U.S. Diplomacy

(AP)

President Bush has travelled to Israel to celebrate the nation’s 60th anniversary. He met with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (above,  the full text of their remarks can be read here) and the President Shimon Peres. He addressed the Knesset(the Israeli Parliament) and a large conference with celebrity guests Henry Kissinger and Elie Wiesel.

Every step of the way Bush has emphasized America’s unwavering friendship with Israel.

Meanwhile, for the Palestinians this day marks the 60th anniversary of the “nabka,” or ”catastrophe,” as Irsael’s creation forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee Israel. President Bush was criticised for his failure to directly address to the Palestinian side of the Middle East peace equation.

The Christian Science Monitor published an interesting analysis of what some commentators consider a lack of vision for resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The Associated Press, in an article titled “Bush leaves it to Olmert to push Mideast peace,” reported:

“President Bush gently urged Mideast leaders to “make the hard choices necessary for peace,” leaving it to embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to stand before a divided parliament Thursday and forcefully declare that this war-weary nation is ready for a historic agreement with Palestinians.”

To give a historical vantage point, Public Radio International’s news program The Worldinterviewed former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke about President Harry Truman’s decision to recognize Israel back in 1948.

He talks about how the entire foreign policy establishment of that time advised Truman against recognizing Israel. It’s an interesting to listen: http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/18058.

Jimmy Carter’s controversial visit with Hamas has yielded an unexpected offer to Israel. Hamas’ leading strategist, Khaled Meshaal has publicly announced a ten year “hudna” (truce), as recognition of Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, this offer is met with cynicism here in the United States:

“It is pretty clear to us that there is no acceptance on the part of Hamas of any kind of negotiated settlement,” offered Deputy Spokesman of the State Department, Tom Casey.

When Carter first announced his intentions to meet with Hamas, he was criticized around the world and in the United States for being naïve. Although the naïve accusation seems unwarranted after Meshal’s truce offer, as always, there are signs to undermine notions of peace. Hamas spokesman, Abu Jandal suggested that an escalation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel is near. “Abu Jandal described the recent attacks as a walk in the park and said upcoming attacks would be harsher.” Could it be that Abu Jandal was speaking without knowledge of or prior to Meshaal’s announcement? It is possible, but Hamas has a record of doublespeak.

Retired Israeli General Danny Rothschild senses “a rise in the capabilities of Hamas and a rise in the motivation.” In addition, he expects “an increase in the level of assistance that Hamas is getting from Iran and Hezbollah.”

With this muddled context, it is hard to expect Meshaal’s offer to make any headway amongst Israeli and American leaders, especially when acknowledging that his offer is nothing new:

“Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, said Wednesday that a long-term truce with Israel would be possible, if it accepted conditions including a return to its 1967 borders.” – February 8, 2006

During his Middle East trip, Vice President Cheney offered several pragmatic remarks concerning the stalemate between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators:

“On Sunday, Cheney said the United States would continue to work toward the ‘long-overdue’ goal of creating a Palestinian state.

‘Achieving that vision will require tremendous effort at the negotiating table and painful concessions on both sides,’ Cheney said, adding that “it will also require a determination to defeat those who are committed to violence and who refuse to accept the basic right of the other side to exist.”

As Laura Rozen notes, Cheney’s urging for both sides to make painful concessions was right on par with what needed to be said, but surprising coming from the source.  While his comments regarding the peace-process may have given pause, he also provided expected assurances that the United States took notice of Iran’s threatening nature towards Israel, and renewed America’s commitment to ensure Israel’s security.

“Before dinner with Mr. Olmert on Saturday night, Mr. Cheney offered robust support for Israel.

‘America’s commitment to Israel’s security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction,’ Mr. Cheney said. The United States, he said, ‘will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security.”

Addressing Arab-Israeli peace, the author of this Jerusalem Post editorial believes Arab states should “lead by example, rather than waiting for the divided and radicalized Palestinians to move first.”  The author might be pleased to read that Yemen’s plan to reconcile Fatah and Hamas has recently gained steam.  That said, Fatah negotiator Ahmed Qureia has begun to back-peddle from the agreement, stating that Abbas had not provided guidance on the proposal because he was hosting Vice President Cheney.

Based on Cheney’s statement’s today one might expect him to be unhappy with the reconciliation effort.  Cheney noted that “it is clearly a difficult situation, in part, because I think it’s true, there’s evidence, that Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria and that they’re doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process.”

On his way to a scheduled trip to Israel and the West Bank, Vice President Cheney made an unannounced stop in Iraq. Now five years since the invasion commenced, the Vice President met with Prime Minister Maliki to push him on political reconciliation. While he described changes since his last visit ten months ago as “phenomenal“, Cheney may want to recall his top commander’s statements last week. General Patraeus noted the lack of political reconciliation, revealing that no one in the U.S. or Iraq government felt progress has been sufficient. Cheney also plans to discuss a long-term security agreement, perhaps tying the hands of the following administration.

On the next stop of the Vice President’s trip, he will endeavor to keep both the Israelis and Palestinians to uphold their obligations set out in the road map. I would like to invite our readers to comment on what the Vice President might do or say to bring both sides to respect the road map and to promote the now stalled negotiations.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice travels to Israel this week to help restart peace talks.  Rocket attacks followed by Israeli raids escalated towards the end of last week, erupting into a Gaza incursion on Saturday.   Abu Mazen suspended negotiations with Israel, due to the escalation in violence.

We have cited on this blog before the dual track Israel has pursued: bolster support of Abu Mazen through negotiations, while isolating and increasing pressure on Hamas.  Last week’s events show that these tracks are interconnected, placing an ominous feeling over the peace-process.    

If the Annapolis Conference is looking more like just a photo opportunity, it is because the United States has not played an active role in negotiations.  Now that negotiations appear to be falling apart, Secretary Rice has no choice but to get involved. 

What’s most disconcerting is that if Secretary Rice fails to resurrect peace talks, Israel will more than likely go ahead with a large invasion of Gaza.  McClatchy journalist Dion Nissenbaum recently pointed out that a tipping point is afoot.  A large scale invasion into Gaza would spell disaster for peace negotiations, leaving Fatah and Abu Mazen with few options.   One such option would be to resume armed struggle against Israel, and perhaps a third intifada.  Zvi Bar’el writing in Haaretz notes, “the Gazan civilian population, hundreds of thousands of whose representative grabbed hold of the lifeline that was momentarily available to them when Hamas breached the wall closing them in, is the dynamite on which the first and second intifadas were built.”

Now’s the time for Secretary Rice to step up to the challenge and bring US influence to bear on this dire circumstance. 

It seems Israel is mulling over a cease-fire offer from Hamas. Earlier in the week, Defense Minister Barak warned Syria and Turkey that Israel had plans to launch a major operation against Hezbollah and Hamas. A few days later, a Hamas spokesman said, “we won’t rule out any bid for cease-fire with Israel.” This morning, the Guardian reports the mayor of Sderot (the Israeli town with the most to gain from a cease-fire) would talk with Hamas.

“I would say to Hamas, let’s have a ceasefire, let’s stop the rockets for the next 10 years and we will see what happens,’ said Eli Moyal, the mayor, who is a member of the rightwing Likud party. ‘For me as a person the most important thing is life and I’m ready to do everything for that. I’m ready to talk to the devil.”

Also of note, former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy called for Israel to talk with Hamas in a recent interview. Halevy lays out his rationale and likely Israel’s to engage Hamas:

“Hamas shuns direct contact and negotiations with Israel and this actually meets Israel’s reciprocal attitude to them. The same is true of the United States. But Hamas is eager to ‘engage’ the two indirectly and reach a verifiable cease fire, and understands that could lead to more ‘down the road.’

Such a strategy of indirect proximity engagement, whilst covering our flanks, offers the prospects of lowering the temperature in the region, easing constraints, and opening up real possibilities of social and economic progress. This is a policy that could be tested, and is warranted by the abject failure of the present Palestinian Authority rump leadership in the West Bank led by the aging, tired and sad Abu Mazen [Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas], and his able prime minister Salaam Fayyad, a great economist and banker but a man who does not pretend to overstay his time.”

The sudden shift to engage Hamas is an interesting development, but also a signal that Israel has less faith in the peace-process. Negotiations over a cease-fire are probably taking place through a third party. Before getting ahead of ourselves and analyzing what this means, we will wait for confirmation that a deal has been reached. If a cease-fire deal is not reached, one might expect Israel to go-ahead with their Gaza operation.

Three months ago, President Bush announced a lofty goal: Peace will be achieved and a two state solution will be at hand by the end of his term. This blog has urged President Bush and Secretary Rice to remain deeply engaged with negotiations. Three months later and it is clear that has not happened. More worrisome, is the judgment not to push for final-status issues, particularly Jerusalem.

Olmert and Abbas met Tuesday in another round of talks. Palestinian chief negotiator Sa’eb Eerkat said the meeting did not include final-status issues. “Instead, he expected the talks to focus on day-to-day areas of concern, such as Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.” Frankly, this sounds like a stall tactic.

First, Prime Minister Olmert previously declared that any construction in the West Bank must go through his office. The Israeli delegation is aware that further construction undermines Abbas and provides a false sticking point (effectively blocking more pertinent issues). Second, the barrage of rockets from Gaza are launched by Hamas, who are not part of negotiations. Fatah, whose forces fled Gaza in the summer (and based on this report aren’t exactly happy with their leadership), have no control over the rockets. Of course, Israel knows that both of these issues undermine Fatah, therefore it begs the question, what are their intentions?

To be fair, the rockets raining down on Sderot are a grave issue that must be addressed. One might expect an IDF offensive into Gaza to stem the problem. This morning, Defense Minister Barak signaled plans of an offensive against Hamas in Gaza. What, if anything, can Fatah agree to with regards to rockets coming from Gaza? Again, it seems like a stall tactic.

The United States is the key to a breakthrough. Israel and the PA both have hardened positions, which need be pushed along by President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. It is very unlikely that concessions will come about without their help. Unfortunately, the United States is doing just the opposite.

“A senior Jerusalem source said Monday that Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had agreed to defer talks on Jerusalem to the final stage of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

The source said Olmert and Rice had talked on the telephone about a week and a half ago, and that Rice accepted Olmert’s position that discussing Jerusalem at the very beginning could jam the negotiations and obstruct them.”

These signs do not bode well for the President’s goal. If deference on final-status issues continue, do not expect peace to be at hand anytime soon.

(Associated Press photo)

Secretary Rice gave her last testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

The hearing began with a moment of silence in memory of the recently-deceased California Democrat and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Tom Lantos. Howard L. Berman, another California Democrat, was appointed as the Committee’s Acting Chairman.

He began his chairmanship by welcoming the increase in spending for the State Department’s budget: “Madame Secretary, I strongly support the Administration’s overall international affairs budget request for Fiscal Year 2009. It surpasses current spending by nearly three billion dollars, a welcome turn of events.”

Congressman Berman continued: “The new budget request starts to address the reality that we have been far too slow to face: Our civilian agencies are woefully unprepared to handle the unprecedented global security challenges confronting the United States today.

Here’s just one example of that: A study just released by the RAND Corporation shows that despite the common notion that civil capabilities and military power are equally important to counterinsurgency operations overseas, the meager and infrequent bump-ups in the State Department’s budget have been “dwarfed” by massive increases in Pentagon spending. The report goes on to note, and I’m quoting here: “If Islamic insurgency is the gravest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces.” It goes on to say that we “must invest to correct (these) deficiencies and imbalances.”

Acting Chairman Berman’s full remarks can be viewed here.

The Committee’s minority leader, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also lamented Lantos’ death and then went on to express her concerns about a long list of challenges for US foreign policy, including: nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and others. You may access the full text of her remarks here.

Next Secretary Rice made her opening remarks, a transcript of which can be viewed here (as delivered). (A video of Secretary Rice’s testimony can be viewed by clicking here, and a video of the entire hearing can be viewed here).

Contrary to the hearing’s title “International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2009,” the remarks of both the lawmakers and the witness focused only briefly on the budget request, and more so on a variety of hot button conflicts in the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli/Palestinian issue, US troop commitment in Iraq, the Lebanon/Syria relationship—the Pakistani election and relations with China. The bulk of Secretary Rice’s discussion about the budget is contained in her prepared remarks, which were provided to the Committee in advance.

Congressman Ackerman used this opportunity to press Secretary Rice on whether her administration intends to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. The issue caused controversy earlier this month when President Bush left the option open–in opposition to Congress’ wishes, while members of his administration spoke otherwise. In the hearing Secretary Rice confirmed that it is “not our intention to seek permanent military bases in Iraq.”

It appears that foreign audiences were also eagerly watching Rise’s testimony. The Armenian online news site Defacto reported on Congressman Brad Sherman’s proposed budget for Armenia. The Russian online news outlet Kommersant reviewed the testimony with particular attention to the Secretary’s and lawmaker’s remarks toward Russia.

When the Rafah border was broken open by Hamas, food and goods were certainly not the only items brought back into the Gaza Strip. It’s more than likely that weapons, normally snuck into the territory through underground tunnels, were also brought over. This is particularly troubling after Hamas claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing in Dimona, which killed one elderly woman and injured eleven others.

Suicide bombings in Israel were drastically reduced over the last couple of years. In fact, 2007 witnessed but one suicide bombing, a significant statistic. While critics might argue tactics shifted towards launching Qassam rockets into Israel as a mean of fighting the occupation, I would counter that suicide bombings are deadlier and have a greater psychological effect. To this point, anyone concerned about the peace-process should fear renewed violence and repeated suicide bombing attacks. One may not necessarily be cause for concern, but two would drastically diminish prospects for peace.

The suicide bombing may have been a response to the Israeli offensive in Gaza during January. The ever-increasing tit-for-tat responses can eventually boil over into a much more serious conflict, as has happened before between Israelis and Palestinians. However, my fears may simply be overblown. Hamas is not involved in the peace-process, and negotiations largely concern the West Bank and its citizens.

If one looks at events in two months since the Annapolis Conference, Israel has pursued two tracks. They have bolstered Abbas by continuing negotiations, while maintaining a strong stance against Hamas, as I previously noted the IDF offensive in Gaza. The latter part of the track may inhibit the former. Could Hamas have re-supplied itself with arms while the border with Egypt was open? Could the IDF find itself in another battle in Gaza? Will Hamas retaliate with another suicide bombing? These questions remain worrisome for observers of the peace-process.

Additionally, the events which have transpired in the last few weeks have helped win support for Hamas, although slightly. This survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that Hamas’ popularity increased in both the West Bank and Gaza, while Fatah’s popularity slightly dropped. Despite the slight increase in support, the survey also shows that most Palestinians still favor Fatah over Hamas.

Meanwhile, the United States needs to stay focused on the diplomatic track. Now is not the time to step back from the omnipotent final-status issues. That said, if relations deteriorate, and Israel finds itself against a serious challenge (as it has with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 and the second intifada), the United States is inclined to step-back and allow Israel to launch offensives or defend itself. This is a precarious time for the peace-process and it is imperative for the United States to be aware of what’s happening on the ground.

Monday’s State of the Union Address was heavy on the economy and ideological posturing. However, foreign policy issues were addressed, and this blog would like to touch upon what was said.

Stepping back and taking a macro-viewpoint of the speech, Bush did not provide new policy initiatives, which we had wondered about on this blog with regards to North Korea. The President reviewed his administration’s goal of advancing freedom, and he cited elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia and Ukraine as well as “demanding independence” in Lebanon. Notably left out was Palestine. While the administration may not have been pleased with the outcome, strong support was pushed onto the Palestinians for having a free and fair election. They did so, but the outcome of Hamas leading the Palestinian Authority soured the administration, thus it should be of no surprise that the administration does not include that election as a success in the advancement of liberty.

Let us now dive into the minutia of his speech.

Iraq

Bush noted our surge and went on to describe the Sunni Awakening as the Iraqi surge. “In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda’s brutality and started a popular uprising called ‘The Anbar Awakening.’ Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.”

While successes can be drawn on the security front, political reconciliation remains a lofty goal. As an example of progress in reconciliation, President Bush mentioned the recently passed de-Ba’athification law. However, most analysts are unsure whether the law will truly serve its intended purpose. Looking at political reconciliation on the whole, the Center for American Progress concludes we have reached only 3 of the 18 benchmarks.

Israeli-Palestinian relations

President Bush reaffirmed his position that Palestine will have a state by the end of this year: “This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year.”

As we have discussed on this blog before, President Bush’s influence can make the most difference on final-status issues. Optimism is crucial when dealing with tough negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and Bush should remain engaged on this front.

The Americas

Bush urged Congress to approve trade agreements for Columbia and Panama (in addition to South Korea). He noted that failure to pass the bill in Columbia would “embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere.” A clear shot at Hugo Chavez.

Afghanistan

Bush spoke of the 3,200 Marines sent to Afghanistan, in order to provide training for their police and army, along with fighting the Taliban. The U.S. Defense blog first mentioned this increase.

For the sake of keeping this post somewhat concise my partner will tackle Iran.