 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 August 2000 Issue No. 495 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 August 2000 Issue No. 495
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Clinton's waning authority
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
The closer we get to the presidential elections in the United States, the more difficult it becomes for Clinton to play a superstar role in the Middle East negotiations. Already the presidential campaign is overshadowing everything else in the concerns of the American people. Significant in this regard are the candidates' choices of vice-presidents. In a way, their choice highlights traits that the contending candidates for presidency want to underscore and which, for a variety of reasons, they cannot themselves emphasise enough.
Let us consider Al Gore's choice of vice-president, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Obviously, the most important consideration determining this choice is the fact that Lieberman was one of the first senators -- and one of the few in his party -- to openly chastise Clinton for his conduct in the Monica Lewinsky affair. As one Democrat source put it, Gore's choice of Lieberman was intended to help make the ticket more appealing to independents and swing voters who favour Clinton's policies, but were turned off by his personal behaviour. It is obvious that Gore considers his association with a president who lacked rectitude in his conduct the weakest point in his campaign. Lieberman has a national reputation of being a man of integrity and independence, appreciated by both the contending parties in the elections. He thus improves Gore's image.
But Lieberman is also the first Jewish candidate for vice-president from a major party. His wife, Hadassa, is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. He himself, an Orthodox Jew, observes the Jewish Sabbath and is not likely to campaign from sundown Fridays to sundown Saturdays. True, not since John Kennedy was elected as the nation's first Catholic president has religion been much of an issue in a White House race. But Lieberman's religion is bound to have repercussions when it comes to the United States' role as sponsor of the Middle East peace process.
Al Gore already has the reputation in the Arab world of being more biased to Israel than any other top American politician. The Arab parties are bound to see his naming of a Jewish running mate as complicating the Middle East situation still further, making the prospects of an equitable peace in the Middle East still more remote.
It is obvious, of course, that the presidential battle is over who wins the middle. By picking a moderate Democrat and self-styled moral crusader as his running mate, Gore is hoping to win over independent and Republican voters in addition to distancing himself from Clinton's controversies. But this does not necessarily mean that the Democratic vice-presidential nominee projects the image of moderation. When it comes to the Arab-Israeli dispute, the Arab lobby in the United States is nowhere near as powerful as the Jewish lobby. So nothing stands in the way of having a presidential team with crushing pro-Israeli inclinations. Indeed, such inclinations would be regarded as an asset, not a liability, in the United States.
Let us move on to the Republican candidate's choice of vice-president. Dick Cheney, a former secretary of defence, went from fighting for oil to running -- since 1995 -- a Dallas-based company, Halliburton Co., that he has helped transform into the world's largest oil-field services company. Its customers include the world's largest oil producers as well as oil producing nations. As Cheney now emerges from the business world to become the running mate of George W. Bush, Cheney's corporate contacts highlights the Republican ticket's roots in the oil industry. Halliburton's most recent annual report said it did business in more than 120 countries. Cheney's role as chief executive has given him the chance to weigh in on controversial foreign policy issues. At the top of his list has been ending the use of trade sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy. Cheney has called for the lifting of sanctions on Iran, which he described as a 'tragedy', adding that one of the best ways to improve ties is "to allow American firms to do the same thing as most firms around the world are able to do now and that is to be active in Iran"!
Cheney's company is doing business in countries still facing US sanctions, including Libya and Iraq, the enemy Cheney helped vanquish in the Gulf War. Companies that have formed joint ventures with Halliburton have done work in Iraq on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry, under the UN's Oil for Food programme.
So the presidential campaign as it unfolds since the two candidates named their running mates is projecting a new image of what post-Clinton America is likely to become. Obviously, Washington's policies under the new president will no longer be determined by the incumbent's approach to the political game. Already there are subtle signs that Clinton's personal desire to achieve an outstanding feat that would boost his reputation before he leaves office is no longer as decisive a factor in American politics as it was until recently. Parties to critical conflict situations, including the Middle East, might well prefer delaying key decisions to the post-Clinton era.
Until recently, it appeared that the only chance for a breakthrough towards a settlement was before Clinton left the White House. His successors would not have the same personal motivation to push forward with the negotiations as energetically as he did. But now a new pattern seems to be emerging, with a Democratic presidential team closer to Israel than any before it and a Republican presidential team with strong links to oil politics and thus to Arab Gulf interests and concerns. Clinton projected the image of a unique arbiter between the parties. In an article in the New York Times, former US Democratic President Jimmy Carter severely criticised Clinton for having ignored a rule that no mediator should transgress, namely, that of praising one side at the expense of the other while the negotiation process is still underway. In the aftermath of the Camp David summit, Clinton praised Barak for his courage, his deep knowledge of the issues under consideration and his farsightedness, while reprimanding Arafat for not having "dared take the last mile."
With the end of Clinton's presidency fast approaching, the options for the parties to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process are no longer limited to either an overall deal now or no deal whatsoever for a long time to come. Instead of betting on the Clinton card, both sides might find it more rewarding to concentrate on helping the candidate more likely to stand on their side win the presidential race -- in other words, the Israeli lobby versus the oil lobby in the American governing establishment. This logic could defeat Clinton's hopes that there is still enough time for a repeat performance of the Camp David scenario. Significant in this respect is the contradictory news that has leaked out concerning possibilities of resuming the Camp David talks.
What also seems to be true is that many parties interested in a final settlement no longer believe that the Clinton-Barak-Arafat triumvirate alone is capable of settling the issues at hand in a manner satisfactory to all concerned parties. In a word, the Camp David formula is believed to have definitely failed, and a totally different formula may be needed to overcome the present impasse.
