Bush Wades In
By Geoffrey
Kemp
From the April 21, 2002 edition of Al-Ittihad
When President George W. Bush walked onto the White House lawn on Thursday, April 4, and announced a new initiative to end the violence between Israel and the Palestinians he took the biggest gamble of his presidency. Unlike his previous statements following the September 11th terrorist attacks, this time his words and actions were criticized by some of his staunchest supporters as divisive and contradictory.
By sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region to broker a cease fire he was responding to overwhelming political pressure from moderate Arab leaders, his Ambassadors in the region, the European governments and editorials in the U.S. papers. Yet he was also running afoul of his political base, especially the neoconservatives and fundamentalist Christians who believe he should have no dealing with Arafat and that his priority must be to proceed forth with the campaign to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Ironically, on April 3rd, the day before the President’s speech, a group of his staunchest supporters wrote him a letter which argued that "the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens. . . .Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."
Thus when it was announced that Colin Powell would meet with the Palestinian leaders, it was a forgone conclusion that this would eventually mean meeting with Yasser Arafat, exactly what the hardliners were arguing against. For them meeting with Arafat will be rewarding terrorism and Bush is therefore undermining his own determination not to compromise with terrorists, as set out the Bush doctrine proclaimed after September 11th. Yet to those who support the President’s latest initiative, Bush is at last showing strategic wisdom. Like it or not, Arafat is the accepted leader of the Palestinians. Whatever Arafat’s record – and it is a very bad one- there is presently no one else to talk to on the Palestinian side. Furthermore to sustain the long term war against terrorism, the US must retain good relations with key allies in Europe and the Middle East if only to continue cooperation on the nitty gritty of the anti-terrorism campaign- police work, intelligence sharing, financial tracking, immigration and border control monitoring, let alone fight in a war against Iraq.
Although it is too early to tell whether the Powell mission will succeed or be an ignominious failure, two conclusions can be drawn at this stage. First, Bush and Powell are now committed to ending the Arab-Israeli conflict whether they like it or not. This will mean more Powell visits to the region, perhaps even some form of shuttle diplomacy, a policy the Bush administration fervently wished to avoid when it came into office. Bush’s reputation will be linked to Powell’s achievements. Bush cannot afford to see Powell fail for if he does it will have dangerous implications for U.S. diplomacy in other critical arenas. Second, for the time being, the momentum to move against Iraq has been slowed. Bush cannot undertake a major campaign against Saddam while Israeli tanks occupy the Palestinian areas. In this sense the State Department and its supporters, who have argued for a carefully orchestrated campaign against Iraq, including UN initiatives and support from European and Arab friends and the need to quiet the Arab-Israeli front, have won a tactical victory over the hardliners who believe the way to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is to first remove the regime in Baghdad.
This dynamic could change if Saddam Hussein overplays his hand and evidence of his attempts to procure nuclear material becomes incontrovertible. However at this time the Powell school has the edge in the high level bureaucratic battles in Washington. This may not last. George Bush has wanted to avoid any political confrontation over Israel which was one of the factors that helped undermine his father’s campaign for reelection in 1992. But as the President surveys the broader strategic horizon he may be having doubts about the certitude of some of his previous statements which argued the world is black and white and you are either "for us or against us." The Palestinian crisis highlights moral dilemmas as well as strategic dangers. As Bush finds himself drawn deeper and deeper into this tortured, protracted, conflict, it is likely that a more pragmatic and nuanced policy towards terrorism will evolve.
