President Obama re-affirmed his commitment to the Jeffersonian principles of universal equality of all men and women, and that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the opportunity for pursuit of happiness. President Obama did not claim that these rights are only for Americans but for all people; indeed the President stated that he would like to support these rights for all people across the globe. 

The presidential declaration of these basic rights is most welcome at this time in the history of the Middle East. President Obama can play a major role in advancing the cause of human rights in the region if he applies, even imperfectly, what he promised in his second Inauguration Address, to the U.S. policy in the Middle East.

U.S. interests, defined wisely, can best be served if the rights of people in the Middle East (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are also respected. First, people in the region have to feel “safe” from foreign attacks. The President can bring at least four years of less violence to the region. There is no nation or group of nations there who represent a danger to the United States, nor do para-statal organizations opposed to specific U.S. policies necessarily present a military threat. There is no need to continue the Cold-War era thinking of two armed camps waging proxy wars indefinitely, as the President correctly noted. 

Second, it is within the President’s sole power to increase security for millions in the region by refraining from the use of drones or targeted killings. These methods are incompatible with basic American and human values and rights. The President can save many lives and ease much suffering if he directs a revamping of U.S. policy on terror and rethinking counterinsurgency. There are more legal and more effective means of keeping American citizens safer.

Third, the road to democracy in the region will not be easy, the process, in the President’s own words, can be messy. Political parties and factions not exactly to the Administration’s liking may win election. The U.S. Government, anxious as it may be to extend democracy, must not opt for anarchy and civil war by arming insurgents and supporting militias. The experiences of Somalia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria tell of extensive human tragedy and suffering that are incompatible with the basic rights enunciated by the President. The U.S. should continue to encourage the march towards democracy but not to coerce others to adopt liberal democratic systems. Encouragement may mean on occasion condemning an ally for violation of the basic values in which liberal democracies believe.

Fourth, there is an alternative policy that is constructive and helps not only the people of the Middle East but American citizens as well. The Middle East is open to American investment and trade. U.S. aid is not the solution but joint efforts are. The President and his Administration can initiate a set of joint U.S.-regional efforts that are fully in tune with his concerns for easing unemployment, protecting the environment, and assuring energy resources. Capital for these projects can be found in government funds and private sector sources in both the United States and the Middle East.

 “Constructive” projects that can be carried with cooperation from most countries in the region could address Water Desalination, Solar Energy, Wheat production, Low Lands Preservation anticipating inundation through global weather events, harnessing nuclear power for peaceful purposes together, and helping to stem creeping desertification.

Fifth, contrary to what many may tell the President, the Palestinian-Israeli situation remains central to the future of the region, and to the success or failure of U.S. policy there and perhaps elsewhere. The President, much like Martin Luther King Jr., cannot abandon the cause of peace in the Holy Land, no matter how difficult the prospects may be. There are solutions to that conflict that fit the basic criteria set by the President and still serve U.S. long-term interests. The audacity of hope must not stop in Jerusalem.  

  

— Dr. Fuad K. Suleiman holds a doctorate in International Law from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts and Harvard universities. He has been a professor of Political Science teaching courses in international relations, US foreign policy and American Government in five U.S. universities. Currently he is an Adjunct Visiting Professor of Political Science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.