After a post-Sept. 11 turn to idealism, the Bush administration has slowly shifted back to a more traditional posture in the Middle East, governed by realism. While continuing to play lip service to democracy, the White House has apparently reassessed the situation in Iraq, re-engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, stressed the importance of stability, promoted business and trade ties, and avoided new conflicts.
However, the reorientation of the regional policy has been complicated domestically by Congress, which of late has statutorily and rhetorically challenged the president’s regional policy.
Initially premised on eliminating the nascent Iraqi WMD program, the White House later claimed the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror. Neo-conservatives insisted a democratic Iraq would fuel reform across the Arab world. But with mounting casualties and scant evidence of progress, public support for Iraq plummeted throughout 2005. Nevertheless, the White House remained unwilling to modify its tactics or rhetoric until Nov. 17, when hawkish Democratic Representative Jack Murtha — a retired Marine colonel — announced his support for the withdrawal of US forces.
“The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion… It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region,” concluded the reticent Murtha.
Though labeling Murtha an ideological soul mate of Michael Moore, the White House also apparently heeded his warning.
The Bush administration promptly launched a public relations offensive aimed at maintaining enough public support to sustain the mission until after the formation of the new Iraqi government, at which time it can begin implementing an exit strategy.
Already, in wake of the elections, the Pentagon announced a small, but substantial reduction in the number of US forces in Iraq.
Congressional influence has been felt elsewhere in the region. In Sudan, the administration, led by Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, has worked doggedly to improve bilateral relations and resolve the simmering civil war. However, while the executive branch has opted for engagement, the legislative branch has worked to further isolate Khartoum.
Prior to adjourning for the year, Congress passed legislation calling for increased sanctions. And while damning the Sudanese government for the crisis in Darfur, it failed to provide $50 million in funding for the African Union peacekeeping mission in the beleaguered province.
In recent months, the Bush administration has paid increased attention to the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio — a problem previously ignored. The White House encouraged Israel to withdraw from Gaza, and subsequently offered assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
More recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was personally involved in brokering a border crossing agreement, and President Bush is reported to have promised to push Israel into granting further concessions.
Palestine continues to be a topic of great interest to Congress. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.R. 575, demanding the PA exclude Hamas from the upcoming parliamentary elections. While the Hamas provision echoes the official position of Israel and the Bush administration, both governments have tacitly supported co-opting militant groups by including them in the electoral process. Congress has already hurt the Abbas government by delaying and reducing the assistance package promised by Bush.
In 2004 and early 2005, Egypt was harangued by Bush administration officials over its alleged shoddy commitment to democracy. Pressure peaked when Rice visited Cairo last June.
“For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East — and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course,” noted Rice in a speech at the American University in Cairo.
The secretary had postponed an earlier visit to Egypt, allegedly over the arrest of Al Ghad party leader Ayman Nour.
It can be debated whether the reforms implemented by Cairo this year were a result of US pressure, Egyptian public opinion, or government initiative. But change did occur, and while the US press debated the sincerity of Egyptian reforms, the Bush administration repeatedly expressed optimism for the process under way.
“If you look at where Egypt is now in terms of reforms and openness and democratic development versus where it was a year or two years ago, I think it’s important to note that there has been important progress made,” stated State Department spokesman Adam Ereli in a Dec. 6 press conference.
Since the conclusion of the elections, it again appears to business as usual in US-Egyptian relationship. Recently, the United States Trade Representative and the Egyptian Ministry of Trade renewed discussions pertaining to a possible US-Egypt free trade agreement. But the story is different on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, where Egypt – America’s second largest foreign aid recipient – has been continually pilloried by Congress for democratic shortcomings. On Dec. 19, the House passed H.Con.Res. 284 a resolution critical of Cairo.
While there is evidence the Bush administration’s idealism-based policy had some success in promoting democracy and stimulating reform, the return to realism in 2005 was necessitated by a steady stream of setbacks.
To manage complex issues and relationships, US policymakers must balance idealistic needs with reality. While the White House has apparently learned that flexibility is an essential element of Middle East diplomacy, it must better explain its policy objectives to Congress or risk further congressional meddling.
— David Dumke is principal of the MidAmr Group. E-mail:
