The Political Bankruptcy of George W. Bush

The Political Bankruptcy of George W. Bush
by Patrick Seale Released: 15 Jan 2008
The Presidency of the United States of America is a position of immense power, even when the office is tarnished and debased, as it has been by its present occupant.

George W. Bush’s recent Middle East tour was a unique opportunity -- very probably his last -- to restore his country’s prestige and his own reputation by making a decisive contribution to regional peace and security.

But Bush threw it away with the stubborn wrong-headedness which has been the hallmark of his two terms in office.

In the Gulf, he delivered the wrong message about Iran, sharpening rather than easing regional tensions. In Israel and the Palestinian territories, his message was muddled and muted, when it should have been clear and strong. It is highly doubtful that he has advanced the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The United States is up to its neck in Middle East conflicts. It is hated and challenged as no external power has been in modern times. Its blunders, brutalities and bias have triggered a world-wide insurgency, which it is struggling ineffectually to put down, under the false banner of the ‘Global War on Terror’.

Only by the successful resolution of Middle East conflicts can the insurgency against America be tamed. These conflicts are essentially political. They cannot be resolved by military means alone. Relying on force tends to make them worse. Finding political solutions to them has become a matter of urgent national importance for the United States itself -- and for the many hapless victims of its policies.

One would have supposed that Bush, in his week-long visit to the region, would have spared no effort to propose detailed and balanced solutions to these conflicts, backed by America’s incomparable leverage. But Bush did no such thing.

In the Gulf, he had a great opportunity to change course. He could have proposed a policy of engagement and dialogue with Iran -- without lowering America’s guard or compromising its policy of containment of the Islamic Republic. Such a gesture would have been warmly welcomed by the local States, and would have greatly contributed to détente in the vital Gulf region.

It would also have been in line with the findings of America’s own Intelligence Agencies, which recently concluded that Iran had put an end to its military nuclear programme in 2003. It would have strengthened the efforts of Muhammad al-Baradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief, to unveil Iran’s nuclear activities.

Instead, like a dog with a bone, Bush repeated his stale and hollow slogan that Iran is "the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism" and that "its actions threaten the security of nations everywhere." No sensible person believes this -- and certainly none in the Gulf. It is a slogan that can all too easily be turned against the United States itself.

In the minds of the locals, the United States – and not Iran -- is the aggressive intruder in the Gulf. It is the United States -- and not Iran -- which has smashed Iraq, releasing sectarian Sunni-Shia demons and overturning the regional balance of power.

The Gulf States want to live at peace with Iran and to trade with it, as they have done for centuries. Many of the leading merchant families in the Arab Gulf states are of Iranian origin. There are half a million Iranians living in Dubai and 25 daily flights between Dubai and Iran. Dubai and Abu Dhabi trade hugely with Iran and have enjoyed a massive influx of Iranian capital.

Bush’s attempts to pressure the Gulf States into severing their trade and financial ties with Iran is both unwelcome and unrealistic. It is not a message the Gulf States want to hear -- even if they are too polite to say so.

The Gulf Cooperation Council invited Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to its summit meeting in December and Saudi Arabia invited him to attend the recent Hajj. These are not the actions of leaders who share Bush’s hysterical views.

Bush was as lamentable in Israel and the Palestinian Territories as he was in the Gulf. Everyone knows that, if left to themselves, Israel and the Palestinians will never make peace. The reason is simple. As the stronger party, Israel sees no immediate need for peace. More land is what it wants.

But its continuing land grab on the West Bank condemns it to an uncertain future in an angry and vengeful region, deals a severe blow to America’s relations with Arabs and Muslims, and rules out the possibility of the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Yet the creation of such a state is the only guarantee of Israel’s own long-term security.

Only an American president has the power to say stop. Only an American President can say to Israel: "Content yourself with your 1967 borders. Share Jerusalem with the Palestinians. Put an end once and for all to your relentless occupation and settlement. Negotiate an immediate long-term truce with both Hamas and Hizballah, together with an exchange of prisoners.

"Above all, seize with both hands the offer of peace and normal relations which the entire Arab world has offered you, once you give up your 1967 conquests. This is what your great ally wants -- and what you must do before I, George W Bush, leave office."

He might have added: "Look, I’m coming back in May, for Israel’s 60th anniversary. I want all the one hundred illegal outposts dismantled by then, so that we can get down to rolling back the settlements and drawing the final borders of Israel and Palestine."

If Bush had had the courage to speak out firmly -- and had he spelled out the penalties of non-implementation -- he would have transformed his own and America’s image. He would not have won the Nobel Prize -- the Iraqi catastrophe rules that out -- but he might yet have entered the history books as a peace-maker rather than as a blundering war-monger.

But what did Bush actually say on his visit to Israel? It was up to the Israelis and the Palestinians, he said, to bring answers to the key questions of the statute of Jerusalem, borders and the return of refugees. People must understand that "America cannot dictate the terms of what a (Palestinian) state will look like."

This was a tragic abdication of American power.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to kill Palestinians on a daily basis, without a hint of reproof from Washington. In 2007, Israel killed 373 Palestinians, of whom 53 were children and 131 civilian bystanders. In that same year, Palestinians killed 13 Israelis -- six soldiers and seven civilians. These figures are provided by B’tselem, Israel’s human rights organization. 2007, it says, was a good year, because in 2006 Israel killed 657 Palestinians.

Gaza remains starved and besieged. Hardly anyone can go in or out. On the West Bank, 459 checkpoints and 102 army posts make Palestinian life intolerable. 300 kilometres of roads, forbidden to Palestinians, are for the exclusive use of Israeli settlers, of whom there are now over 450,000 on the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. How long can this go on?


Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

Copyright © 2008 Patrick Seale
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1455