Running out of time, and friends

May 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm (Comments)
Tags: , ,

Deepak Tripathi

I cannot help thinking that the recent trip of President Bush to the Middle East was a spectacular failure. In Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – in every country he visited and every speech he made, Bush managed to offend leaders, as well as people, in the region. Reverberations will be felt beyond. 

Whether it was by calculation, or sheer incompetence, I do not know. But it certainly was not proper conduct by a visiting head of state. Nor would it help fighting the fires that are burning in the most politically sensitive region on the planet. His optimism that ‘a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East is possible’ is shared by no one. And as he runs out of time, he is also running out of friends. No wonder Arabs are furious and depressed.

Let us face it. When you visit a place with enemies living side by side and you plan to see them all, you have to be careful. It is wise not to go over the top in praise of one side if you want to influence the other and play a role in settling the crisis. The speech by George W Bush in the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem was provocative to say the least. There was not a pretence of impartiality when Bush told the world that ‘America was Israel’s closest ally’ and Israel was ‘a homeland for the chosen people’, barely mentioning the plight of the Palestinians. It was the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmood Abbas, who had to put the record straight – the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 coincided with a conflict that made 700,000 Palestinians homeless. As Abbas remarked, it was a ‘catastrophe’ for the Palestinian people.

Usual Arab courtesy was difficult to maintain. Abbas confronted Bush directly when the two met. Frank words were exchanged and Abbas told Bush that he, as President of America, had to show balance.

Palestinian newspapers were unanimous in their condemnation of George W Bush. In two of the closest US allies in the Arab world – Egypt and Jordan – Bush attracted severe criticisms. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Jumhuriyah accused him of twisting facts. Al-Akhbar remarked that Bush came to express his complete bias. This president did not think that his role as the leader of the most powerful country demands neutrality, or at least objectivity.

Al-Ghad of Jordan expressed outrage in an editorial, saying that Bush had come not to repeat his promise of a Palestinian state, but to celebrate with his Zionist friends the anniversary of the state based on occupation and rape. Al Arab Al Yawm, another Jordanian publication, described Bush’s speech to the Israeli Parliament as full of bigotry. Interestingly, the Syrian publication, Tishrin, was measured in comparison, with remarks that ‘Bush is backtracking on promises he made during the Annapolis conference on the declaration of a Palestinian state’ before the end of 2008.

Even Israeli newspapers were uncertain how to take his explosive intervention. In the view of the Jerusalem Post, “Bush didn’t have to utter these thoughts. His career is over, he no longer needs Jewish vote.”  And Ha’aretz warned the Israelis: “We should not allow this show of solidarity to go to our heads. Grave dangers lie ahead and no-one can do the job in our stead.”

The disaster that was his Middle East trip did not end there. In Egypt, Bush lectured President Hosni Mubarak on democracy and civil liberties, as well as the need to isolate terrorism. He told the Muslim people in the Middle East to realize that Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda have to be defeated. He warned that the ‘light of liberty’ was at risk from ‘spoilers such as the regimes in Iran and Syria’ and called on the region to reject their policies and prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

The meeting of the World Economic Forum at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh was the last straw for President Mubarak. Bush told his audience that politics in the Middle East ‘consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail’. Mubarak, who has been Egypt’s President for over 25 years, was not there to listen to him. And Bush was not there to listen to Mubarak when he spoke.

It is all very odd in light of the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which has used authoritarian regimes mercilessly. So what is behind this extraordinary behaviour? It is possible that, deep down, George W Bush realizes his own powerlessness to shape events and is blaming everybody else for the mess. Or he thinks that a Democratic victory is very likely in November and has no interest in making things easier for the next President of the United States.

The above comment was published on May 21, 2008 on The Palestine Chronicle.

Leave a Comment

Lebanon: A victim of foreign ambitions

May 18, 2008 at 10:03 am (Comments)
Tags: , , ,

Deepak Tripathi

If you want to put out a fire, stop pouring oil on it. But as George W Bush prepared for his trip to the Middle East this week, he proclaimed that he was ready to pour weapons on yet another conflict.

It is Lebanon this time – a country that has, in the past week, suffered probably the worst sectarian violence since the end of the 15-year civil war in 1990. In an interview with the BBC, President Bush told the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Fouad Siniora, a Sunni Muslim, that ‘the United States is prepared to help strengthen the Lebanese army, so it can disarm Hezbollah’ – the pro-Iranian Shi’a movement. Hezbollah has acted against its own people, Bush declared, and is destabilizing Lebanon.

This is the latest among recent revelations about America arming one faction, only to use that faction to crush an adversary. Washington funds Sunni groups in Iraq, called Awakening Councils, to counter Sunni Al-Qaeda, as well as pro-Iran Shi’a groups. Other Sunni groups, including the influential Muslim Scholars’ Association, have complained that Awakening Council militias are being used to weaken ‘legitimate resistance to American occupation’. With US help, these Sunni militias draw recruits from other resistance groups like the Iraqi wing of Hamas and the Islamic Army, which have turned against Al-Qaeda. They are also used to fight Shi’a militias that may or may not be allied to Tehran, but oppose the occupation of Iraq.

The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged in March 2008 that, in the Palestinian Territories, America armed the Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas, specifically to drive out the democratically-elected Hamas administration. Rice asserted that the situation had called for it. The American decision backfired, leading to the Hamas seizure of Gaza.

The rise of the Taleban and Al-Qaeda is a direct result of America’s decision to supply billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan’s decision gave America the victory over the Soviet Union in the Afghan war, after which the Soviet state collapsed. But once the United States had walked away from the Afghan front, the Mujahideen and Al-Qaeda turned against America. The chaos of the Afghan civil war left in its wake an even more lethal phenomenon, the Taleban, who turned Afghanistan into a terrorist haven, from where Al-Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks.

Time and time again, Islamist groups which America helped with weapons and money to fight for its interests have turned on their masters. Does the current American administration not know history? Has George W Bush not considered the possibility that the militias armed by the US today could turn against it in future?

It is worth reminding ourselves of how the latest violence broke out in Lebanon. It started when the pro-US government in Beirut, representing only a fraction of Lebanese society, tried to shut down Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and remove the chief of security at Beirut airport, accusing him of being a Hezbollah sympathizer. Hezbollah responded by seizing control of West Beirut, crushing Sunni gunmen loyal to Prime Minister Siniora. A pro-government television news station was shut down and all roads to Beirut airport were closed. The fighting then spread north to the city of Tripoli.

These events have left the pro-US Lebanese government humiliated and American policy there in disarray. Prime Minister Siniora knows the situation on the ground better than President Bush and has little appetite for conflict. Siniora was quick to announce that his government would never declare war against Hezbollah. And it was left to the wholly inadequate Lebanese national army to find a face-saving formula. The immediate confrontation subsided only when the army said the government orders to close the Hezbollah communications network and remove the chief of security at Beirut airport would not be carried out.

As the veteran British journalist, Robert Fisk, said in a report from Beirut in the Independent newspaper, this war is not about religion. It is about the political legitimacy of the Lebanese government, which has a narrow base, and American support, which Iran challenges through Hezbollah. The truth on the ground is that Hezbollah is only one of numerous factions, albeit with considerable power and popularity, in a country ravaged by internal conflict, fuelled by foreign intervention – not only by Iran and Syria, but also Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States. Lebanon is a theatre of proxy war between regional and international players, who manipulate Lebanese groups to their own ends.

In responding to current challenges, the Bush administration continues to use tactics that are dangerous today. They could create monsters tomorrow. In Lebanon, as in the Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, the focus should be on building state capacity – a difficult task, but one that surely has more promise.

The above commentary was published in the Online Journal on May 15, 2008.

Leave a Comment

The problem with America

May 15, 2008 at 9:22 am (Comments)
Tags: , ,

Deepak Tripathi

The world has fallen out of love with America since the ‘war on terror’ declared by President George W Bush. Much of the sympathy and popular support witnessed after the 9/11 attacks have faded away, overtaken by stories about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition. It is surprising how soon the goodwill capital, and a strong economy, can be squandered.

True, the events of 9/11 had forced the world into an extraordinary security environment. But respect for the rule of law, the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, above all proportionality in the use of force were bound to become core issues for many people. Today, America continues to be admired all over the world as a land of freedom and opportunity, scientific and technological advances and its capacity to do good. However, its policies generate strong opposition and apathy, creating waves of anti-Americanism.

What has gone wrong? The answer: America under the Bush presidency suffers from serious contractions between what it stands for and its actions in three major areas.  

Compulsive masculinity

The neoconservatives who came into the administration with President Bush in January 2001 were staunch believers in America’s military power and in using it to impose their will elsewhere in the world. America is a hyperpower, but the Bush administration’s determination to rely primarily on America’s military strength has proved disastrous.

The order should be the reverse of it  – soft power to be backed by hard power when necessary. Over the last seven years, we have a damaging mismatch with regard to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea. As it became obvious very quickly, even a hyperpower has its limits and can overreach. And then, there is loss of control, with haemorrhaging of political credibility and economic assets. 

Gap between principles and conduct

Historically, America has stood for certain core values: democracy, individual freedom, human rights, open market and free trade. Inconsistencies are there in all administrations. But the problem is acute with the Bush administration and it appears to know only one way.

The neoconservative agenda was to impose democracy, but, as it turned out, only in those countries which they did not like. The list includes Afghanistan, Iraq and, if they had not made a mess in those countries, then Iraq and Syria. What about Saudi Arabia – one of the most repressive countries in the world? Besides, the biggest base of Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia. But it is an ally and happily sells much of oil America needs – so different rules apply. In Pakistan, democracy is a good idea, but not when parties opposed to military win elections.

The Bush administration kidnaps suspects from anywhere in the world and sends them to detention centres like the one in Guantanamo Bay. There is no discussion of Saudi Arabia being a major hideout for active and potential Al Qaeda members. On the other hand, Iran is reviled as one of the countries in the ‘axis of evil’, for sponsoring terrorism and running a secret nuclear program. Well, Iran does support militant groups abroad, but is not a leading backer of Al Qaeda. The Bush administration tolerates lack of democratic rule, human rights and growing militancy in countries it likes. It saves criticisms and aggression for others.

When the burden of double standards becomes too big, erosion of moral and real authority follows. There has developed a wide gap between America’s core values and the conduct of the Bush administration. The perception of double standards has never been stronger, with a consequent loss of America’s image.

Difficulty in dealing with unpleasant legacies

The United States took more than two decades to come to terms with the experience of Vietnam. The process was helped by the ending of the Cold War. Now, dealing with the Iranian legacy is hard. It reminds Washington that the current lot that rules Iran overthrew America’s ally, the Shah, in the 1970s. In a region of great strategic importance, Iran is a major regional power – its status enhanced, thanks to Washington’s mistakes in Iraq. Iran is a difficult country to deal with. But the US attitude is uncompromising, aggressive and unhelpful.

As the race for the White House narrows down to between Barack Obama and John McCain, whoever succeeds President Bush will need to reposition America to dispel doubts in its leadership. It would be preferable for America to revert to greater use of soft power, to show greater willingness to work through international organizations and respect for human rights and international law. And, above all, to be selective in the use of coercion.

 The above commentary was published in the Online Journal on May 12, 2008.

 

Leave a Comment

America’s clumsy diplomacy

May 6, 2008 at 9:11 pm (Comments)
Tags: , , ,

Deepak Tripathi

We have seen several comical examples of America’s open diplomacy in recent weeks. Their aim appears to be either to bounce other parties into confronting a country regarded by President George W Bush as part of the ‘axis of evil’. Or, they are crude attempts at hedging the risks America faces in the region after the electoral humiliation of its ally, President Musharraf, and the emergence of a more independent civilian government in Pakistan.  

Two examples, in particular, come to mind. First, the release by the Bush administration of pictures of what was supposed to be a Syrian nuclear reactor before Israel bombed it in September 2007. The satellite pictures of a building, instead of a larger complex normally associated with a uranium enrichment plant, have generated a lot of confusion recently. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog, and US lawmakers are angry that the administration sat on the evidence for such a long time. The head of the agency, Dr Mohammad El-Baradei, has bitterly complained that the Bush administration gave his organisation the evidence on the day it was produced before members of the US Congress.

The IAEA has asked for more information, so it can investigate claims that Syria has been running a secret nuclear programme, which, the Americans say, was not intended for peaceful purposes, and that North Korea has been helping Syria in the project. The US statement goes on to call for further action against Iran and help America’s efforts to end these activities and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Again, it adds to the confusion, because, only last December, the US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear programme in 2003. Not surprisingly, the American statement is also partial – it does not mention Israel, a country known to possess nuclear weapons and one which does not cooperate with the nuclear watchdog.

Was the release of pictures of the ‘Syrian site’ an attempt by administration hawks to sabotage a deal with North Korea over the nuclear issue and a possible deal over the Golan Heights between Syria and Israel? The White House years of President Bush have been overshadowed by the ‘war on terror’. He would like some foreign policy success in the twilight of his presidency. Or was it sheer incompetence, of which there has been plenty during his administration? 

A few days before the Syria-North Korea nuclear episode, the Bush administration tried to enlist India to confront Iran. President Ahmadinejad was to visit Delhi on 29 April. The State Department spokesman, Tom Casey, appeared to tell the Indian government publicly to press the Iranian leader to suspend his uranium enrichment activities and comply with the other requirements regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.  

The Indians were not pleased and, barely maintaining diplomatic niceties, told Washington to mind its own business. The Foreign Ministry in Delhi responded by saying that both India and Iran were capable of managing all aspects of their relationship and neither country needed any guidance. The attempt to exert public pressure on India was particularly crass because it had, in the past, supported international attempts to refer Iran’s nuclear programme to the Security Council.

Now is a particularly sensitive time for India. It is holding talks with Tehran on a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline deal. In light of America’s own intelligence estimate of December 2007, the Indian government was hoping that now was the right time for the talks to progress. The State Department intervention was unexpected as it was crude. And the Indians feel big enough to stand up and say ‘No’ to the US administration.

This is not the only occasion when the Indians have been irritated by the conduct of US diplomacy through the media. Immediately after Pakistan’s general election in February, a Congressional delegation visited both Pakistan and India. The Americans realised that their policy in the region was in serious trouble following the humiliation of President Musharraf, the military man on whom they had depended too much. So, to hedge the risks, several members of the Congressional delegation tried to set a deadline for India to conclude the proposed nuclear deal with America by summer 2008. The Indian government wants the deal, because it would open the doors to obtain new technology for India. But it is facing delay because of opposition from the Marxists, on whose support the coalition government in Delhi relies. 

The Indians were not going to accept any deadline set by Washington. They told the Congressional delegation that ‘we do not work to deadlines’. In a face-to-face meeting in Washington a few weeks later, the Indian Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, gave Condoleezza Rice the same message. India would like the deal, but no deadlines please. The US Secretary of State had to back down and say that the situation had not reached ‘the now or never stage’ and there was still time to try to finish the work.

The hawks who dominated the Bush administration possessed a fatal confidence in American power and in their own capability to compel others to do what they wanted. In the twilight phase of the Bush presidency, that is no more the case. 

 

Leave a Comment