Missing from the Annapolis circus: Adult leadership in the US delegation
- From: "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:20:15 -0800 (PST)
To the Washington establishment, George W. Bush's arrival in the White
House marked the "return of the grown-ups" to the running of American
foreign policy. Although that was an unfair and uncharitable judgment
upon President Bill Clinton, its implicit endorsement of the first
Bush administration was based on real achievements, especially in the
management of the Gulf War and the Madrid peace conference.
But Tuesday's meeting in Annapolis--not to be confused with a summit or
conference--indicates once again that adult supervision never did gain
control of the second Bush White House. Indeed, the president has
rejected advice from the wise old heads who counseled his father and
who repeatedly pleaded with Dubya for seriousness and maturity in
dealing with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel and Palestine. Instead his
approach to those issues has been both ideological and inconsistent,
with a vacillating quality that seems unlikely to encourage progress.
The president's opening address to the diplomats gathered in Maryland
did not exceed the low expectations surrounding the event. The hopeful
and forceful speech that might have helped move the participants
toward overdue action was well beyond his grasp, perhaps because so
many of those who grudgingly showed up harbor deep doubts about his
sincerity. Indeed, his tone was defensive as he sought to justify his
administration's late and limited attempt to renew the peace process,
moribund during most of the past six years.
The Annapolis timing is right, declared Mr. Bush, because
"Palestinians and Israelis have leaders who are determined to achieve
peace ... because a battle is under way for the future of the Middle East
--and we must not cede victory to the extremists ... [and] because the
world understands the urgency of supporting these negotiations." With
his usual flourish for the obvious, he also noted that establishing
peace between Israel and a new Palestinian state "will not be easy--if
it were easy, it would have happened a long time ago," and that
eventual success will require "hard effort."
Yet much as we must wish the president well in this critical endeavor,
it is impossible not to wonder what he means. The Annapolis effort
must somehow rise above the wreckage of his Mideast policy, including
the vast damage inflicted on American power and prestige by the
invasion and occupation of Iraq. The shadow of that deadly
misadventure threatens to envelop every discussion of peace--by
empowering the rejectionists in Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as well as
by ruining our reputation in the Arab world.
It is difficult to imagine a worse coincidence than the Annapolis
meeting and the announcement of an agreement between Mr. Bush and
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for permanent U.S. bases on
Iraq's soil. The prospect of an endless occupation poses a severe
embarrassment to any Arab leader who might dare to endorse or even
tolerate the peace process.
Such blunders seem to be the hallmark of the Bush White House "grown-
ups," whose planning and preparations for Annapolis appear to have
been insufficient at best. Whether the American president participates
in a summit, a conference or a lowly meeting, the outcome should be
fairly predictable, if not wholly arranged in advance. Despite the
months of shuttling between Mideast capitals by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, however, there is no detailed plan for following up
on this week's events, let alone any agreement on what the Israelis,
the Palestinians and the dozens of other conferees will actually do.
Uncertainty may have been inevitable under the circumstances that
attend the Annapolis meeting. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
arrives weakened by charges of corruption and military ineptitude;
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has literally lost control of half
his territory to Hamas. These men are not, as Mr. Bush evidently
thinks, the kind of strong and respected leaders who can make hard
decisions stick.
Whatever the faults of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, American
policy has been just as flawed. Mr. Bush has done worse than merely
neglect the peace process. He has abandoned the traditional American
role as honest broker by preferring ideology to pragmatism. That is
why he encouraged the Israelis in their abortive war with Hezbollah in
Lebanon, and why he insisted that Palestinian elections precede any
attempt to improve living conditions in the nascent Palestinian state.
In both instances, the products of those policies have been damaging
and perhaps disastrous.
Still, this president is often luckier than he deserves to be--and it
must be fervently hoped that at Annapolis his luck will outweigh his
incompetence. There are even a few promising signs, including the
presence of diplomats from Syria and Saudi Arabia, who showed up
despite their reluctance to serve as props in a Bush photo op. It is
unlikely but not impossible that this tardy diplomacy will revive the
peace process once more--and if it does, then the president will need
much more than luck to achieve success before he leaves office.
http://www.observer.com/2007/bush-s-grown-summit-highlights-middle-east-failure
.
- Prev by Date: Italian Transport Chaos!
- Next by Date: It's the end of America!
- Previous by thread: Italian Transport Chaos!
- Next by thread: It's the end of America!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
