Yet much as we must wish the president well in this critical endeavor, it is impossible not to wonder what he intends. Somehow the Annapolis effort must rise above the wreckage of his Mideast policy, including the vast damage inflicted on American power and prestige by the war in 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 America's reputation in the Arab world.
It is difficult to imagine a worse coincidence than the Annapolis meeting and the announcement of an agreement between President 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," however, 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, there was 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 these circumstances, of course. 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 President 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 in recent years. President 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 and by pandering to his hawkish supporters on the right. 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 results of those policies have been damaging to the interests of both Arabs and Jews, perhaps permanently so.
Still, this president is often luckier than he deserves to be -- and it must be fervently hoped that following Annapolis his luck will outweigh his incompetence. There were 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 legacy 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.
© Creators Syndicate
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.
Albion Monitor November
30, 2007 (http://www.albionmonitor.com)
All Rights Reserved.
Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for permission to use in any format.