19 - 25 April 2001
Issue No.530
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 19 - 25 April 2001 Issue No.530 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
No partners, only foes
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed questions the premises of the new Bush administration's policies. What do they augur for our turbulent times?
Bush's debut has not been easy. Since his arrival at the White House, the US economy and the stock market have gone down, a new Balkan conflict has erupted, the Middle East impasse has intensified and tension has developed with Russia, China and North Korea. The luck that accompanied Clinton for over eight years -- albeit with some tragic parentheses like the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo -- seems to have turned its back on his successor. While Bush is in no way responsible for the economic slowdown and Wall Street's fall, his foreign policy raises many doubts. The Reagan model, which might have proved effective in the confrontation with communism, is not necessarily valid in the post-Cold War era.
It is possible that Bush will change strategy. For now, however, it is clear that he does not share Clinton and Europe's view that Russia and China are potential partners of the West. For Bush, they are adversaries, and, as such, no longer at the centre of US foreign policy, at least for the time being. And Bush's electoral promise to show "more humility" in international relations has emerged, so far, only in his administration's disengagement from the Middle East peace process. But disengagement in no way implies even-handedness: while Bush has received Sharon in the White House, he has closed the door to Arafat.
So far, the world knows what the Bush team is against. It has little idea of what it is for. Bush has bombed Iraq, closed the door to North Korea, given a green light on the space shield, and begun a gradual withdrawal from the Balkans without consulting his allies, or by doing so only formally.
Bush made it unmistakably clear to the stunned world public what he thinks of international agreements concerning climate problems, like the Kyoto Protocol. In a cynical departure from his election promise to limit greenhouse gas emissions, he has succumbed to pressure from representatives of energy-related businesses who see huge costs resulting from America's ratification of the treaty. Thumbing his nose at international environmentalists -- and contradicting his own negotiators and secretary of state -- he informed Congress that carbon dioxide reductions are bad for industry, and that America will continue to emit the quantities of the gas that it deems necessary. His decision is a boon to the military-industrial complex, which appears to have seized power and now dominates the White House, the armed forces and foreign affairs. This makes George Bush a weak, and hence dangerous, president.
In the context of a US unilateralism that his administration appears to pursue as a new doctrine, Bush is not behaving like a friend even towards allies. Several European editorialists have written on what they see as a de-emphasis of US-European ties and the growing gap between Washington and European values. Bush seems to have concretely engaged himself on only three fronts: the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the sale of sophisticated weapons to Taiwan and disengagement from the Balkans.
The Bush family acts as if there has never been a Bill Clinton. Indeed, as far as the Republican Old Guard is concerned, the Clinton era was simply a long nightmare from which America has now awakened. The younger Bush's policy meshes perfectly with that of Bush Sr. For both, Iraq is an easy target, bombing it as favourite hobby, regardless of how many innocent civilians may be killed. In earlier days, the Bush family informed NATO allies when they were going to shoot. Today, it is enough that Tony Blair joins the initiative, although the British prime minister is an unlikely friend and partner for Bush. Blair and Bill Clinton were soul mates; Bush is the exact opposite of Clinton. It is hard to see how even Blair will be able to toe the American line.
Divisions within Bush's foreign policy team make it hard to fill the policy gap. Earlier commentaries observed that, because of manifest intra-administration fighting between the "moderate" faction, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, and "hawks," headed by Vice-President Cheney and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, confusion reigned. More recently, however, analysts determined that the conservatives were in charge of foreign policy, a policy characterised by unilateralist, adversarial Cold War tendencies, aimed solely at protecting US interests. It is not clear whether Powell has thought through his basic position on foreign policy.
Cheney and Rumsfeld have certainly done so. They are accused of being in disagreement with Rice and Powell on everything, of quarrelling and continuously giving different versions of the same problem, in sum of weakening the prestige of the White House. Meanwhile, the conservative wing in Congress is wielding ever greater influence and Bush is allowing it to happen.
If one characteristic has emerged clearly from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, it is a willingness to offend old enemies -- and friends. As the London Times (7 March 2001) has highlighted, "the new cold front is being propelled to a great extent by American ambitions for the National Missile Defence. NMD is emerging as the defining factor in Bush's international vision, despite opposition and anger in Beijing and Moscow and concern across much of Europe."
Indeed, the gulf between Europe and the United States is so deep and disturbing that France, Britain and Germany are doing everything they can to minimise its importance. But, according to a commentary on France's government-run public radio, "Schroeder's good intentions have been sabotaged by Bush's decision on CO2 emissions. America first, this is the message Bush is sending out. America is no longer weighing its words. It says out loud what it thinks. It batters Russia, bullies China and opposes a dialogue between North and South Korea. It steps back from the Middle East conflict to protect its oil interests. While much of Bush's foreign policy is still at a formative stage, the president has signalled a tougher stance on a variety of fronts, most notably Iraq."
There is growing European concern that the Bush administration is creating an atmosphere not conducive to diplomacy, leading the superpower towards disengagement and isolationism and, ultimately, evading international responsibilities. Colin Powell's efforts to change Iraq sanctions or keep talking to North Korea reveal some countervailing wisdom whose time may eventually come. "Nevertheless," says the Guardian (26 March 2001), "Mr Rumsfeld is telling us something that we -- in Europe or in what we fondly call the special relationship -- need to register. We are not the centre of this White House's universe. We have drifted towards bit parts on the peripheries." Other European editorialists have expressed frustration that many Clinton administration initiatives and positions were being abandoned, and that an "emphasis on unilateral, anti-globalist policies and a muscular pursuit of US interests has become the order of the day."
Nor is it only the Europeans who are dismayed at the direction the Bush administration's foreign policy seems to be taking. Referring to the US spy plane incident, Chinese and pro-PRC Hong Kong spokesmen invoked the spectre of "US arrogance" and "hegemonism aimed at China." Others in Asia are dismayed at the US decision not to continue Clinton's policy towards Korea.
The Arabs are concerned at Bush's obvious pro-Israeli bent. His decision to expel Russian diplomats over an espionage issue was seen by Arab commentators as the strongest and clearest decision he has taken yet in drawing up the lines of his foreign policy. It is a policy they describe as setting up new rules based on hostile characteristics. In the Middle East, it shifted American interest from making peace to isolating Iraq. It demoted China from a "strategic partner" to a "strategic competitor." It crowned all this with a decision on Russia that made Moscow accuse it of reviving the Cold War. According to an article in Al-Nahar newspaper (24 March 2001), the message conveyed by the expulsion "was not meant for Putin alone, it was meant for the whole world. It says that the America of George Bush is not the America of Bill Clinton; it is the only great power and it will practice this role; it has no use for others unless it chooses to."
Actually, Bush's decision not to implement the Kyoto Protocol is just another indicator that he wants to conduct one of the most conservative American administrations in modern times. In each of his decisions and nominations, America's current president has revealed an ideological orientation to the right of even former presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.
© 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 |
Recommend this page