds for Africa, which has experienced every horrific disaster from genocide to the AIDS epidemic since gaining independence throughout the 1960s.

However, optimism must remain anchored in realism: the conflict between Sudan and its new neighbor South Sudan has displaced roughly 500,000 people since last July, and killed thousands. Similar wars are being waged in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and countless other countries across the continent. There are still very real problems that plague Africa, and while aid does continue to flow from more prosperous nations around the world, there is little hope that these conflicts will resolve themselves in the near future. It is important to look not solely towards aid as means for a more stable Africa, but also at the developments Africans are already facilitating on their own, most notably increased industrialization, improved quality of living, and improved infrastructure. Through these means will Africa become wealthier, more stable, and overall, will further the continent towards its goal of self-sustainability.

Internally displaced persons in the Sudan.

         

Despite Africa spending over $45 billion annually on infrastructure, it has been estimated that only one in three rural Africans has access to an all-weather road. This dearth of basic infrastructure prevalent throughout much of the continent is inextricably linked to inefficiencies of transporting goods and services; it is estimated that it can take several months for goods to make the trip from Botswana up to Chad or Sudan. Transportation costs increase the price of many goods by up to 75% due to these alarming inefficiencies. 2009 estimates by the World Bank proposed that Africa needs an additional $31 billion annually to fulfill these needs and develop a network of roads across the country to establish  an economically viable transportation system. But roads are only the beginning: adequate railroad systems and an increase in air travel are also paramount to creating a more mobile Africa. By enabling citizens to travel more easily, and by transporting goods and services more quickly, Africa will see itself connected in a way unthinkable two decades ago, and most importantly, this will allow for easier flow of finances and capital from one location to another.

            

The development of communication technologies is equally important to increased stability in Africa. As of 2010, only 11.3 citizens in Africa had access to the Internet. Cell phone usage, on the other hand, has seen significant increases in the past decade, with only 10 million cell phone users in 2000 rising to over 180 million in 2007. Communication technologies are the key to a more globalized and better-connected Africa. Providing Africans with increased ability to voice opinions, communicate with friends and family, and enable them to communicate more effectively in terms of business will open up many countries to far-reaching business developments and greater inter-connectedness. Communication technologies will help keep the African population better educated, and more up-to-date on current issues such as conflicts, weather, and politics. Furthermore, the ability to reach individuals on the continent by cell phone will increase the effectiveness of organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and UNICEF, as they will be able to keep in touch with patients, communicate more effectively with local politicians and other organizations, as well as communicate more efficiently with those in developed nations.

Johannesburg Stock Exchange, the largest on the continent. Photo by Andres de Wet.

            

The most difficult question to answer, then, is where does the financing for these projects come from? Unfortunately, it is the countries that most desperately need outside funding that receive the least. War-torn countries, as well as those under strict dictatorships, are less likely to receive funding from investors or aid from other nations due to government corruption and the likelihood that conflict will severely hinder any development projects. USAID focuses much of its resources in Africa, but the amount of money needed to begin working on many projects is significantly greater than what has been donated thus far. Africa and its allies need to focus on a greater reliance on individual investors, such as multi-national corporations and international development consultants. In 2009 the World Bank estimated that every $1 spent on general upkeep of roads in Africa yielded about $4 in assets, a promising figure for some of the private investors looking to contribute financially to Africa. In the past several years, larger mutual fund companies such as T Rowe Price and Vanguard have begun to emphasize Africa as a potentially lucrative investment for many of its clients. As a “frontier market” or “emerging market,” Africa has the possibility to yield extremely high returns, and as more money is invested from developing nations into these funds, Africa will only continue to grow at higher and higher rates.

          

There is a whole trove of potential wealth hidden away in Africa’s mines, oil deposits, natural gas deposits and vast farmlands. It is unlikely that there will be a period of unencumbered peace throughout Africa within the next decade or two, but that should not be a deterrent when it comes to infrastructural development. Investors and donors alike need to better recognize the importance of such development – in truth, nothing could be a greater step towards stability in the region. Helping establish a foundation for the continent upon which it can begin to foster its own economic development is paramount in this stability, and if the rest of the world wants to see an Africa in ten years with less AIDS, reduced conflict and greater democracy, economic self-sufficiency is the first major step. In turn, the rest of the world may see the fruits of their generosity: in a day and age where oil is scarce, and fossil fuels are rising in price and demand, having a stabilized continent with a virtually untapped network of those resources might have a lasting impact on everyone.

Tick…Tick…Tick…Tick…BOOM! The Pakistani Nuclear Arsenal’s Questionable Security

On Wednesday night, collective chills should have been rolling down the spines of every person on the planet. At 2 a.m. local time, members of the Pakistani Taliban attacked the Kamra military base outside of Islamabad wielding rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons. In the hours that followed, one of Pakistan’s rumored nuclear facilities came under siege by the militants, who employed tactics that eerily resembled those cited by Pakistani security expert Shaun Gregory when describing how extremists could effectively take over a Pakistani nuclear compound:

“If they were after something specific, or were truly seeking entry, you’d think they might use a      different tactic, one that’s been employed elsewhere – such as a bomb followed by a small-arms assault.[1]”

Fortunately for the world, the attackers were killed and the facilities ostensibly remained secure. Not so luckily, this is far from the first assault on a rumored nuclear compound in Pakistan, and certainly will not be the last. With an uncontrolled insurgency brewing within its borders and without, Pakistan’s military must contend with extremist threats from Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other fringe groups who would like nothing more than to possess the most deadly and profoundly frightening weaponry on earth.

These attacks have repeatedly called into question the actual level of security surrounding Pakistan’s nuclear materials and delivery systems. Although the locations, size, and deployment plans of the arsenal are held under the utmost secrecy, experts have speculated for years that Pakistan probably has about 90-110 nuclear weapons and is seeking to build more. These weapons are supposedly kept separate from their delivery mechanisms and are largely a deterrent to India’s own stockpile of nukes.

Pakistan started its secret nuclear weapons program in 1972 just one month after the loss of Bangladesh (formally Eastern Pakistan) in a war with India. Since then, there have been several close calls with nuclear warfare in a Cold War-esque arms race between the two countries: the 1999 Kargil crisis, the 2002 conflict at the Line of Control, and at every release of new information regarding the A.Q. Khan Network. Pakistan’s stated policy is that it would never launch a first-strike against a non-nuclear country that threatens its security; against a nuclear-armed India, however, the stance is quite clear: nothing is off the table.

Pakistan shows off some of its missiles at a defense exhibition in Karachi

Besides being the country most likely to set off a nuclear conflict by its own volition, Pakistan is also the most likely country to lose control of its weapons to extremists and other violent groups. In a recent Atlantic Monthly cover story, Jeffry Goldberg described the international community’s anxiety over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as being due to the fact that “Pakistan is an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihadism, and it has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to such rogue states as Iran and North Korea. It is perfectly sensible to believe that Pakistan might not be the safest place on Earth to warehouse 100 or more nuclear weapons.”

The extent of that lack of safety is called to the forefront time and time again with extremist attacks on Pakistan’s military bases rumored to house the weapons. Kamra has been the subject of two previous attacks, one in 2009 by a suicide bomber on a bike outside of the base that killed seven people, and one in 2007 when 5 children were injured when a suicide bomber attacked an air force bus bringing them to a school near the base. In Karachi, a 2011 attack saw assailants scaling the walls, killing 10 people and destroying two U.S.-supplied maritime surveillance aircraft. An October 2009 attack on a military headquarters in Rawalpindi led to a 22-hour standoff and 23 dead. The list of examples goes on and on through the years. Despite the number of lives lost, these attacks were small in comparison from what would result should terrorist or extremist groups actually succeed in attaining the weapons housed in these facilities.

Pakistan’s record with safeguarding its nuclear technology is so full of holes it begs the question of why the U.S. seems so concerned with countries such as Iran that have yet to develop nuclear capability, while it seemingly ignores the fact that weapons already possessed by Pakistan stand to fall into dangerous hands at any minute. One of the creators of Pakistan’s initial nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, sold for profit nuclear secrets to such countries as North Korea, Libya, and Iran. While his network was dismantled, former Pakistani nuclear scientists abound that are more than willing to sell nuclear information to the highest bidder. Hell, you can Google Pakistani nuclear sites and get a pretty good idea of just where they are located, all thanks to satellite technology.

Suspected nuclear sites in Pakistan. Source: The Atlantic Monthly.

So why are we allowing this unstable, fair weather friend of the U.S. to maintain its shaky control over nuclear weapons? For one, America depends on Pakistani cooperation to continue to wage war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Secondly, the alternative is to make nice with Iran and other less-than-appetizing countries to fill in the gaps when Pakistan throws its hissy fit over losing its nukes and quits helping us out in the War on Terror.

Given the choice of taking the deadliest weapons known to earth out of the hands of what can often be described as America’s worst ally and a good chance of nuclear war, however, I’d prefer the former. Sorry, Pakistan, like Colin Wolfgang, I just don’t trust you anymore.

---

[1] http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/have-pakistani-nuclear-facilities-already-been-attacked/

Israel Part Two: Dangerous Liaisons - By Guest Writer Zack Swan

Part Two: Dangerous Liaisons

A Palestinian child stands outside of her family's demolished house. The house was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. Photo by Adam Moft.

Despite the arguments lobbied by supporters of the United States’ relationship with Israel, many critics today believe that Israel’s strategic value dried up over twenty years ago with the fall of the U.S.S.R. Cold War rationale placing Israel at the pinnacle of U.S. security interests in the Middle East was the straightforward case for Israel’s strategic value until the collapse of the Soviet Union; by serving as America’s proxy in the Middle East, Israel was able to help contain Soviet expansion in the vital region as well as occasionally help the United States handle other regional conflicts. Following the end of the Cold War, however, critics charge that Israel has failed to live up to its image as a protector of U.S. interests abroad and in fact has become a major liability to American security.

One such critic, Chas Freeman the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, claims that the relationship has become a one-way street and he believes that Israel gets whatever it wants in terms of top-of-the-line weapons systems and foreign aid handouts, and American taxpayers pick up the tab[1]. The U.S. even doles out cash to Israel to develop weapons America neither wants nor needs: $3 billion in aid was given to Israel by the U.S. to develop weapons like the Lavi aircraft, the Merkava tank, and the arrow missile, all of which the U.S. never planned on purchasing[2]. Freeman notes that today Israel’s per capita income is $37,000, on par with Great Britain, yet Israel continues to receive more American foreign aid than any nation. Additionally, he points out that the U.S. has on a number of occasions worked to shield Israel from the international political and legal consequences of its policies and actions in the Occupied Territories, against its neighbors, or, most recently, on the high seas. This has come in the form of 40 vetoes at the UN on behalf of Israeli interest as well as sponsoring a number of Israeli programs that were criticized by the international community at large; according to Freeman, the political costs of these actions have been tremendous.

As a consequence of America’s unilateral support of Israeli policies, critics allege that the alliance is endangering U.S. security. While supporters of the relationship argue that the Israel is the U.S. best ally and partner in the fight against terrorism and that the partnership has not motivated anti-American terrorist attacks, there are several critics who believe the exact opposite. Khaled Shaikh Muhammad, who is credited with masterminding the 9/11 attacks, claimed the purpose of the attacks was to focus the attention of “the American people . . . on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people”. Prior to 9/11, the mastermind of the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Ramzi Yousef said that he felt guilty about causing U.S deaths but that   “he truly believed his action had been rational and logical and in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel”[3].

The 9/11 Commission itself came to the conclusion that Bin Laden and other key Al Qaeda members were motivated both by Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians and by U.S. support for Israel. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt also argue that the “partners against terror” rationale for the American-Israeli alliance is based on a popular misconception that the U.S. and Israel are fighting the same war against terror. This conception derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism. Terrorism is not an organization or a movement or even an “enemy” that one can declare war on; terrorism is a tactic of indiscriminately attacking enemy targets-especially civilians-in order to sow fear, undermine morale, and provoke counterproductive reactions from one’s adversary[4].

With that in mind, while all acts of terrorism are morally wrong, not all terrorist groups are alike and therefore not all present a clear threat to the United States. In contrast to Al-Qaeda, organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad do not attack the United States and are primarily only a threat to Israel. With regards to Hezbollah, Moshe Maoz, a historian at Hebrew University, says, “It is mostly a threat against Israel. They did attack U.S. targets when there were American troops in Lebanon, but they killed to oust forces from Lebanon. I doubt very much whether Hezbollah will go out of its way to attack America”[5]. There is also a common misunderstanding that Al-Qaeda and the Palestinian Liberation Organization share similar beliefs and ideologies, but this is far from the truth. Palestinian terrorists do not share Al-Qaeda’s desire to launch a global Islamic restoration or to restore the caliphate; in fact the PLO is in actuality largely secular and based on nationalist, not religious, principles. Additionally, the PLO’s terrorist acts do not share the random pattern of Al-Qaeda’s actions, but instead are usually in response to or directed at Israeli policies and intiatives. Thus, what the two organizations have in common is not any specific ideology but only the tactic of terrorism, which, as previously pointed out, is a tactic employed by militant groups worldwide regardless of their beliefs and aims.

Many of the arguments for the alliance against terrorism has been centered around the belief that terrorist organizations target the U.S. and Israel together because of shared beliefs in. Mearsheimer and Walt point out that supporters of the relationship deny any connection between U.S. support of Israel and the terrorism attacks on the U.S. and its citizens, and especially the September 11^th attacks. Supporter of the alliance Robert Satloff claims that Bin Laden’s identification with Palestine is “a recent-and almost surely opportunistic-phenomenon”. There is, however, ample evidence that indicates the close relationship with Israel has harmed the U.S.’s image and reputation within the Arab and Muslim world in general. A 2004 report by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board concluded that Muslims do not hate American democracy and freedom, but rather they resent the privileged status Israel enjoys in the region, bolstered by U.S. support. 

This finding was further strengthened by the 9/11 Commission, which concluded “it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American policy in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world”[6]. Few critics can deny that anti-Semitism exists within Arab nations; however, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, the United States pays a substantial price for supporting Israel so consistently that has more to do with Israeli policies than its religious identity. They believe this position fuels hostility towards the United States in the Middle East, motivates anti-American extremists, aids in the recruitment of militants, gives authoritarian governments in the region an all-too-convenient scapegoat for their own failings, and makes it harder for Washington to convince potential supporters to confront extremists in their own countries[7].

An anti-Israel mural in Tehran.

The rationale of the “partnership against terrorism” is used to justify the U.S. and Israel confronting rogue states that support terrorism and aim to acquire WMD. It seems logical to believe that authoritarian states like Syria, Iran, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would be threats to both Israel and the United States. However, when held up to closer scrutiny, many believe that although the United States may not agree with these states’ conduct, they do not pose a vital threat to U.S. interests abroad. The sole exception to this observation is the threat posed to Israel. Thus, much of the U.S.’s concerns about Saddam’s and Iran’s pursuit of WMD derives largely from their threat to Israel. President Bush admitted this outright in March 2006, saying, “The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel”[8].

Many critics argue the pursuit of WMD by several Middle Eastern states such as Iraq and Iran is a reaction to Israel’s own WMD arsenal, which the country repeatedly denies possessing but which the world community seems to the fully aware of. In that respect, Israel appears to be perpetuating the proliferation of nuclear arms by insisting it will retaliate militarily against any other state that dares acquire nuclear capability in the region. American support of these policies further damages the United States’ reputation in the Middle East. Such a forthright example of hypocrisy does little to lessen Middle Eastern opinions that Israel is allowed to get away with whatever it wants, while the U.S. threatens any who behave in the same fashion with sanctions and even invasion.

From a realist perspective, America’s main strategic interests in the Middle East is oil, and protecting access to this commodity mainly depends on preventing any single country from controlling the entire region[9]. The close alignment with Israel does not assist in achieving this goal, and many critics believe it has actually interfered with achieving this end. Oil-producing nations such as Iran face severe sanctions that often grow worse after an escalation in rhetoric on both sides. Such obstacles to free trade are not in keeping with the United States’ economic as well as political interests.

Despite arguments made by supporters of the alliance that the U.S. and Israel have always been in agreement on their objectives and that Israel has always supported the U.S., critics of the relationship say there have been several examples of Israel working against the U.S. and acting as a “dubious ally”. In the “Lavon affair” in 1954, Israeli agents attempted to bomb several U.S. government offices in Cairo to create a rift between America and Egypt. During the period from 1979-80 Israel sold weapons to Iran during the American Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, placing financial gains ahead of U.S. aims. On numerous occasions that Israel has been caught conducting espionage against the United States, leading the General Accounting Office to declare that Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the United States of any ally”[10]. Israel has also broken U.S. law and threatened American interests by transferring American technology to third party countries, such as potential U.S. adversary China. All of these actions were in Israel’s national interest, but worked against the strategic aims of the U.S.

While Israel and the United States were not staunch allies for the first 20 years of Israel’s existence, it is clear that the Cold War created a set of circumstances that convinced President Kennedy and his successors that a number of strategic advantages could be gained from more closely aligning the U.S. with Israel. This relationship strengthened and grew throughout the Cold War, and by the 1980s Israel had become the United States’ closest ally, receiving the largest amount of American foreign aid and unwavering diplomatic support. Today, supporters of this relationship believe that Israel is still a strategic asset that assists the United States to confront rogue states as well as in the fight against terrorism. Critics of the relationship argue that the cost of being allied with Israel outweigh the benefits leading to increased anti-American terrorism, damaged U.S. relationships with other nations, and the hindrance of American ability to conduct peace negotiations in the Middle East.

The aim of this study was to give readers an objective portrayal of both sides of the argument in the hopes of continuing a public dialogue on the issue. As I have stated previously, despite the fundamental differences in their positions, critics and supporters alike can and should agree that what is always in the U.S. strategic interest is the continual re-examination of American policies, allies, and motivations. Without self-reflection, America stands to make the same grave mistakes other superpowers have in the past: over-confidence, arrogance, and, eventually, self destruction.

---

[1] A Debate on the Vale of the US-Israel Relationship, Robert Satloff and Chas Freeman.

[2] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

[3] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CUA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin Press, 2004) 250-251, 273

[4] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 62

[5] Maoz quoted in Susan Taylor Martin, “Experts Disagree on Dangers of Syria” St. Petersburg Times, November 3, 2002

[6] Report of the defense science board task force on strategic communication  (Washington, DC: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, September 2004)

[7] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 70

[8] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 71

[9] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 71

[10] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 75-76

Israel: Strategic Asset or Dangerous Liability - By Guest Writer Zack Swan

In a two-part essay begun as an academic paper, guest writer Zack Swan dissects the anatomy of the arguments for and against the close U.S. alliance with Israel. Though one of the most politically and emotionally charged issues for Americans today, the following piece (Part One) manages to present the pros of our relationship with Israel and why those outweigh the possible drawbacks to supporting another country nearly unconditionally.

Introduction

What makes a nation an ally of the United States?  Moreover, what makes a nation a good ally of the U.S.? From an ideological perspective, a nation that shares America’s values and whose beliefs resonate with the American people has the foundations to be a “good” ally. However, given that the United States has historically allied itself with dictators, tyrants, mass murderers, and authoritarian regimes, it is safe to say America’s decision to ally with a nation has no pre-requisite of ideological similarity. A likelier candidate for what makes a “good” U.S. ally is a nation whose strategic importance outweighs the political, ideological, and even moral costs of the relationship.

There is no better example of these characteristics, both ideologically and strategically, than the state of Israel. Based on the unconditional diplomatic support and large amounts of U.S. aid received by Israel, there is strong evidence that most American policymakers believe that Israel is indeed a strategic asset and quite possibly America’s most important ally. There also plenty of critics of the alliance that argue the costs of the United States’ “special relationship” with Israel are no longer being balanced by its benefits, and that in fact the affiliation has had grave consequences for U.S. foreign policy, security, and global influence.

Critics, such as John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, allege that being so closely allied with Israel is undermining relationships with other U.S. allies, casting doubt on America’s wisdom and moral vision, helping inspire a generation of anti-American extremists, and complicating U.S. efforts to deal with a volatile but vital region[1].  Some argue that Israel is worth keeping as an ally, but that it is no longer in American’s best interest to support Israel unconditionally and unanimously. Others claim that there was a time when Israel was an important strategic ally but that that is no longer the case today.

Conversely, supporters of the relationship, such as Foreign Policy author Michael Oren, believe that Israel is America’s ultimate ally, assisting in protecting American citizens on and off the battlefield, stimulating the U.S economy, enhancing American intelligence, and that as a consequence America needs Israel more than ever[2]. While there is an abundant amount of historical evidence supporting the Israel’s strategic importance, there are those who believe a change in policy may be in order. Despite these differences in opinions, nearly all critics and supporters can agree that it is important to continually reevaluate America’s relationships and foreign policy.

With that in mind, the aim of this two-part article will be to assess the pros and cons of the United States being strategically aligned with Israel, and to assess what extent the U. S. should or should not align its foreign policy with Israel. My aim in writing this article is not to sway readers to one side or the other but rather to objectively present two sides of an important debate. In Part One, I will present the arguments of those who support the current “special relationship” Israel and the United States share. In Part Two I will assess the arguments of the alliance’s critics. Given that this is such an emotionally charged issue for so many people, I could never hope to instill objectivity in the opinions of all readers. I do, however, hope to present information that is at once enlightening, informative, and perhaps even a bit disturbing. Enjoy.

Part One: Israel, Our Greatest Friend

A Yarmulka with both Israeli and American flags. Photo by Idobi.

Despite what many might believe, the United States and Israel have not always been the closest of allies. Throughout the 1950s, the U.S. took actions that in fact were detrimental to the fledgling Jewish state, such as the countermeasures taken by the U.S. against Israel in the Suez Crisis of 1956. The relationship with Israel changed in 1962 under the administration of John F. Kennedy when he decided to sell the Hawk ground-to-air missile to Israel. In a statement made by Kennedy to Prime Minister Golda Meir on December 27, 1962, Kennedy gave insight to his thinking behind this reversal in policy: “The United States has a special relationship with the Israel in the Middle East really only comparable to that which it has with Britain over a wide range of affairs…I think it is quite clear that in the case of invasion, the U.S. would come to the support of Israel. We have that capacity and it is growing”[3].

Support for Israel grew under the Johnson administration and under the Nixon administration, during the 1969-70 War of Attrition aid to Israel steadily increased during the conflict. This sharp increase reflected both Kissinger and Nixon’s belief that steadfast support for Israel would reveal the limited value of Soviet aid and eventually convince Moscow’s Arab clients to realign with the United States[4]. This Cold War rationale would become the straightforward case for Israel’s strategic value until the collapse of the Soviet Union; by serving as America’s proxy in the Middle East, Israel was able to help contain Soviet expansion in the vital region as well as occasionally help the United States handle other regional conflicts.

Today, one of the leading arguments for the U.S. to continue its strategic relationship with Israel is that they share nearly identical views on major issues in the international system.  According to Michael Oren, author and the current Israeli Ambassador to the United States, “Israel has always sided with the United States on major global issues. At the United Nations and in other international institutions, the two countries' voting patterns are virtually identical, as are their policies on human rights and international law”[5]. Compared to its other allies, there are few, if any, that can compete with Israel in their steadfast support and shared interests. America's European allies including Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are restricting the conditions under which their forces fight alongside those of the U.S. and drastically slashing defense budgets, which will leave the U.S. unable to call on them for support in the event of the crisis. The Israeli Defense Force is believed to be twice the size of the French and British armies combined and able to be deployed in a number of hours, giving it clear military advantages over other U.S. allies.[6]

Members of the IDF Nahal brigade receive their green berets. Photo by Dor Pozner.

This ability to assist militarily in the event of a crisis is one part of a broader argument for Israel’s strategic security value to the United States. According to Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the U.S. and Israeli militaries have conducted contingency planning since 1983 and the U.S. has stocked war reserves worth over a billion dollars in Israel. Israel has also proven to be a prime source of effective counterterrorism/counterinsurgency tactics, which have played a significant role in U.S. success in Iraq.

Israel has been an outstanding innovator in the technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures of unmanned aerial vehicles, which the United States now relies upon extensively in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen in dismantling terror networks[7]. Along with its assistance to the U.S. in the War on Terror, Israel’s destruction of nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria has lowered global risk of a nuclear attack. Supporters of the alliance also note that Israel serves as the best deterrent against a nuclear Iran. Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of Haaretz Newspaper, noted that the “IDF [is] the only serious force able to standup against Iran and its proxies in the Middle East”[8].

The concept of being “partner[s] against terrorism” emerged as a new rationale for the U.S.-Israel alliance following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has become exponentially more important following the attacks of 9/11. In an address to congress in 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared, “Our countries do not just share the experience and pain of terrorism. We share the commitment and resolve to confront the brutal terrorists that took these innocent people from us”[9]. Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, echoed this idea in an op-ed in the Chicago Sun Times declaring, “No grievance, real or imagined, can ever justify terror…American power topples the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the al-Qaeda network there crumbles on its own. The U.S. must now act similarly against other terror regimes-Iran, Iraq, Yasser Arafat’s dictatorship, Syria, and a few others”[10].

George Bush and Ehud Olmert. White House photo.

Several U.S. policymakers have echoed these ideas. Senator Charles Shumer declared in December 2001that “the PLO is the same as the Taliban, which aids, abets and provides safe haven for terrorists. And Israel is like America, simply trying to protect its home front”[11]. This year, President Barak Obama gave a speech to a conference held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee where he said “the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of Party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security”. The support seen in the executive branch can also been seen in Congress, where in April and May 2002 an overwhelming majority passed two nearly identical resolutions declaring that “the United States and Israel are now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism”[12].

Israel’s strategic importance to the United States is not only military but also geopolitical. With its strong control of the East Mediterranean littoral and the cross roads of North Africa and Southwest Asia, Israel has enabled the U.S. to minimize its military deployments in the area. This stands in stark contrast to the situation in the Persian Gulf where the U.S. lacks such a steadfast ally with strategic depth, and has consequently been forced to commit thousands of troops and hundreds of millions of dollars. A quote from former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig's made 30 years ago resonates today: "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security."[13]

There are those who believe that a strong Israel, with a strong U.S.-Israel relationship at its core has been instrumental to the peace processes in the Middle East since the U.S. dramatically strengthened its alliance with Israel after 1973. Since then, according to Robert Satloff, the Arab-Israeli arena has changed dramatically in favor of U.S. interest, citing the peace agreements between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan as well as thirty-seven years of peace on the Syrian border and seventeen years of diplomacy with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Additionally, he notes one of the greatest achievements of this strategic alliance has been reducing the Arab-Israeli conflict into a Palestinian-Israeli conflict[14].

Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzak Rabin at the signing of the Oslo Accords. 

White House photo.

From an economic perspective, proponents of the relationship argue that the U.S. also reaps a number of fiscal benefits from its alignment with Israel. Satloff explains this argument: “It is to America’s advantage to have in Israel an economy that is so closely associated with ours and that is such an innovator in the information and technology field, in high-tech medicine, and in green technologies like the electric car”[15]. Despite having a population of just 7.7 million people, Israel is America’s 20^th-largest customer in the world, which puts it before both Russia and Spain. Between 2000 and 2009, direct U.S. investment in Israel totaled $77.2 billion while Israelis, with their vastly smaller population, invested $54.2 billion during that same period. Furthermore but long forgotten is that the United States first free trade agreement was signed with Israel over 25 years ago.

Whether for military, geopolitical, or economic reasons, advocates of the close U.S.-Israeli alliance certainly have plenty of ammunition to support their claims. Yet as I will demonstrate in Part Two, the relationships detractors have just as many arguments against the alliance as do those who favor its continuation for it.

---

[1] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York, Penguin Books. 2007

[2] Oren, Michael. “The Ultimate Ally”. Foreign Policy. May/June (2011): 1-6

[3] Public papers of the Presidents of the USA, John F. Kennedy, 7 January 1963-22 November 1963 (Washington, DC 1964), 307.  

[4] Mearsheimer, John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

[5] Oren, Michael. “The Ultimate Ally”

[6] Oren, Michael. “The Ultimate Ally”

[7] A Debate on the Vale of the US-Israel Relationship, Robert Satloff and Chas Freeman

[8] Aluf Been, “Our Kind of Realism”, Foreign Policy, April 25, 2011

[9] “Entire Text of Olmert Speech to Congress,” Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2006

[10] Benjamin Netanyahu, “Three Principles Key to Defeat of Terrorism”, Chicago-Sun Times, January 7, 2002.

[11] Press release, Office of Charles Schumer, U.S. Senate, December 3, 2001

[12] HR Res. 392 May 2, 2002 and S Res. 247 April 22, 2002

[13] Oren, Michael. “The Ultimate Ally”

[14] A Debate on the Vale of the US-Israel Relationship, Robert Satloff and Chas Freeman.

[15] A Debate on the Vale of the US-Israel Relationship, Robert Satloff and Chas Freeman. 

Brushing Aside the Veil of Tension

The earthquake that left over three hundred dead and 16,000 homeless in Iran several days ago is an example of the tragedy and havoc nature can quickly and mercilessly impose on any nation. According to a recent article in the Associated Press, the majority of those killed were women and children, and the costs of the overall damage have yet to be estimated. This particular earthquake stands as a reminder that natural disasters transcend political boundaries; Iran may not exactly be an ally to the United States, but their people have nonetheless suffered in the same fashion as Americans would under similar circumstances. While some may ignore the human implications the earthquake has had on Iran and its people, it is imperative that the United States put aside its differences with the oftentimes-difficult Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei and begin to administer aid to the ailing country.

Economic and political sanctions executed by the United States government in recent months have certainly made dents in the Iranian economy, but appear to have done little to deter the state from furthering its nuclear enrichment program. With not many other options on the table, the United States will be hard-pressed in upcoming months to garner support for even more draconian measures. However, the solution is right in front of them. Call me heartless, but it seems to me there is a silver lining to this earthquake, and it comes in the form of a potential olive branch. Perhaps the United States should avert their strategy from the offensive, and simply hold out a friendly hand in the form of food, rescue teams, and financial aid (to strictly be used for reconstruction in areas severely damaged by the earthquake).

The argument for delivering such aid to Iran right now is bolstered by the Nonaligned Movement, of which 118 nations will be convening in Iran next week. As the New York Times wrote yesterday, the Nonaligned Movement originated during the Cold War and was a coalition of nations that refused to align with either of the dominating powers at the time. The world structure has since changed, but the sentiment remains the same: an overbearing power such as the United States is not necessarily a welcoming presence at the meeting, and with other major players such as China and even Russia being invited to attend the five day event in Tehran, the United States has even more of a reason to be demonstrating its more charitable side.

Perhaps the Iran-U.S. tensions aren’t as black and white as they appear. Perhaps there should be exceptions to these tensions, time-outs and stoppages from the game of sanctions and frosty relations. After all, our qualms lie with the Iranian government, not its people; do they deserve to be collateral damage during their time of need right now? By delivering the aid that is needed right now, the United States is doing what is within its power to alleviate misery and suffering in Iran, but is also demonstrating that in times of need, it is willing to loosen the noose that has been wrapped around the neck of Iran. Timed strategically, such charity coming from the U.S. to one of its staunchest rivals in the global political arena would make a good impression on those 118 nations spending next week in the Iranian capital.

Although a tragedy through and through, this earthquake may prove to be beneficial to the United States and Iran if the U.S. can put down its weapons and extend a hand to a nation that needs just that right now.