25 - 31 January 2001
Issue No.518
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 25 - 31 January 2001 Issue No.518 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Could have done better
Almost everybody who attempts to sum up President Bill Clinton's legacy agrees that it is a mixed one. Looking back at his eight years in the White House, no one could deny him his significant accomplishments: the longest period of economic prosperity in American history, the lowest rate of inflation, a balanced budget and the lowest rate of unemployment ever.
Yet no one is giving Clinton's legacy high marks, and it is not only because of his weakness of character or the long series of scandals that marred his presidency. Clinton's low ratings have more to do with the endless number of opportunities he missed that collectively prevented him from excelling. For all his glitter and charm and his ability to grasp complex ideas, in the end he never measured up to the full potential that was offered to him during his tenure.
His critics and admirers differ on a number of points. His critics say he inherited the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) from his predecessor, for instance, while his admirers say that he managed to push it through Congress in 1993 despite considerable opposition from his own party. Critics and supporters also squabble about the issue of welfare reforms. While Clinton's admirers allege that his various reforms are part and parcel of the former president's New Democratic centrist platform, his detractors describe the package as essentially a Republican concoction imposed on a weak Democrat. They also belittle him as the first president to be impeached since 1868 and to have franchised Lincoln's bedroom for fund-raising.
Clinton supporters agree that he may be a poll-driven politician, but they point out that his veering from the Democratic party line proved to be the right thing to do on many crucial occasions. What they do not mention is that these were mainly in the economic field. In the end, almost 60 per cent of voters said that the moral condition of the country was seriously on the wrong track. Clinton may have been able to create a consensus on policy, but not on values. That is why George W Bush was able to win the presidency against Clinton's vice-president in a time of unparalleled economic prosperity.
It is Clinton's foreign policy that is of particular interest to those in the Middle East region. Here, the legacy is as mixed as it is with his domestic agenda. One can agree that his record, especially in the second term, was on the whole a commendable one regarding a wide range of international events. His support for the Balkan peace process and for NATO's enlargement was ultimately backed by most major powers.
It is on his policies toward Russia and China, as well as his defense policies, that American foreign policy experts differ. However, for a former Southern governor who professed a lack of interest in foreign affairs in general, it must be said that his overall record in that field is definitely remarkable.
Regarding his handling (or mishandling) of the Middle East crisis: whatever specific things Clinton did to push the peace process forward, he can again be characterised as having missed a series of golden opportunities, meaning in the end that he did not get the chance to achieve all that he could. It is true that most of the facts regarding the Middle East problem are known only vaguely by most Americans. It would be extremely difficult for anyone living outside the US to fathom the extent to which the American media is imposing a blackout on the Israeli brutalities in Palestine. Consequently, there is hardly any enlightened opposition in the US to the blindly pro-Israeli policies of the Clinton administration. But President Clinton knows and his advisers also know; and yet they collectively were still unable to come up with solutions to this problem.
Journalist and commentator James Fallows talks about Clinton's style by saying that most people who encountered him in office came away with similar stories: while in his presence, they had no doubt that he heard, understood and (the crucial point) agreed with the arguments that they were making. Once they went away, they found themselves wondering what it was exactly he had promised to do. This is why the Palestinians cannot be angry with him. How can you be angry with someone who says, "I feel your pain"?
In the end, he came up with, or was allowed to come up with, a package that was far less than what would have satisfied the Palestinians' national aspirations. Once more, he sacrificed principle for political expediency and relied on his personal charm and rhetorical power of persuasion. But he totally missed the point when he told Arafat in Camp David: "You have what is reasonable, and what you can live with. You can establish a 'sovereign presidential compound' for you and the Palestinian state next to Al-Aqsa Mosque, isn't this a great achievement?" What is being offered to the Palestinians as a "great package" does not meet any of the basic terms of reference laid out in Madrid nearly 10 years ago. Nor does it take any account of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
The package is a hoax, and Clinton -- who spent days listening to every Palestinian leader -- should have known more than anybody else that this was the case. One need only read the minutes of what was said in Camp David II (as meticulously noted by Akram Hannia in Al-Ayyam newspaper) and his speech to the Israeli Policy Forum to realise how he purposely failed to address the central issues.
All along, one feels that Clinton somehow believed that he owed the Israelis something. He went as far as to say that "the Israeli people must understand that they are creating a few problems too," and added that the settlement enterprise and the building of bypasses in the heart of what will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides agreed to. Yet, he never condemned the settlements outright, like President Carter does, nor said clearly that they are impediments to peace. Nor did he offer creative solutions to the refugee problem.
Neither did he admit that the right of return is a sacred human right that deserves Israeli recognition of their historical responsibility and a concerted international effort to help solve it. Instead, he bought the Israeli point of view lock, stock and barrel and said that to accept the principle of the right of return, even partially, would lead to the "annihilation" of Israel. He even respects what are clearly Israeli lies, for instance they are returning 95 per cent of Palestinian land.
When we sat at Camp David I (and I was there), Ezer Weizman was in the habit of saying: "What people in Israel do not want to understand is that we are trying to build peace, real peace, permanent and comprehensive peace." Maybe his inept advisers persuaded Clinton that this is truly the best the Palestinians will ever get from Israel. Maybe the Palestinians are weak and divided and so unable on their own to confront the Nazi-like Israeli behaviour, backed up by their tanks and gunships.
Having said all that, the Palestinians are not without any trump cards. What they have is, simply, their very existence on the ground. Unless they are granted their rights, there can never be peace, either for Israel or anyone else in the area. If that were the case, as the late Prime Minister Rabin feared, the best and the brightest would begin to leave Israel in droves because of the sense they would have of being trapped forever in a senseless conflict.
Unfortunately, Clinton is leaving the Middle East problem in a worse state than when he found it. By abrogating the US position based on international law, he has made it extremely difficult for his successor to undo what has already been promised to the Israelis. Maybe Clinton was the president who listened to the Palestinians the longest; but when it came to delivery, he offered them "spoiled Israeli goods" which he was made to believe the Palestinians would be eager to buy, or forced to buy. That is why this charming president failed to achieve what he thought he was destined to achieve, or what many others hoped he would.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
