"Rarely has a president been confronted with so many seemingly disparate foreign policy crises all at once," The New York Times noted about Obama on July 23. What the paper didn't/won't/can't say is: Rarely has a president caused so many of his own crises.
This summer, most of Obama's problems follow from his unwillingness to respect democracy overseas.
The U.S. government supports democracy in other countries -- but only if the elections go its way. If not, anything goes to obtain a favorable outcome: economic sabotage, backing violent coups, installing dictators to replace democratically elected leaders, even ginning up all-out war.
Three recent examples showcasing U.S. contempt for electoral democracy include Egypt, and two places making news this week, Palestine and Ukraine.
Egypt's 2012 election, the first after the overthrow of U.S.-backed autocrat Hosni Mubarak, is a recent case of American perfidy that's embarrassing going on tacky. Mohammed Morsi of the long-banned Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist party, won the presidency in elections international observers called as fair and transparent as could be expected in a nascent democracy.
Rather than accept the results, however, the Obama administration "channeled funding ... [that] ... vigorously supported activists and politicians who have fomented unrest in Egypt." A year later, Morsi was overthrown by a coup that restored Mubarak's military junta minus the ailing former tyrant. Ignoring American law, Obama continues to finance General Abdel Fata al-Sisi's violent, oppressive regime, which many human rights groups describe as even more brutal than Mubarak's. Morsi, a democratically-elected leader whom a principled American president should demand to be restored to power, rots in a prison whose jailers are paid by American taxpayers.
Overshadowed by Israel's latest brutal swat-a-fly-with-laser-guided-missiles invasion and bombing campaign against the Gaza Strip is the fact that, as in Egypt, the United States got the elections it demanded in Palestine, only to succumb to buyer's remorse after the ballots were counted.
Here's an abridged recounting of an episode that not only sheds some light on the current conflagration between Israel and Palestine, but reveals the methods used by Israel and its allies to undermine Palestinian self-governance -- and belies America's loudly proclaimed commitment to democracy to boot.
In the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006, held both in the West Bank and Gaza in response to pressure from the United States, Hamas beat Fatah (Yasir Arafat's more moderate party), 44.45 percent to 41.43 percent, entitling it to 74 seats in parliament over Fatah's 45. (The current split, in which Hamas rules Gaza and Fatah has the West Bank, followed a later internal military clash.)
Israel's interference with the 2006 elections began during campaign season, when it preemptively arrested and jailed 450 members of Hamas because they were involved in the elections as candidates or campaign workers. Despite this and other acts of sabotage, including trying to ban residents of East Jerusalem from voting, the elections went off well.
The thing to do would have been to congratulate Hamas and the Palestinians, and offer assistance upon request. Instead, the Bush administration and its allies cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, ended diplomatic relations and imposed trade and other economic sanctions.
Three months after Hamas formed its first government, in June 2006, Israel invaded Gaza and the West Bank, demolished and bombed civilian and government infrastructure, and arrested 25 percent of the members of parliament "because technically they were members of a terrorist organization although they may not be involved in terrorist acts themselves." The U.S., which supplied the weapons used in the attacks, cited Israel's "right to defend itself."
Hamas remains boxed in and desperate under Obama. Israel and Egypt's al-Sisi regime, the two largest recipients of U.S. military hardware, have shut the territory's land crossings to Israel and Egypt and imposed a naval blockade on the Mediterranean coastline. Despite dozens of tunnels built to smuggle in goods, the West's sanctions regime has been successful; Gaza's economy has tanked, and unemployment among its 1.8 million people has risen to 38.5 percent. (The highest rate in the U.S. during the Great Depression of the 1930s was 25 percent.) Shooting rockets at civilians isn't a great way to make friends -- but desperation makes people do stupid things.
What the U.S. media doesn't want you to know is: Hamas is popular. They won the last election, and they'd probably win again if one were held now. By pushing regime change in Gaza, therefore, the U.S. wants to replace a popular government with an unpopular one ... in other words, subverting democracy.
Ukraine is yet another case of a democratically elected ruler overthrown by a U.S.-backed coup.
Viktor Yanukovych won the Ukrainian presidency in 2010 elections that were widely believed to have conformed to international standards according to foreign observers. But the U.S. was wary of Yanukovych, worried he might not easily be tamed.
In November 2013, Yanukovych sealed his fate by siding with neighboring Russia over a pending EU association agreement -- thus rejecting closer ties to the West and the United States. Street protests that led to Yanukovych's ouster in February 2014 were likely indigenous, but would almost certainly not have succeeded in driving the president into exile without the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars in covert U.S. funding to the Maidan organizers.
Though more of a money-motivated oligarch than a creature of the far right, current Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to accommodate right-wing factions, including neo-fascists, in Ukraine. Moreover, whatever you think of Poroshenko, he is not the legitimate ruler of the country.
Nevertheless, President Obama has recognized him as such and offered economic and military hardware in his civil war against Russian-speaking separatists in the eastern part of the country.
I'll close with a quote from Noam Chomsky: "For Washington, a consistent element is that democracy and the rule of law are acceptable if and only if they serve official strategic and economic objectives. But American public attitudes on Iraq and Israel/Palestine run counter to government policy, according to polls. Therefore the question presents itself whether a genuine democracy promotion might best begin within the United States."
Ted Rall is a nationally syndicated columnist.