---

By : Raghida Dergham

---

European countries are receiving with reassurance signs of a more rational attitude toward NATO by the administration of US President Donald Trump. Only recently, he had called the trans-Atlantic alliance “obsolete.”

Europeans are also reassured by developments that have shone a more scrutinizing and politically realistic light on US-Russian relations. The two issues are linked because weakening American weight and undermining the White House’s faith in NATO serves one of the most important priorities for the Kremlin.

European powers were thus justifiably worried by news of an anticipated intimate relationship between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which would bypass the shared interests of Western allies on both sides of the Atlantic, and challenge the foundations of an alliance that could otherwise stand up to a more assertive Russia, as it had done to the Soviet Union.

Yet the reassurance felt after the sacking of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who had concealed his conversations with the Russian ambassador in Washington about sanctions on Russia, should not be enough for European countries if they want to restore their status with the US in Trump’s era.

Repairing the old flaws in NATO’s structure is needed, and there are other steps European nations could study to help polish the policies of the Trump administration on Russia, and influence its decisions and attitudes on global issues with a renewed sense of trans-Atlantic partnership.

Europe time and again hides behind US policies to justify its own dereliction, in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. So it is time for Europe to step into the light, because there is a great need for communication and candidness, as well as practical plans for many issues including Europe’s internal politics, where populism is on the rise against a backdrop of centrifugal forces pushing the EU toward possible disintegration.

This also applies to Arab countries, which have in turn obfuscated, whether out of fear of their obligations, or in denial of the failure of their policies. Arab countries’ reassurance over Trump’s attitudes on Iran must not turn into complacency, because what is happening in the US is unusual, and what will come in terms of American-Russian relations will have implications for the Middle East.

It is time to think profoundly about how to align themselves in light of either rapprochement or further divergence between Moscow and Washington, that is, in both the event their rivalry continues or there will be a grand bargain, but which has yet to fully mature.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been reading between the lines of American-Russian relations. He has been walking a tightrope, because he is aware of the implications of the scramble ahead of any maturation of cordiality between Trump and Putin. But despite all his caution, Guterres still fell victim to a US veto against the nomination of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as envoy to Libya.

That move provided a clear idea about what the Trump administration intends to do at the UN. It was astonishing for many reasons. First, a superpower objected to the appointment of a qualified person for the sole reason that he is Palestinian, in disregard of a fundamental American idea about equal opportunities for all. It is also astonishing because Fayyad is a US citizen. In other words, the US discriminated against one of its own nationals.

Fayyad worked for peace between Palestinians and Israelis, with US and European support, and commands international and even Israeli respect. Thus the Trump administration appeared reckless and prone to turning its back on moderates and friends.

Guterres quickly withdrew Fayyad’s name because he had no choice, but made his frustration with the US clear during his Gulf tour that took him to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Oman before heading to Egypt.

Everyone is waiting for the development of US-Russian relations, especially in the wake of Flynn’s sacking. He was very close to Moscow and Putin. His departure is a blow to Russia, but another blow could come when Congress interrogates Flynn and new investigations are launched into alleged Russian meddling in US elections.

He was very close to Moscow and Putin. His departure is a blow to Russia, but another blow could come when Congress interrogates Flynn and new investigations are launched into alleged Russian meddling in US elections.

Raghida Dergham

The US intelligence community is up in arms about these abuses, especially since Trump administration members are deliberately belittling the intelligence agencies. Revealing what Flynn hid from the vice president was not the work of the CIA or FBI, but the intelligence community appears relieved that the Trump administration has been prevented from making any moves that threaten national interests as set by the longstanding establishment, not the administration and its friends in Wall Street.

Moscow is aware of the gravity of these developments. What happened was not marginal. It was an omen that could pull the brakes on any unwise and premature conclusion that the grand bargain sought by Putin is ready and needs only Trump to sign on the dotted line. Yet until an agreement is reached over this grand bargain, there are many issues through which trust can be built, and European, Arab and Middle Eastern parties can contribute.

The issue of Ukraine could be more complicated than Libya or even Syria, given its position along the NATO-Russia faultline. But Libya is a candidate for cooperation between Russia, the US and European states, as well as Egypt and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Libya, remember, is a victim of Western reluctance to help rebuild the state, even though it was NATO that toppled the regime of Muammar Qaddafi, stretching the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution that had been endorsed by Moscow. At the time, Moscow protested and accused NATO and some Arab countries of misleading Russia, which is one of the reasons the Kremlin has sought vindication in Syria.

Russia today appears closely involved in the Libyan issue, which interests Moscow on two main counts: Terrorism and oil. The Trump administration is too ready to pounce on the terror dens, especially if this can be done without using US forces.

Lebanon was until recently the focal point of regional and international consensus and optimism. But optimism has since receded after President Michel Aoun defended Hezbollah’s armaments and role as an entity parallel to the Lebanese Army under the pretext of “resistance.”

The divorce between Iran and America after their honeymoon under former President Barack Obama has implications in Lebanon. Intra-Palestinian conflicts are undermining security, and the border with Syria remains risky and exposed to terror groups.

Yet all this can be contained if key capitals take radical decisions to prevent war in Lebanon. This also requires responsible local decisions, beginning with Aoun. Lebanon needs intensive care before it is too late, but it is also a candidate for international accords.

Iran has a big say in shaping decisions on Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. The tension in US-Iranian relations may appear advantageous to the Gulf countries, which have welcomed the change under Trump. But this does not mean automatically that Tehran’s tentacles will be pulled out of these countries.

Iran has a long-term project that is hard to contain or tackle as long as the US is opposed to a military option against it. Yet it is not impossible if Washington resolved to see this through, and will be easier if Moscow lends a helping hand in Syria.

The expected intransigence in Israeli positions on Iran and Palestine will be the ammunition Tehran has been waiting for, since it has always used the Palestinian issue as a weapon. In this context, European countries can play important roles if they insist on opposing settlements and defending the dying two-state solution. That solution has died at the hands of Israel, which rejects it in principle despite agreeing to it verbally.

This week, Trump said what everyone has known is true, instead of flogging a dead horse. Perhaps this could be useful because it helps everyone stop pretending. However, this also marks a new US position, abandoning the commitment to a two-state solution. Meanwhile, Trump’s remarks about one state requires a lot of clarification. A truly democratic state means equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis, and the end of military occupation.

However, one state that is exclusively Jewish implies the deportation of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories to Jordan, which Israel wants to become the alternative homeland of the Palestinians. If Trump wants this, then he must tell King Abdallah that he will renege on promises to respect Jordan’s sovereignty.

The Gulf countries may wait before deciding to protest, but they must seek explanations to avoid appearing as though they have decided to put enmity with Iran ahead of loyalty to Palestine.

If Trump is truly intent on effecting a qualitative shift in the Palestinian-Israeli issue with the help of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, he must quickly explain what he means by abandoning the two-state solution. Otherwise he risks undermining Kushner’s task and alienating moderates in Islamic countries, whom he needs to fight radicalism and terror.

Syria remains the gaping wound. There is no clear roadmap yet for what comes after the declaration of the red line with Iran, and US-Russian relations are hitting more difficulties than expected. So the last thing Trump needs is to kick into the air a ball loaded with poisonous nails.

---

Raghida Dergham is a columnist, senior diplomatic correspondent, and New York bureau chief for the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper since 1989. She is dean of the international media at the UN.

---

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in the Column section are their own and do not reflect RiyadhVision’s point-of-view.

---

[wpResize]

---