Which way will Bush go?

by George S. Hishmeh

One can understand why President George W. Bush felt elated when he told visiting US governors this week that freedom was marching on in the Middle East. After all, the recent political events in the Arab world could usher a new era if all parties, including the United States, play their cards well.

To start with, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas which represent less than a quarter of historic Palestine, went to the polls in early January and successfully elected a new and moderate leadership willing to seek a political settlement with Israel. This pace-setting event was followed by the Iraqi elections. Millions there braved a bloody insurgency against the US-led occupation and freely elected a temporary parliament, which even though not perfect could usher a new beginning there if the underrepresented Sunnis are included in the drafting of a new constitution.

Then, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, more than two weeks ago, focused the spotlight on the continued Syrian presence in neighbouring Lebanon. More significantly, this ugly event renewed American-led Western demands for a prompt Syrian withdrawal, in line with UN Resolution 1559, thus spreading fears, echoed by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, that the US may be preparing to attack Syria, just as it did Iraq.

Although the Damascus regime has vehemently denied being behind the assassination of Hariri, an internationally recognised politician and philanthropist, it appeared eager to pacify this high-decibel international and regional uproar. It quickly handed over the notorious half brother of Saddam Hussein and about a dozen others to the new Iraqi regime - a step that was greeted by the French ambassador to the US as "a positive step".

The other regional surprise, in line with these far-reaching developments and which caught many unawares, was President Hosni Mubarak's call on parliament to amend the constitution to allow for direct, multiparty presidential election this year for the first time in the country's recent history. The Egyptian move did not escape the attention of many since it followed a decision by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to cancel a trip to Egypt, in part following the arrest of a prominent opposition leader there.

Even Saudi Arabia was queried about its projected reforms. In an interview, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal indicated that women will be voting in the next election, but in the same breath cautioned that reforms in his country should be "gradual".

Whoever wants to take credit for all these promised changes - the Bush administration or the long-suppressed ferment that has been evident in several Arab countries - is not all that important. In the latter case, it was noteworthy that the Egyptian university students who greeted Mubarak and Lebanese demonstrators have carried placards which read, in English, "Enough" - a clear sign that they were attracting international, especially American, attention for assistance in their fight for freedom and democracy.

But Arabs, cautions Stephen A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations, "have good reason to be sceptical" of the Bush administration's "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East". Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, he said: "Washington has done little to promote Arab democratisation, relying instead on the autocratic leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries to help protect vital US interests in the neighbourhood." All its approaches to date, including punishing its enemies, diplomatic isolation, sanctions and invasion, have not yielded any results and this failure, he continued, "should serve as a source of caution".

He suggested that US policy makers "need first to consider what exactly hinders Arab political development, and then what will convince Arab leaders to change". He preferred that Washington adopt an "incentive-based approach", best illustrated in the case of Turkey when it sought membership in the European Union. In the Arab case, he suggested US sponsorship of Arab participation in organisations such as the World Trade Organisation if the Arab states "first agreed to conduct serious political liberalisation and economic reform".

But before the Bush administration can entertain these ideas or others close to them, it needs to wipe clean once and for all its previous ideas, acquired from the neo-con task force composed of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, among others. Under the reported supervision of Vice President Dick Cheney, this task force had come up, in 1966, with a reprehensible policy paper called "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This document, it was reported last month in the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), stated that Israel should engage "Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper". It further recommended that Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilise Syrian control of Lebanon".

The outcome of the regional convulsions, provoked by the "Clean Break" doctrine, according to Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, was to be "a new Middle East, with Israel hegemonic in the region, presiding over series of newly balkanised states".

Which approach will the Bush administration take?

This article was published in the Friday-Saturday, March 4-5, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.