Those betting on the fall of President Bush should not hope for too much. Whether he goes or stays, US foreign policy is not going to change, except perhaps for the worse. Nor should they set much store by the Iraqi crisis being the nail in Bush’s coffin. That would be a mistake, much like the one the Iranians made in the 1980s in thinking that the American hostage crisis would bring down Jimmy Carter — and that was on a par with the removal of the Shah and the arrival of Khomeini. Jimmy Carter was indeed never re-elected, but the Iranians suffered eight years of hell with Ronald Reagan, his successor.
By the same token, it is erroneous to bet on the events in Iraq bringing Bush down. The decisive factor in the election is almost always internal rather than external and is usually economic. Foreign policy, while featuring on the agenda, rarely takes center stage. Americans, like most people, have simple and immediate needs — employment, retirement, healthcare and education. Candidates rarely challenge the president on foreign affairs for fear of appearing unpatriotic. In any case the victorious president usually supports his defeated predecessor and safeguards his reputation.
Yet neither the Palestinian president nor the Iranians have been able to comprehend this. Yasser Arafat refused at the last minute Clinton’s peace project after going through all the negotiations and receiving most of what he wanted from Ehud Barak. Arafat thought that it would be better to sign the peace plan with the next president because Clinton’s second term was ending. This kind of thinking lost Arafat the deal of a lifetime.
Long before the Palestinians, the Iranians made the same mistake. They announced their joy at the defeat of Jimmy Carter and welcomed his successor Reagan by releasing all the hostages they had taken from the US Embassy. Rather than sending a letter of thanks, Reagan vowed that he would never forgive the Iranians for what they had done. Teheran went on to live isolated and surrounded. Regan’s policies still have repercussions today.
Therefore, it is erroneous for those scouring the opinion polls to believe that a new president would take a varying stand on the issue. Most often the situation is worse than that which preceded it. History is witness to this. Let me remind you of what Arab columnists wrote during Clinton’s reign — of how Jewish Americans influenced the administration and how his administration was the worst yet for its bias against Arabs and overt support for Israel. When Bush won they rejoiced — there was only one Jew in the White House. The truth, in hindsight, is that Clinton was the fairest of all American presidents toward the Palestinians. He received Arafat in the White House some 13 times, and the Israeli prime ministers never got invited. Clinton also visited Arafat in his house in Gaza, and together with his wife put up with the criticism from the American press. He inaugurated the airport with Arafat in spite of Israeli objections. Clinton also pushed Barak into accepting the return of all occupied territories except for four percent and compensated Arafat for it with equivalent Israeli land and the dismantling of all settlements. Clinton advanced some solutions for the problem of Palestinian refugees — namely international compensation. He also gave back occupied Jerusalem.
But may God forgive him, Arafat refused all this, preferring to wait to give the honor of signing the peace with the new president who would be arriving within a few weeks.
Bush, once he got in, firmly closed the door, saying that Clinton had advised him that Arafat wasn’t to be trusted. Arafat wasn’t a liar; he just didn’t understand American policy.
After this overwhelming setback, and more than a year after Bush’s arrival on the scene, Arafat appeared and said that he was prepared to sign a peace agreement. He was told the offer was no longer on the table and was presented with a poor alternative, the road map, which merely opens the door for negotiations for the Palestinians.
Arafat isn’t the only one who misunderstands what electoral winds are blowing. Many Arab politicians have high hopes for the next president. It would be much better for them to deal with the reality of the current president or just forget about the American role altogether.
Arab News Opinion 18 October 2003
