Shanghai Star. 2002-06-27

US President George W. Bush makes a long-awaited speech on US policy on the Middle East, from the Rose Garden of the White House June 24. Bush laid out his vision for a provisional state called Palestine to be set up after about an 18-month period, but, In a harsh rebuke to Yasser Arafat, he said only if there is a "new and different Palestinian leadership".

"It pretended to be a compassionate speech, then canceled out compassion with neo-conservative ideology, putting impossible obstacles in the way of Palestinians realizing even the minimal goal of a provisional state"James Zogby,President of the American Arab Institute

WASHINGTON - With his much-anticipated Middle East speech, President George W. Bush has sided with pro-Israel hard-liners among his top advisers by calling for a new Palestinian leadership to replace Yasser Arafat and endorsing a new approach to peace, analysts said on Monday.

However, they said it was unclear if Bush had finally silenced a battle raging between hard-liners and moderates in his administration that has often paralyzed decision-making on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other key foreign policy issues like North Korea and Iraq.

In the White House Rose Garden speech, delayed a week because of new suicide bombings in Israel, Bush said the United States would support creation of a provisional Palestinian state after about 18 months.

But he set tough new preconditions for the Palestinians, including a "new and different" leadership, new democratic institutions and new security arrangements with Israel.

Especially after the September 11 attacks pushed terrorism to the forefront of the US agenda, Israel and its most loyal American supporters, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have made every effort to delegitimize Arafat, whom they blame for extremist attacks.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, the foreign policy moderate, had argued that while Arafat may not be the most trustworthy negotiating partner, he was the Palestinians' elected leader and there was no other obvious replacement.

Absolute disaster

If Powell was unhappy with Bush's speech - which experts say puts fighting terrorism over seeking a Mideast political solution - there was no obvious indication of that. He appeared stalwartly at Bush's side, along with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, as the speech was delivered.

But several analysts said his position was undercut.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel lobbying group, endorsed Bush's approach because it "makes clear that a Palestinian state will not be created by terror but through reform," said AIPAC President Amy Friedkin.

But James Zogby, president of the American Arab Institute, called Bush's statement "an absolute disaster."

"It pretended to be a compassionate speech, then canceled out compassion with neo-conservative ideology, putting impossible obstacles in the way of Palestinians realizing even the minimal goal of a provisional state," he said.

The speech "has set American diplomacy back decades ... I was frankly astounded that the Pentagon actually won the day and the State Department lost so badly in this," he added.

Henry Seigman of the Council on Foreign Relations, was also critical, saying "the hardliners did prevail" and the new framework will be "entirely ineffective" in ending violence.

Bush failed to give Palestinians assurances that the kind of state the US would support after Palestinians deal with the issues of terrorism and reform of the Palestinian Authority "is a goal worth waiting for," Seigman said.

"It's one thing to speak of a state being on the horizon but what (Bush) outlined reinforced a Palestinian concern" that horizons recede the closer one gets to them, he said.

Tug-of-war

The Mideast speech was awaited as much for what it would say about the tug-of-war between "moderate" administration forces led by Powell and the Cheney/Rumsfeld "hardliners."

The internal debate has led to conflicting public statements and confusion about the US position. Recent comments by the White House spokesman seemed to repudiate Powell on the Mideast - an unusual and embarrassing incident.

Bush's speech left uncertain when, if ever, the international peace conference Powell had proposed would take place and there was no clear commitment or plan for a sustained US engagement in peacemaking until Palestinians act first, experts said.

"I don't think there is a word here that suggests Powell's line is alive and well," said Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, a former aide to President Bill Clinton.

Bush team divisions show up on other policies as well.

On Iraq, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other hard-liners favoured early aggressive moves to topple President Saddam Hussein while Powell has been more cautious, seeking first to try targeted "smart sanctions" on Iraq with the backing of US allies.

On North Korea, Powell was an early advocate of talks to curb Pyongyang's weapons of mass destruction while hardliners are so distrustful of the isolated communist regime they largely see negotiations as a waste of time.

Some hard-liners seem almost eager for a confrontation with the North. US bickering has delayed the start of talks.

Rice has been blamed by some experts for not forcing the administration's foreign policy titans to find a way to agree on key decisions.

Two separate camps

Critics also fault Bush, saying many of his own views are not fully formed and he usually has not compelled aides to compromise nor taken sides himself on their competing views.

Although the administration is juggling several crises now, including the war on terrorism and the India-Pakistan face off, an overloaded agenda may not explain policy impasses.

"I think it's the continuing divorce of the State Department from the rest of the administration thinking. ... It's two separate camps," said a senior US official.

"Trying to reconcile differences or devise a coherent policy is a consuming exercise. It's been a problem on Iraq and the Mideast," he said.

He blamed a "breakdown" in the White House-based National Security Council, which is supposed to coordinate among key government agencies and recommend decisions to the president.

A Republican analyst said the internecine warfare "is affecting policy greatly because you don't know who will prevail on any given day. The president vacillates between the two (hard-line and moderate) camps."

It was often noted after Bush took office that he named a foreign policy team reflecting contrary political views who often clashed on major policies in the past.

Bush's response was that he would run the government like a corporate CEO, eager to have his talented, experienced team argue their views to him strenuously. Then Bush would decide.

(Agencies via Xinhua)