US and Europe fail to see eye to eye

• Last Updated: November 03. 2009 7:16PM UAE / November 3. 2009 3:16PM GMT

The election of the US president Barack Obama came as welcome news to most Europeans who hoped that it would put an end to the individualistic and the indifferent attitude that characterised  former president George W. Bush in his dealings with Europeans, wrote Mazen Hammad in the Qatari newspaper Al Watan.

“Now after nine months of Obama’s term, doubts are cast about US-European relations. Both sides have disagreed on many critical issues, such as military action in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iran and  climate change.”

Many Europeans argue now that Obama has not successfully  managed to dissociate himself from the  “loathed” approach of his predecessor, while Americans feel Europeans have a negative as they have not offered to help Mr Obama in many important issues.

The Europeans were disappointed as Mr Obama gradually withdrew from the basic tenets of his policy in the Middle East, especially concerning the issue of Israeli settlement expansion.

Yet it should be noted that Europeans were less ready to help Americans on the Guantanamo issue. Europeans only accepted to receive a very limited number of former detainees, and in Afghanistan, many European countries still oppose Nato’s intervention led by the US.

Palestinians must stand firm against US

“The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton emerged as “the devil’s advocate” when she vehemently defended the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Nethanyahu’s point of view to force the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations without fully freezing settlement expansion,” opined the London-based newspaper Al Quds al Arabi in its lead article.

Mrs Clinton took advantage of her meeting with the Arab foreign ministers held in Marrakech, Morocco, to hail the  “unprecedented” position of Mr Nethanyahu calling for a reduction in settlement activity. She considered that his attitude was enough for Palestinians to engage anew in negotiations.

The Arabs expressed their dismay in public, considering the change in the US’s stance towards peace as a blow to the whole process. “Yet, no one knows what has been said to Mrs Clinton behind the scenes, especially as she has reiterated her demands to moderate Arab states to take normalisation steps to encourage the Israeli government to go forward with the peace process.”

There is a fear that if the Arab foreign ministers come to adopt the American position, they will exert pressure on the Palestinians to withdraw from their negotiating conditions. The Palestinians need to stick to their policy and reject resuming negotiations as long as the US is clearly biased toward the Israelis who are still following their extremist policies.

Panic industry over swine flu vaccine

“Many articles, interviews, books and seminars have all warned against the swine flu vaccine,” wrote Abdul Rahman Alrashed in an opinion piece for the London-based newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat.

“This happens daily in the West but with little effect. In our region, the same thing happens but with more effect, stirring serious  concerns. What is the difference between the sceptical impact in the West and in our region?”

The answer is simple. Although promoters of panic in the West are influential, policymakers cannot be easily influenced. In the West, decisions concerning public health are not the preserve of public sphere. They are referred to competent authorities, such as health research centres, which advise politicians on the best course of action.

In the Arab world, however, panic stems from myths, folk culture, television shows and websites. Decision makers can easily be influenced by rumours too.

The same scenario tends to repeat itself with swine flu vaccine being a conspiracy of the pharmaceutical industry to produce the vaccine and sell it later.

Those who seed baseless panic over the unsafe use of the vaccine have no good intentions.

“Therefore, it is vital for decision makers in our region to refer to respected scientific institutes for expert advice.”

Iran: dialogue can ward off disaster

“It is not yet time to predict the outcome of the negotiations between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme, primarily the outsourcing proposal for uranium enrichment. A compromise solution aims at assuring the world powers that Iran will only operate its reactors for civil use,” noted the UAE newspaper Al Khaleej in its editorial.

But it seems that Iran is taking its time in handling this issue. The West is adopting a carrot-and-stick policy. Iran, at times, is offered incentives from various countries, while at other times it is threatened with coercive measures.

“One can wonder how long this situation will continue and whether the West will remain patient. The US has warned Tehran that it has a deadline to comply with. We have heard the same warnings by the former US administration and it is being reiterated by the present one.” 

So far, dialogue is the option. In all cases, this is better than military action which only generates disaster. It has put the US in unenviable dilemmas, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two aspects characterise this dialogue: the roles played by China and Russia. These two countries are able to negotiate with Iran with a different language than that of the US and its allies.

* Digest compiled by Mostapha Elmouloudi

melmouloudi@thenational.ae