THE ONE-DAY OIC emergency ministerial meeting held in Qatar on Saturday urged the United States to take urgent action to halt Israeli aggression against the Palestinians”. It is not possible to stay silent,” a statement said, as it called on President George W. Bush to intervene urgently. Where, in fact, has Bush been in the now eight-month-old conflict? And just what is the US responsibility in the Middle East? Conventional wisdom has been shaken these past few months. It had been assumed that the United States, driven by its deep interest in regional stability, would never stand idly by as the Middle East plunged into war. But that assumption is now being questioned. Despite months of deadly violence and a major escalation the past few weeks, the US seemingly wants to resist direct involvement.
To all appearances the Bush administration has taken a reserved approach to the conflict. In the view of the Bush administration, Bill Clinton was so consumed with the minutia of the Middle East that he squandered the presidency’s prestige. History — and Bush — suggest the United States cannot afford to be too meddlesome as Clinton proved when he called the Camp David summit meeting and pushed for an agreement on the most sensitive issues when it was obvious neither side was ready. Determined to put the conflict back to its proper perspective, the Bush administration is taking a broader approach.
But the past few weeks have shown that the United States cannot be as distant as Bush would have liked. For one, the new US hands-off policy amounts to a green light for aggression by Ariel Sharon. And like it or not, after years of unqualified US backing for Israel, that country’s acts are taken to be an American responsibility. In that respect, the US is not an independent actor in the Middle East. Most of all, in the absence of a major peace push from Washington, there appears to be no diplomatic initiative on the horizon strong enough to slow the formidable momentum of violence.
In recent months, most discussions of the US role have revolved around a choice: Either pursue a final peace or back off and just help decrease the level of violence. For now, at least, the United States cannot consider the exalted goal of a comprehensive peace settlement laid out in the Oslo agreements. The debate now is over how active the United States ought to be in quelling the violence and how to use US influence in the region to get the parties talking again. The administration is searching for the right balance.
Amid the dangerously escalating violence, Bush has wisely decided to play a more active role in trying to secure a semblance of Middle East peace. His administration has embraced the Mitchell report and has dispatched an American team to work with the parties on its implementation. With its provisions for a cease-fire, a cooling off period, confidence-building measures and an eventual return to the negotiating table, the report represents a positive contribution. It is the only available basis for a new effort to stop the killing and start talks again. But only a sustained and serious American push is likely to lead the parties toward its acceptance. If anything, the eventual fate of the plan will probably be decided by the United States.
To be sure, during the Clinton years, there were cases of killings even when Washington was heavily involved in trying to make peace. But as Bush has distanced himself, the fighting has intensified. Putting the United States back in center stage can only help the situation. A disengaged American approach will not. In inheriting a Middle East mess, it did not help that Bush took office with a vaguely defined foreign policy agenda. Policy will now have to be articulated and active involvement will have to be more pronounced. The silence cannot last much longer.
