Reactionary US provides new opportunities for China to lead

  2013/12/28 source：www.china.org.cn

2013 was not a bad year for the U.S. in the Middle East. It was able to restart Israel-Palestine negotiations in July, persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to sign an agreement to remove chemical weapons in September, and negotiate an interim deal with Iran on its nuclear policy in November.

Despite these achievements, the U.S. continues to become more of a reactionary power in the region. It seems likely that its Middle East policy will change significantly, which will have profound implications on China's Middle East policy.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S., under former presidents George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, actively tried – and succeeded to varying degrees – to dictate Middle East politics. Now some analysts believe that, in comparison, current U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East is just troubleshooting, whether it be for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Syrian crisis or Iran's nuclear energy program. There is no longer an overarching framework guiding the resolution of all these problems.

Most notably, as the Arab Spring unfolded, the U.S. remained a passive observer. Its role in Egyptian politics has been overestimated – it did not steer the direction of Egyptian domestic politics. In Libya, the U.S. simply followed the EU in regards to military intervention; and similarly, it was reluctant to meddle in the Syrian civil war. The U.S. also turned a deaf ear to other domestic demonstrations in the Arab monarchies of the Gulf.
There are several reasons that the U.S. has become more reactionary. It is now more reluctant to invest as much resources in a region where its interests are declining as an increase in domestic shale gas production provides some energy independence. It also has redirected some resources in its "pivot to Asia" policy, further limiting its capabilities in the Middle East.

The U.S.'s new policy means that it will be more willing to accept lower objectives in the Middle East. To put it another way, the U.S. will be more likely to accept more realistic goals. Before, it promoted democracy, hoping Arab countries would copy its own political system, but now it seems as if it will accept any regime.
The U.S. has never been more willing to accept resolutions with modest requirements. It agreed to a destruction of Syria's chemical weapons in lieu of military action to punish Assad for the Ghouta chemical attack on civilians. It is increasingly likely that the U.S. will have to accept a Syria with Assad in power.
Regarding Iran, under the interim agreement signed last month, Iran can continue its enrichment program, albeit at a capped level and under heavy monitoring. But 10 years ago, the U.S. would never have allowed Iran to have any kind of nuclear capability.

The U.S. also reportedly will broker only a diluted deal between Palestinians and Israelis, instead of a comprehensive and final solution.

A reactionary U.S. is a reflection of the country's decline. No longer will it use military approaches, which demand a lot of resources, to Middle East issues. Instead, the U.S. will likely employ diplomacy and economic sanctions to achieve its objectives.

It is mainly by diplomacy that the U.S. achieved its goal of removing Syria's chemical weapons. It used sanctions, together with negotiations, to reach the deal on Iran's nuclear energy program. These two breakthroughs will encourage more use of diplomacy and economic sanctions.

A reactionary U.S. will also change how it interacts with China on Middle East issues. It will be more willing to listen to China as a major player in the region. For instance, the plan to destroy Assad's chemical weapons was first proposed by China and Russia. The U.S. will continue to ask China to play a bigger role in regional security issues.

Being reactionary does not necessarily mean that the U.S. will not care about Middle East issues, but requires it to encourage other powers to share responsibility.