Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Hawks have it their way

		Al-Ahram Weekly Online 25 April - 1 May 2002 Issue No.583
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Current issue \| Previous issue \| Site map

Hawks have it their way
US Secretary of State Colin Powell's dismal mission, writes Manar El-Shorbagy*, failed first and foremost at home

Although Powell's Mideast visit was a failure on the ground, the more serious backlash actually took place in the US capital. It is the US Secretary of State's defeat in Washington's power politics arena, in fact, that will have a far deeper impact on the US role in the Middle East.
The forces that have prevailed over the Secretary of State, and were behind the failure of his mission, are actually putting an end to the role of the US as a "broker", thereby opening a new stage in which the US becomes a "party" in the current conflict in Palestine.
Powell's visit brought to light just the latest round in a series of battles between the Secretary of State -- who heads the foreign policy establishment -- and the conservative wing of the Republican party -- which dominates the Bush administration -- over different foreign policy issues.
The ramifications of this latest round became clear during Powell's visit, with its contradictory statements, various inconsistencies, and, by the end of the trip, its complete loss of orientation.
Since the beginning of the Israeli invasion, the Christian right has joined forces with neo-conservatives and right- wing pro-Israeli groups in a vast campaign to drive the US president away from the idea of interfering with the Israeli operations. This campaign has defined the current conflict as part and parcel of America's own "war on terrorism," with Arafat as "Israel's Bin Laden." Negotiating with the Palestinians is thus a "moral compromise" and any pressure on Sharon dilutes America's "war on terrorism."
George W Bush, who owes his job to the conservative wing of his party, was clearly responding to this pressure when he first commented on the Mideast situation from his Texas ranch. However, as the situation worsened and the international criticism mounted, Colin Powell appeared to have won his President's support for an American initiative. In his 4 April address announcing the Powell mission, the US President demanded an Israeli withdrawal "without delay," (later characterised by top aides to mean "immediately"), an end to the "settlement activities" and to the "humiliation" of Palestinians. The US president also specified the goals of the Powell mission in clear terms. At the top of the agenda, he said, was reaching "an immediate and meaningful cease-fire" and a "withdrawal of Israel troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah."

A Palestinian man gazes at the rubble that the Jenin refugee camp has become after Israel's vicious attack. The flag draped over the ruins may be the only Palestinian institution left photo:AFP

Although the speech was carefully worded in a deliberate effort to accommodate the conservatives, it drew their immediate criticism. Bush blamed Arafat and accused him of "betraying" the hopes of the people he is supposed to lead, but, according to the right wing conservatives, he should have branded Arafat a terrorist and instructed his top diplomat to ignore him on his pending visit. The President's remarks regarding what Israel "must" do, and the firm directives he articulated for the Powell mission were unacceptable as well.
Soon enough, even before Powell left for the region, the right wing's influence had been felt. On 7 April, Washington was already saying that Bush's demand of withdrawal was just "a request." Actually, Powell's own itinerary was arranged to accommodate the mounting pressure -- with the US Secretary scheduled to arrive in Israel six days later to give Sharon enough time to move forward with his brutal agenda.
Arriving in the region with his hands already tied, Powell, nevertheless was still determined to go home with some tangible results, at least to strengthen his own standing inside the administration. Despite the pressure from his Washington adversaries, he met Arafat, but only after extracting a statement "condemning terrorism" in Arabic, a major demand made not just by Israel, but by its Washington supporters as well.
Throughout the visit, Colin Powell's statements had a different tone and stress, compared with the statements coming out of Washington. For example, while Powell implied that Sharon's military operations were the main obstacle to a cease-fire and the resumption of negotiations, the White House spokesperson, on the same day, described Sharon as "a man of peace."
In time, thanks to the Sharon government and the mounting pressure in Washington, Powell's visit was released from its goals, lost orientation and became an ad hoc mission. The issues specified by the US President himself, such as the settlements, humiliation and even the cease-fire, simply disappeared. And Sharon, unmoved by the US presidential "demands," which had now simply become "requests," successfully diverted Powell's attention to other matters. For example, while it was not originally part of his itinerary, the Secretary of State made a trip to Beirut and Damascus to accommodate Israel's concerns regarding Hizbullah. More so, he seized on the idea of the international conference floated by Sharon, even while acknowledging that it "is not the solution." Powell's eagerness to go home with something made him willing to discuss the idea even though Sharon had made clear that he had no intention of addressing any of the Palestinians' political demands.
By the time he was wrapping up his trip, it was clear Colin Powell had lost this round in his battle back home.
The fact that the US President and his aides have described Powell's visit as a success is a clear indicator that the standards today are not the ones articulated by the President in his 4 April address, but rather those put forward by the right wing ideologues in Washington. According to the latter, there is no distinction whatsoever between America's "war on terrorism" and Sharon's war against the Palestinians.
In such a climate, it is hard to see how the US can ever play the role of the "broker," at a time when it has, in fact, placed itself squarely with one side of the conflict against the other.
* The writer is an assistant professor of Political Science at the American University in Cairo.

Recommend this page

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Send a letter to the Editor

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