Summits are, by their very nature, limited affairs; there is only so much time to discuss and agree policies which, in any event, have largely been thrashed out beforehand. On the agenda for the G-8 summit in Kananaskis in western Canada was aid for Africa, terrorism and the global economy.
One subject definitely not on the agenda was the Middle East. But from the moment President Bush put forward his controversial demand that Yasser Arafat be replaced as Palestinian leader, it was inevitable that it would intrude into the discussions. Indeed, it looks very much as if the policy initiative was timed specifically with the summit in mind. President Bush wants the backing of the other summiteers, including Russia. With such support he would be in a strong position to ensure his plan becomes UN policy. That is why he effectively hijacked the agenda — much to the discomfort of Canadian host, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whose idea was to keep the summit on its preordained path.
He is not alone in feeling his discomfort. None of the other participants is happy at the way in which the Middle East has gatecrashed the party — not because they want to avoid the subject, but because not one of them remotely agrees with the underlying principle behind Bush’s suggestions. All of them — even the UK’s Tony Blair, till now Bush’s loyal echo — are to varying degrees shocked by the idea that anyone other than the Palestinians should decide who their leader should be. It was a seriously bad move by Bush. He has expressed openly anti-democratic views and his first-line allies do not like what they hear. It could open up a major philosophical rift between the two just at the point when the US wants them most.
Bush will have to backtrack with his anti-Arafat views. What he has suggested is at complete loggerheads with the basic democratic principle embraced by the other participants at the summit. It is, moreover, a principle which the Palestinians themselves embrace: they loathe and hate Ariel Sharon, a man against whom there is good evidence for an indictment as a war criminal; but, at no point have demanded that Israel choose another leader and that, otherwise, they will not negotiate.
He is going to have to state publicly that he will work with anyone chosen by the Palestinians as their leader — which in this case is Yasser Arafat. If he does not, the repercussions will be grave. As it is, the European media love to mock him as a fool; but it has no effect on European support for the US. However, if Bush is targeted as an anti-democrat, things will be very different. Washington’s close allies will find it difficult rallying their own public opinion behind any pro-American policies in the face of such a blast. In the US too it could be dangerous for him if he is branded as being devoid of democratic principals. No amount of gung-ho rallying calls against terrorists will protect his ratings in such circumstances.
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” the saying goes. One hesitates to call the president of the United States a fool, but he has certainly rushed in to the Rocky Mountain resort with a policy that has not been thought through. By doing so, he has made a rod for his own back. If others now use it, he can have only himself to blame.
