A major area of conflict that deserves the utmost objectivity in choosing personnel and execution of US foreign policy is obviously the Middle East; however, the Washington administrations' track records have not been very promising on this front so far. President-elect Barack Obama's reported pick for special envoy to the Middle East, Ambassador Dennis Ross, is not the least, or the last, but the latest example.
Before arguing why, let me first make a few things clear. Sometimes it is useful for a country --such as US -- with diverse human resources, to put forth diplomats coming from the same ethnic and/or religious background of the country in which they operate. A good example would be former US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. Iraq is a majority Arab country. It was wise and kind to employ an American of Arab descent to represent the US there, especially following the disastrous tenure of Paul Bremer, who lacked any cultural sense whatsoever.
Likewise, I wouldn't have problems with the US appointing a Jewish ambassador to Israel or a Turkish ambassador to Turkey. Even if those diplomats had some favorable bias toward the country they were operating in, the positive outcomes would far surpass the risks. That would be a gesture to the host country. So we are not talking about denying anyone a position just because of his or her additional identities or nationalities. Those are assets.
What I argue is the following: Utmost care should be given to the selection of diplomats who will be in charge of helping to ease political conflicts heavily involving ethnic and religious tensions, so that neither party feels alienated. For example, appointing a Jew or an Arab for conflict resolution would not be plausible for a country aspiring to broker peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict. That should not be an option unless it's really the last resort. By this token alone, Dennis Ross does not meet the objectivity standards required for such a high-profile international case.
I am in no way trying to prejudge that Mr. Ross would consciously act with an anti-Arab bias just because he is of Jewish descent. However, bias is in our nature as human beings and it may grow faster in certain social environments. I believe none of us is totally immune from developing it. Furthermore, there is the perception factor, which often overshadows credentials and practices. Think about it: Would it have been conceivable for the US to appoint a Serb, Croat or Bosniak peace envoy during the Bosnian war? Or imagine how Jewish Israelis or Americans would feel if an Arab was selected to represent the US president as the chief envoy in the Middle East, no matter how reasonable and equipped he or she is for the task.
The objectivity case against Ross is made even stronger given his widely reported ties to the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, if not the Israeli government or other institutions in Israel. He is working for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank beacon of Israel. He may not be a hawk, unlike some of his companions, but it is certain that he is a prominent insider among many American pro-Israel pressure groups. So why add extra controversy to the already controversial role and image of the US in the Arab Middle East and Muslim world?
Obama may feel safer with close advisors around such as Ross, who served for the Clinton administration. This proves Obama's approach to Arab-Israeli issues will be similar to that of Clinton. Returning to the Clinton-era's more constructive -- though not good enough -- policies can be seen as a gain after George W. Bush. Yet Obama's new team, including Ross, will most likely fall short of coming up with a solution to the conflict that is fair, balanced and durable.
At the end of the day, the Ross appointment may not be a gross mistake, but it will certainly not improve the image of the US as an honest peace broker as much as such improvement is needed.
