Analysis: Bush's failed foreign policy; UN emergency meeting; Rice speaks

[ProSense]

My attitude is this: There are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace. And those of -- who are peace-loving must work together to help the agents of peace -- Israel, President Abbas, and others -- to achieve their objective. You got to understand when peace advances, it's in the terrorists' interests in some cases to stop it. And that's what's happening."

We were headed toward the road map, things looked positive, and terrorists stepped up and kidnaped a soldier, fired rockets into Israel. Now we've got two more kidnapings up north. Hezbollah doesn't want there to be peace. The militant arm of Hamas doesn't want there to be peace. And those of us who do want peace will continue to work together to encourage peace.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060713-4.html

In the longer run, however, it is the calls Bush didn't—or couldn't—make that might mean the difference in containing this new Mideast conflict. As part of his policy of isolating terror-supporting groups and nations, the Bush administration has no relationship with any of the other parties at war or the states behind them. That apparently means no dialogue, even through back channels, with Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. Senior U.S. officials also said Bush and Rice had no intention of appointing a special envoy at this time. (Welch, having conducted all-day meetings with Israeli officials and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, took off on a previously scheduled trip to Libya over the weekend.) As a result, the president must watch and hope while his whole Mideast legacy—his goal of transforming a region that is the primary source for Islamist terrorism—stands at risk. Also on the line is his strategy of isolating Iran, as tensions mounted between Washington and Europe over Israel's action. "Usually in the past, whenever there was a crisis in the Mideast, the U.S. would immediately dispatch a high-level envoy," said Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to Washington, confirming that his government had received no U.S. contacts except a request for visas for Americans fleeing Lebanon to Damascus. "This time the only thing the United States is doing is blaming parties, assigning responsibility. There's nothing else."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13881743/site/newsweek

Six Questions on the Bush Administration and the Middle East Crisis for Wayne White

Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006. Wayne White, now an Adjunct Scholar with Washington's Middle East Institute, was Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Middle East and South Asia Analysis until March 2005. On Saturday, he replied to a series of questions about the situation in Lebanon and the Bush Administration's response. By Ken Silverstein.

1. Condoleezza Rice is leaving for the Middle East. Is her trip likely to lead to any favorable diplomatic outcome?

I don't think so. At least not anytime soon. Despite her meetings in New York at the UN, back in Washington, and her upcoming trip to the region, I believe her activities have been tailored to give the impression of action while not designed to make any real progress toward the urgent ceasefire that should be everyone's highest priority. To cite just one disappointment, the apparent failure to engage senior Syrian officials directly is a serious omission since Syria may be the only Arab government in a position to pressure Hezbollah in any meaningful way.

Snip...

3. What does Israel hope to gain from its ongoing military operations in Lebanon, and is it likely to meet with success?

Israel's civilian and military leadership appears to believe that it can destroy Hezbollah, not only by attacking Hezbollah itself, but also by showing the government and people of Lebanon what the price will be for allowing Hezbollah to operate on Lebanese territory. To the extent that Israel meets with success, that success will be of questionable long-term value. From a large and enraged Shiite population, surely there will be thousands of recruits ready to replace Hezbollah's losses in personnel. Indeed, just as the emergence of Hezbollah came in reaction to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, other groups—most likely Palestinians from vast communities in and around Tyre and Sidon, or Sunni radicals from as far away as the Tripoli area of northern Lebanon—could also mobilize against the Israelis. In fact, not learning from the American experience in Iraq—that trying to crush a guerrilla movement with conventional military force and thereby inflicting significant (in this case, even deliberate) collateral casualties might only generate thousands of other potential fighters bearing various grievances—the IDF could find itself mired in the same sort of seemingly open-ended confrontation.

Snip...

6. Will there be any negative consequences resulting from the administration's relatively passive diplomacy?

Very much so. As I have noted, the Israelis have embarked on a campaign that will most likely make matters worse over the long term. This crisis will further erode the United States' credibility in the Middle East—and beyond. Despite clearly siding with Israel, Washington used to be regarded as a party quite often useful for intercession with the Israelis, but in this case the Bush Administration has seemingly given Israel a blank check to do whatever it wants for as long as it wants. With respect to another extremely serious consequence of not working to bring this carnage to an early end, Lebanon already has absorbed billions of dollars of damage. By the end of the crisis, the cost of rebuilding Lebanon will be incredibly high and the rebuilding effort quite prolonged, leaving most Lebanese, aside perhaps from the hard-core Christian right, considerably more hostile to Israel—and the United States—than ever before. In this respect, I find scenes of devastated Lebanese urban areas not only appalling, but frightening.

http://www.harpers.org/sb-six-questions-for-wayne-white-2308402183.html

Transcript:

QUESTION: Mr. President, both of you, I’d like to ask you about the big picture that you’re discussing. Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today there is an Iraqi prime minister who has been sharply critical of Israel.

Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they’re sharply critical of Israel. And despite from both of you warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored.

So what has happened to America’s clout in this region that you’ve committed yourself to transform?

BUSH: It’s an interesting period because, instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability.

For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let’s hope everything is calm — manage calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th.

And so we’ve taken a foreign policy that says: On the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive in chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice.

And make no mistake: They’re still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for. In the long term, to defeat this ideology — and they’re bound by an ideology — you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/28/manage-calm

Annan calls emergency meeting on Mideast

57 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called an emergency meeting of the Security Council on Sunday after an Israeli airstrike on a Lebanese village killed at least 56 people, most of them children.

The meeting was called, at the request of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, to seek an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. After three weeks of war between Israel and Hezbollah, the council has yet to take a stance on the fighting, in part because the United States has not called for a cessation of hostilities.

The council was expected to discuss a French-sponsored draft resolution, circulated late Saturday, that spells out a series of steps meant to resolve the crisis, including an immediate halt to fighting. It also seeks the creation of a buffer zone in southern Lebanon that would be free of Hezbollah fighters and Israeli troops.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060730/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_un

ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Posted 7/30/2006 10:29 AM ET

JERUSALEM (AP) — SECRETARY RICE: Good afternoon. I am deeply saddened by the terrible loss of innocent life in the bombing in Lebanon this morning. The people of Lebanon have the deepest sympathies of President Bush, the people of the United States and my own heartfelt condolences. Our prayers go out to all the victims and their families...

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, how upset are you that Israel proceeded with this action today while you were here on your way to Beirut? Have they not scuttled the diplomacy and debate beyond the loss of life? Isn?t this an unacceptable action in the midst of the most sensitive time in the diplomacy?

SECRETARY RICE: Andrea, I fully understand and fully understood when I came here that I am working on this issue in the midst of ongoing military operations...

I was really struck and in fact saddened by the references to the fact that it is very near this area that this happened in 1996. It just reminds us how fragile ceasefires are in this part of the world and it reminds us that we have to try and do our work well so that there will not be more and more and more incidents over many and many and many more years. That?s why we are working so hard on the political framework. But I knew precisely what the circumstances were when I came.

QUESTION: The Prime Minister of Lebanon has said that he does not want to hold talks with you until there is a ceasefire. Does that change your thinking and planning? And secondly, you have told us repeatedly that you have mentioned your concern about this striking on civilian targets in Lebanon. Are you disappointed that the Israelis have not listened?

SECRETARY RICE: I am certainly going to continue to press the case that there be extraordinary care taken during military operations to avoid civilian casualties. I think we all recognize that this kind of warfare is extremely difficult, because in fact it is warfare within – situations within territory in which civilians are residing. It is extremely difficult. And it unfortunately has awful consequences sometimes, and these are awful consequences.

I spoke with Prime Minster Siniora, and what he said to me was that he was feeling extremely depressed and –depressed is not quite the right word – he was feeling very emotional about what had happened to his people. I fully understand that—fully understand that. But I want you to understand something too: I called him and told him that I was not coming today, because I felt very strongly that my work toward a ceasefire is really here, today.

QUESTION: What does that mean?

SECRETARY RICE: It means I have work to do here, on the political arrangements, and on how we get a security environment in Southern Lebanon that will permit a sustainable ceasefire. And I have work to do here on that issue.

QUESTION: Who is arguing against an immediate cease-fire? (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY RICE: I think it?s time to get to a ceasefire. We actually have to try and put one in place. I?ve made the point and I made the point in Rome that we want a ceasefire as soon as possible. I would have wanted to have a ceasefire yesterday, if possible. But the parties have to agree to a ceasefire, and there have to be certain conditions in place. Any ceasefire has to have circumstances that are going to be acceptable to the parties.

We also have to realize that we cannot have a circumstance in which there is a return to the status quo ante, in which there is a zone in Southern Lebanon in which a terrorist can violate the Blue Line, and create the kind of devastating circumstances that we see today. And we would be not very responsible if we were not attending to those circumstances as well as working as urgently and as quickly as we can to get the fighting stopped.

QUESTION: Some of your critics say that you are not putting enough pressure on Israel and you bear some of the responsibility for what is happening. What is your response to that? And also have you spoken to Prime Minister Olmert and what was your message?

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, the United States has been working harder, and harder and harder. I would put our efforts beside anyone?s efforts to deal with the current situation, to have a way to address the humanitarian concerns, to have a way to address the inevitable problems of warfare in which civilians get caught up...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-30-rice-briefing_x.htm?csp=34

Last update - 05:45 30/07/2006

ANALYSIS: Israel failing to give U.S. the military cards it needs

By Ze'ev Schiff

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria.

As such, she needs military cards, and unfortunately Israel has not succeeded to date in providing her with any. Besides bringing Hezbollah and Lebanon under fire, all of Israel's military cards at this stage are in the form of two Lebanese villages near the border that have been captured by the IDF.

If the military cards Israel is holding do not improve with the continuation of the fighting, it will result in a diplomatic solution that will leave the Hezbollah rocket arsenal in southern Lebanon in its place. The diplomatic solution will necessarily be a reflection of the military realities on the ground.

Also from the Syrian perspective there seems to be a contradiction between the American strategy and the steps Israel has taken with regards to Syria. Washington wants the solution to the problem of Hezbollah as a militia to be found in Lebanon. There are those in Washington who are recommending a connection to Syria must be found on this matter, but at the State Department and the White House they say this would simply invite Syria back into Lebanon, and this should not be allowed.

Damascus must be worried about a foiling of the American-Lebanese diplomatic plans. Syrian concerns should have stemmed from Israel, but for days now Israel is doing everything possible to convince Damascus it is not in any danger. If there is no danger from Israel, Damascus can certainly allow itself to undermine any possible plan meant to weaken and defeat Hezbollah. It will act on its own and with Iran without any fear.

more...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744043.html

[panader0]

1. Thanks for bringing me up to date.........