A Mosaic Trip which Revealed US Strategy
On March 6th, John Kerry, Obama’s Secretary of State, visited Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar on an eleven day trip. The issues related to this trip were overshadowed by the issues of Syria and his meeting with the Syrian opposition leader in Rome. How can this trip be analyzed? In response to this question, Kerry’s conduct in this trip can lead us to at least three dimensions of this trip.
1. Diplomatic symbols of this trip; 2.Diplomatic discussions and negotiations of this trip; 3.Diplomatic analysis of this trip and its interpretations.
The 11-day visit began with Britain, which is the US’ most important ally among the countries of the world. But perhaps personal symbols might attract more attention. His fluency in French, German, and to a small extent Italian was very significant. Furthermore, his knowledge of US positions with regard to detailed and technical issues such as the US position regarding the Falkland Islands, which is considered a legal and calculated position and should be stated with accurate words, shows that Kerry can establish relations with the issue and the atmosphere.
The second point in these symbolic aspects was his meetings with members of the US embassies and their families. He had similar meetings in almost all the countries that he visited, indicating that he is familiar with diplomatic life. In his meeting with the members of the embassies and the State Department staff, Kerry stated that he is not one who has entered the Department from the upper layers, and that he is well aware of the middle and lower layers of diplomatic life. This kind of attitude is very significant from an executive aspect.
In general, two sets of issues are to be considered in Kerry’s meetings with different authorities. The first is bilateral issues. Kerry’s trip was full of adventure and the numerous demonstrations and the unwillingness of some leaders of Muslim Brotherhood opposition parties to meet with him were interesting. In Egypt, the US is accused of supporting the coalition of the Muslim Brotherhood and the army and this political interpretation demonstrated itself in this bilateral visit. With regard to Turkey, besides classic cooperation, the issue of different positions taken by the US and Turkey with regard to Israel was highlighted. One example was when a statement by Mr. Erdogan which claimed Zionist measures were similar to genocide led to a harsh reaction from Kerry. In other countries, relatively important bilateral issues were discussed.
The second group is international issues. Several issues were paid attention to in all of these visits, including the issue of Syria, Iran’s nuclear dossier, and the issue of Palestine, which was less significant compared to the other two issues and there was only a meeting held between Kerry and Mahmood Abbas, the chairman of the PLO. The issue of Syria was discussed most of all and what was significant in these meetings was, to some extent, Kerry’s change of tone as the Secretary of State and more severe US positions especially from an operational aspect. It means that the US announced that it would give direct aids to the Syrian opposition. Of course, this aid was far from explicitly announcing the delivery of heavy and advanced weaponry.
But the issue of Syria was an issue that showed that the US does not share similar views with its influential allies over this matter. In Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, this difference was highlighted. The issues related to Europe were also of importance in multilateral issues. The US attempted to declare that it has maintained its alliance-based perspective in Europe, and analysis of this issue is very significant.
The collection of Kerry’s statements, his meetings and also assessments of this trip lead us to interpret that there is a considerable distance between what the US stated last year as the change of focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. The fact that Kerry began his trip in Europe and then stopped in the Middle East for a long period and the analysis of his statements indicate that the US attempts to show to its old allies that changing the focus does not mean forgetting the strategic allies in US foreign policy. It must be pointed out with regard to the Middle East that, by choosing this region as the Secretary of State’s first diplomatic stops, the US is showing that the Middle East is still important.
The second interesting point is the lack of attention to the oldest dispute in the Middle East, i.e. the Arab-Israeli dispute, which is the root of many US foreign policy challenges in the Middle East. Of course, US officials state that Obama’s upcoming visit of Israel and Jordan will compensate for this shortcoming. Contrary to some analyses about Kerry’s background with regard to Iran, in this trip, he took harsh stances regarding Iran and displayed special collaboration with the member countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council regarding the threat of Iran and its nuclear issue.
But, the third and most important point is that this trip showed that the US is not in the position of real leadership in European and Middle Eastern developments. There is no doubt that it can be interpreted that the role played by the three countries of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar is more obvious and significant. The other side of this coin is that, with regard to the issues of the Middle East and Europe, and contrary to the claims of this country’s officials, the US has no framework for leadership and mostly responds to the existing situation on the scene and attempts to manage the issues. Of course, there is a similar thinking and outlook between the US and its allies with regard to the issue of Syria. But, it seems that not only on the issue of Syria, but also in other matters including the Arab-Israel dispute and issues related to Palestinian rights and the issue of security in the Middle East and even the democratic transition following the developments in the Arab world, the US generally rides the waves rather than having a cohesive and accurate framework to solve these issues.
In conclusion, Kerry’s visit to 9 countries in 11 days demonstrated that Kerry, like his predecessor Mrs. Clinton, makes the same old statements in new shapes and forms and Obama’s foreign policy during his second term mostly looks to hastily deal with the issues rather than presenting an accurate, clear, and new outlook.