Bush’s Last Chance To Change His Image…& the World?
Venue: Annapolis, Maryland.
Subject: Middle East Peace Conference.
Major Participants: The USA, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Syrians, and the Saudis.
This week, beginning Tuesday, will see President George Bush make his first, and almost certainly his only, major attempt to bring an end to the world’s most intractable conflict, reports The Independent.
How will President Bush fare in a belated attempt to play peacemaker? “The reasons propelling the various parties to attend the conference are well known. They include the common domestic weaknesses of Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and Mr Bush himself. For all three, a genuine and concerted push for peace would improve their standing at home.
“For Mr Bush especially, and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, major progress in their remaining year or so in office would put a positive gloss on a ‘legacy’ that now consists primarily of the debacle in Iraq, and the huge strategic victory the 2003 invasion presented to Iran. Indeed, Tehran’s growing power in the region, feared by Israel and moderate Sunni Arab states alike, is a main reason why the gathering is taking place.
“At the same time, US negotiators hope that the very number of Arab countries attending (16 in all as well as the Arab League) will be seen by Israel as an assurance that any deal with the Palestinians that does ultimately emerge from the process initiated at Annapolis will have broad Arab backing – hastening final acceptance in the region of the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
“But if the moment is unusually propitious for negotiation, never have the obstacles to a peace deal been higher. It was not clear yesterday whether even a joint document would be agreed. The Saudi foreign minister is refusing to shake hands with the Israelis…
“Belatedly, the Bush mindset seems to be changing. Moreover Ms Rice, who has visited the region repeatedly to urge a visible ‘horizon,’ not empty promises, for Palestinian aspirations, has more clout in the Oval Office than her hapless predecessor Colin Powell, whose efforts to push Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts were always thwarted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Mr Rumsfeld may be gone, the vice-President remains, even more unpopular than his boss, but still vastly influential…”
The Guardian says: “”Confirmation that President Bashar al-Assad (of Syria) is sending his deputy foreign minister means that the Maryland meeting will be the best-attended Middle Eastern summit since the Madrid conference in 1991 – although the stakes are higher and expectations far lower.
President George Bush and his team is working overtime to achieve success by meeting in advance both Israeli and Palestine leaders, and others. “President Bush said last night that the broad attendance ‘demonstrates the international resolve to seize this important opportunity to advance freedom and peace in the Middle East’.
“The question is, what can happen beyond tomorrow’s ritual speeches? Both leaders face powerful opposition – Abbas from Hamas and Olmert from coalition partners and opposition parties against concessions on settlements, Jerusalem and easing restrictions in the West Bank…”
(Photo above: President Mahmoud Abbas and President George Bush)
14 Responses to “Bush’s Last Chance To Change His Image…& the World?”
Unfortunately (and we’ve had years of experience with Bush to show us this) I really feel that if Bush is driving this and follow-up is required, then it is doomed. I mean Bush can’t even rebuild an American city (New Orleans) which was ruined in a natural disaster. For the conference to work he has to be adept at reading and handling competing personalities, which he has failed to do to date. Somehow I doubt he will change overnight.
If Bush wanted to work on his “legacy” he should concentrate on one of the many problems he is already involved with. For instance I thought he did a great job invading Afghanistan after 9/11, but he didn’t bother to finish the job and turned his attentions elsewhere (Iraq). As a result Afghanistan is now in horrible shape. So yeah, Bush is getting impatient and is frustrated that so many of his projects are not living up to his expectations, but he has no one to blame but himself. If Bush would just stick with something and follow through he and his legacy would be in much better shape.
As it is, with this conference, he appears desperate (for a good legacy) and grabbing at straws. As such he is sure to fail in this latest endeavor. If Bush wants to have a good legacy he needs to do what’s best for this country (and the world) and not worry about his image- his legacy. That’s been the core of Bush’s failed presidency all along- he puts flash ahead of substance. He promotes loyalty in his underlings to look good and have support, at the expense of running a competent government for the benefit of the country.
“Bush can’t even rebuild an American city (New Orleans) which was ruined in a natural disaster. For the conference to work he has to be adept at reading and handling competing personalities, which he has failed to do to date. ”
excellent analysis, esp re handling competing personalities. Very subtle and important nuance
THis part reminds me so much of the most merciful advice you can give to ambitious writers too, anyone, really… “If Bush wants to have a good legacy he needs to do what’s best for this country (and the world) and not worry about his image- his legacy.”
thank you!
dr.e
dr.e, you’re welcome and thanks!
[...] House Bush’s Last Chance To Change His Image…& the World? » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
I agree that the Bush team has shown little talent for getting things done or for uniting people around a common cause.
Present conditions, however, would make this particular undertaking daunting for any US leader, even the most capable imaginable.
The Saudi ambassador gave several interviews a few months ago. His line of reasoning was: it’s all America’s fault, and so, it’s up to the US to paciy the Palestinians and the arabs of the region.
Note the assigning of all blame elsewhere, while accepting no responsibility on oneself. This, even as Wahabe madrasas, extremists and terrorists from SA flood the region.
That kind of petrified thinking is common in the region, along with am inability to cite significant examples of good govervenance as object lessons.
Thus, while the presence of the other states is crucial, there is nothing resembling a guarantee that their presence will be actaally helpful.
Criticizing Bush for ignoring this problem for way too long is legitimate. Criticizing him (ahead of time, BTW) for an inability to produce miracles in today’s conditions, is way out line, IMO. At least, spread the blame around to all the corners where it belongs.
Bush’s major obstacle is being seen by Arab states as an honest broker. Our unwanted presence in the region as well as our mostly unqualified continued support of Israel complicates the assumption of this role by the US. For example, major powers in the region, Iran and Hamas were not even invited. Its hard to envision a comprehensive solution that does not even take into account their views. Also, those who are attending include Abbas and Olmert, both extemely weak leaders. So, is the conference a serious attempt or just window dressing?
I would love to know the reasoning that was used when Bush decided to abort previous peace-making efforts and wait 7 years to try to bring those involved in the conflict together.
One aspect of the Iraqis insurgency and Arab governments that is neglected is the possibility that they are dumping their problems or unwanted trash(Islamic radicals) into the yard next door (Iraq). Castro played Carter in 1980 to dump his criminals and mentally in into Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
That the US is not seen as an honest broker is definitely an impediment to success.
Another impediment, however, is that no one in the region really wants an hosest broker. They want some outsider on whom to dump all their problems.
I never thought of this, but Rudi brigns up an interesting possibility. Coutd the Saudis be purposefully dumping their terrorist/extremist problem in all the backyards of the ME (Gaza and Lebenano being two such locales)?
Saudi Arabia is one divious and labajynthine country, with some in the royal family working against the official governement line. I hope I’m just being paranoid when I wonder, now, if this is a purposefully designed plan.
1. Your Bush-bashing, as we see from others as well, is silly.
2. The best view expressed of Annapolis I saw was that it was meant to salvage Rice’s (not Bush’s) legacy.
Does anyone believe that if the conference goes decently that Bush will pass all the credit to Condi? Assuming it goes decently (and you know my thoughts on the chances of that happening….) the conference may help Condi’s legacy but Bush will claim any success as his, too.
If the conference is a failure Bush will still spin it to his benefit. I can hear his speech at the end of this week, “We convened a Middle-East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland where all parties, including adversaries, gathered around the table together and started talking to each other. We made good progress and laid the foundation for future talks. This conference was an important first step in the mid-east peace process and any eventual peace agreement. I hope the next President will build upon the success of this conference.” That’s how Bush will spin it.
Yes, I know that Iran and Hamas are not included in the talks, but Bush doesn’t speak to groups he doesn’t like and doesn’t understand their importance in this process. So in Bush’s eyes they are not a part of the process (and they are not part of the process because Bush did not invite them).
Although any real accomplishment toward peace wouldn’t necessarily earn them a Nobel Peace Prize given the political play-pen tainting of that prize.
Iran’s government is evil, and why should it attend a conference about peace, given its nature?
Hamas had an anti-Annapolis, death-to-Israel-and-America rally in Gaza. (If we were as degenerate as they, we should dump chemicals on them and their rat’s nest, or just start subjecting them to sudden bombings and shootings effectively at random.)
* * *
Bush has made an opening statement, the text of which is here. (It’s less punishing to read than to hear him speak these words, obviously.)
No, this isn’t an endorsement or defense by me of Bush, nor of the Annapolis summit, conference, meeting, or whatever it has ended up constituting. (We need to see real reform among Israel’s enemies before serious prospects of peace will materialize.)
Olmert’s opening remarks are here.
Abbas’s opening remarks are here.
So far, we’ve heard great diplo-blather…
Unless Hamas and Iran are included in the talks (and have something to gain from peace) then Hamas and Iran will continue to act like hornets “all stirred up”. No peace in the Middle East will be effective otherwise. If we could achieve peace without the involvement of Hamas and Iran, then all the better. But regardless of what we think of them they are essential to the stability (or instability) of that region. Just think of all the trouble they’ve caused over the years. If they’re not part of the process their anti-American campaigns will still continue.
Of what value are they, Iran’s government (which chose not to attend and which has hurled more insults and stupidities about Annapolis, as it would about any other peace effort), and even more, Hamas (which refuses to even recognize Israel and wants it destroyed, and which holds demonstrations and commits violence in response to peace efforts) in “the process”? They reject all legitimate, reasonable solutions.
That Syria would attend but Iran didn’t shows you the lower level to which the Iranian government has descended.
As for Hamas, they are low-life scum who should be suppressed permanently. Hamas is even more degenerate than the government of Iran.
There is obviously no logical compulsion nor is there any moral obligation whatsoever to include degenerates like these two parties. Any party demanding the destruction of Israel is not a serious party to a peace agreement, obviously. That these organizations exist is not to be disputed, but the reaction to them should be that of destruction (they are dangerous as well as criminally destructive organizations) or at least containment or constraint.