"Time is No Longer on Israel's Side" - from commentator Kishore Mahbubani

Among the most astute commentators on international affairs I know is Kishore Mahbubani, a former high-ranking Singapore Government diplomat who is now Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. The following op-ed, “Letter to Netanyahu: time is no longer on Israel’s Side, published in the 11 November 2011 Financial Times, particularly caught my attention. It provides an example of the kind of literary craftsmanship, addressing public policy issues, to which I encourage my students to aspire.

Dean Mahbubani has grounded his argument that Israel’s policies must change in a nuanced geopolitical perspective, but without the turgid, opaque academic posturing that characterizes so much of “International Relations Theory.” He opposes Israel’s policy, but positions himself as a “friend of Israel” appealing to other friends. His article, like his prescient recent book, The New Asian Hemisphere, is a wake up call, not only for Israel but for Israel’s principal ally, the United States. The remedy he proposes is concrete and feasible. If Prime Minister Rabin had not fallen victim to an Israeli extremist assassin’s bullet, the two state solution proposed by President Clinton, to which Dean Mahbubani calls attention, might have been implemented, long ago.

Dean Mahbubani’s article follows, for study and emulation by international relations faculty members, undergraduate and graduate students of the world. That Prime Minister Netanyahu will read and take heed is, I fear, too much to hope for.

Friends of Israel unite! The time has come to send a common message: time is no longer on Israel’s side. Geopolitical forces are moving inexorably against it.

One cardinal mistake no small state should make is to put all its eggs into one basket, even a basket as strong as the US. Despite its huge influence, Israel cannot change the shifting geopolitical tides. America’s power has peaked: its economy will not shrink in absolute terms but it will shrink irresistibly in relative terms. This would have happened naturally but gradually. But the continuing economic crises in the US will hasten the decline in America’s influence. Shrinking budgets will cut defense and aid expenditures. A crippled economic giant with no rockets to launch its astronauts into outer space will lose its “mystique”. Countries will no longer hesitate to vote against American preferences.

This is what happened with the UNESCO vote of October 31. The news agencies reported correctly that 107 countries voted in favor of admitting Palestine into UNESCO and 14 countries voted against. What they failed to report is that these 107 countries represented 77.5 per cent of the world’s population; the 14 countries just 7.3 per cent. The American founding fathers called in the Declaration of Independence for “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. The American decision to suspend UNESCO funding clearly showed no such decent respect.

There can be no doubt where the opinion of “mankind” is headed on the Israel-Palestine issue. The world is exasperated with Israeli intransigence on the two-state solution. It is even more exasperated with the continuous increase in illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Some European states voted with Israel but their citizens are clearly sympathizing more and more with the Palestinians. The world knows that while Americans and Europeans love to preach the virtue of speaking “truth to power”, they have displayed total cowardice on the Israel-Palestine issue.

This cowardice now poses the greatest existential threat to Israel. Few friends of Israel dare tell it the inconvenient truth that time is no longer on Israel’s side. American power is declining relatively. Europe is becoming progressively irrelevant. Equally important, the power of the Islamic world has troughed. Now the relative influence of the Islamic world can only increase, despite the many challenges it faces. Turkey’s assertiveness, especially on the Israel-Palestine issue, is a sign of the new world order that is emerging.

The democratic revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia also end the era of pro-Israel dictators. Future leaders of these countries will have to reflect their populations’ sentiments. No future Egyptian government can impose sanctions on Hamas as Hosni Mubarak did. Pressure to speak out against Israel will grow. In Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki al-Faisal has warned that, “With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the ‘special relationship’ between Saudi Arabia and the US would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.”

The 5bn non-American and non-Muslim peoples of the world will have to make a clear choice: between supporting Israel (with lukewarm dividends at best from a declining America) or voting against Israel (buying insurance from a rising tide of anger in a more assertive and democratized Islamic world). Equally important, justice weighs in favor of giving the Palestinian people a right enjoyed by virtually every other people in the world: statehood.

Neither the US Congress nor Israeli nuclear weapons can protect Israel when the balance of geopolitical forces tips against it. And Israel could well trigger such a tipping point with any unilateral military strike against Iran. No one can predict the consequences when Israel becomes totally isolated from the global community. But it will not be a pretty picture. Hence, Israel’s friends should act quickly and send a short letter saying: “Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu, time is no longer on Israel’s side. Please work quickly to implement the two-state solution that President Bill Clinton proposed in January 2001.”

The late Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban once said: “The Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Sadly, the same may some day be said of the Israelis.

'Civilian casualties in Sri Lanka: a double standard?

As part or their training, introductory international relations students are asked to master contending theories that purport to explain how the ‘international system’ works. One of the most popular is ‘realism. Realists believe that international behaviors of nation-states can best be explained by a nation’s self-interest. Moral considerations enter into the picture, if at all, only to the degree that their are aligned with national self-interest. Realists pay particular attention to the self interest of ‘great powers’ because of the disproportionate influence they can exert.

Presently, Sri Lanka’s government is attempting to end the decades-long conflict with a separatist Tamil militant group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam through an aggressive military offensive. In the North, where fighting is fiercest, civilian casualties have grown. Since the LTTE view all Tamil civilians as allies in their struggle, protecting the rights of non combatants and avoiding civilian casualties are not priority concerns. Indeed civilians with deviationist views and those speaking out for some accommodation with Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese dominated government have been targets of LTTE assassination squads. Several of my friends had been victims. As the Tigers suffer reverses on the battle field, they are stepping up bombings in Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital city. The effects on Sri Lanka’s tourist and foreign investment dependent economy have been devastating. Much of Colombo’s downtown area, as I wrote in a posting on my last visit, is a high security zone.

As civilian casualties mount, Sri Lankan’s government is being subjected to increasing pressure from western nations, especially the United States, regarding ‘human rights violations and civilian casualties.’ Withdrawal of preferential treatment for Sri Lankan goods under international trade regimes is being threatened. Many Sri Lankans I know, themselves strong supporters of human rights and not necessarily supporters of the present government, feel resentful.

I believe their resentment is justified, at least with respect the country whose policies I know best, my own. When it serves national security interests, the U.S., like other great powers does not hesitate to implement policies that can devastate civilian populations. The interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are only the most recent examples of many. Even at home, U.S. governments, and not the George W, Bush administration alone, can be quick to curtail human rights in the interests of [American] “national security.” Like good realists proponent argue [to domestic audiences at least] that national security must, in times of threat, be the overall policy and moral imperative.

I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong, only that I can understand Sri Lankan resentments. I can understand, too, why Sri Lanka’s government is now looking elsewhere for international allies - to China, Iran and Russia. To the internationally beleaguered leaders of the developing worlds most resilient democracy, this policy seems, no doubt “realistic.”