Analysis: Possible Mideast Push by Bush


Analysis: Possible Mideast Push by Bush
2007-11-25 11:15:12
By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush once talked bullishly about Middle East peacemaking. He would "ride herd" on recalcitrant leaders, picking up the telephone whenever necessary and helping produce a long-elusive agreement.

In truth, Bush has been more a sporadic speaker than engaged enforcer during his seven years in office.

This week's peace conference is an effort by his administration to step more deeply into the nitty-gritty of settling one of the world's most intractable conflicts. Two key questions are how much Bush himself will become involved and how much good he could do during the final year in the White House after a hands-off history.

Past presidents staked much on the Middle East; some even achieved encouraging results. But after decades of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians, there is no resolution to the Palestinians' desire for an independent state.

President Carter's 1978 Camp David sessions led to a peace treaty the following year between Israel and Egypt. A 1991 Mideast peace conference in Madrid, Spain, that was sponsored by the first President Bush and the Russians, paved the way for the Oslo peace accords and establishment of the Palestinian Authority. President Clinton brokered peace talks in Shepherdstown, W.Va., in January 2000; at Camp David in July 2000; and in Taba, Egypt, in January, 2001 — all to no avail.

For a host of reasons, Bush has behaved differently.

There was his inclination to discard all things Clinton, coupled with the recognition that past intensive efforts, including the Clinton-sponsored sessions that broke off just before Bush became president, had not paid off. The Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war drew the bulk of the White House's attention.

Then there is Bush's personal temperament and a business-school taught management style. He prefers to focus on establishing a grand vision and trusting details to subordinates.

"Hands off would be an understatement," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator. He now heads the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation and the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation.

Nathan Brown, a Mideast expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said, "What's remarkable is the extent to which he's been disengaged, with only episodic parachuting in with absolutely no follow-up."

To Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Bush strikes him "as someone who closes deals, not someone who painstakingly sets them up. Mideast peace needs to be painstakingly set up. ... Making a statement is one thing, but cajoling, prodding and nudging are just as important."

Whether it is the Mideast or cherished domestic legislation, the president tends to rely more on the bully pulpit than on back-room dealing.

Bush has met and talked many times with the pivotal Mideast players. But everyone from White House officials to outside observers, when asked about the highlights of his involvement, cites speeches: one on June 24, 2002, when he pledged support for an independent Palestinian state, becoming the first president to do so publicly; and one this past July 16, when he called for the U.S.-sponsored conference set for Washington and Annapolis, Md., this week.

Bush's only effort at direct intervention was brief and disappointing. It was a June 2003 meeting with Arab leaders in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, followed by the "Red Sea Summit" in Jordan. Bush presided over talks between former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, then then-Palestinian prime minister who at the time held too little power for anything to stick.

Bush told reporters aboard his plane afterward that his role was to "ride herd" to keep the process moving.

"I show up when they need me to call people to account, to praise or to say `Wait a minute, you told me, you know, in Jordan you would do this,"' he said.

But Levy said Bush's engagement, when it has happened, has proved mostly unhelpful because it consistently has strengthened the Israelis' position over the Palestinians'. For instance, a 2004 exchange of letters with Sharon supported Israel's retention of Jewish settlements near its border and rejected Palestinian claims that refugees have a right to return to Israel.

Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council, said the president had to try something different from the unsuccessful past strategies. He argued that Bush's decisions have been borne out, such as spurning the late Yasser Arafat so that rising Palestinian leaders could develop a relationship with Sharon and help Israelis take bold steps.

"The president has gotten involved and made speeches and had meetings and made phone calls when he knew it would do the most good," Johndroe said.

Bush has shown signs of increased personal investment ahead of this week's talks.

Last week, he phoned Abbas, now the Palestinian president, and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, as well as important outside players: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who helped persuade skeptical Arab nations to attend; King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which agreed Friday to send its foreign minister; and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Bush has scheduled separate meetings at the White House with Abbas and Olmert on Monday and Wednesday, with the Annapolis conference in between, where the three will have a joint session. Bush plans to address a State Department dinner Monday night for all the participants and is making remarks at the Annapolis session.

It remains primarily Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's show, but she said Bush is committed to remaining committed. "The president and I will do what we need to do to try and help the parties get there," she said.

The invigorated peacemaking comes at a time when all three key leaders — Abbas, Olmert and Bush — are significantly weakened at home.

Alterman said Bush is doing both too much and too little: staging a high-profile conference without having laid the groundwork that would give it a chance. "A lot of this is stuff that shouldn't be waiting until the week before," he said.

It also is notable that even though the administration says it is aiming for a Palestinian state by the end of Bush's term in early 2009, the White House will not discuss whether Bush will continue to "ride herd" after Annapolis. It depends on whether the conference actually launches the first peace negotiations in seven years, aides said.

Levy said that though it is most likely that the latest peace effort will fizzle after Annapolis and Bush will fade back into the background, it is possible this president could "get the bug."

"This can be infectious," he said.