Posted on 4-1-2004
Rebranding
Bush as man of peace
The White House has retreated from its doctrine of regime change
and pre-emptive military action and is returning to traditional
diplomacy in an effort to repackage George Bush as a president
for peace.
Signs of the new strategy that have emerged in the past few
weeks include:
· North Korea, where authorities yesterday agreed to
allow US inspectors to visit its nuclear complex next week.
· Iran, where the US proposed, through UN channels,
sending a high-level humanitarian mission after last week's
earthquake - although Tehran last night asked for any visit
to be delayed.
· Libya, where the US welcomed Muammar Gadafy's surprise
decision to give up weapons of mass destruction.
· Iraq, where the Bush administration is pressing for
greater involvement from the international community.
· Palestine, where US peace envoy John Wolf may be sent
to try to restart talks.
The signs of a thaw in US relations with these and other countries
point to a different approach emerging in Washington. It emphasises
cooperation, dialogue and diplomacy in place of the policies
that have characterised the Bush administration's thinking to
date. While Mr Bush publicly asserts Washington's right to defend
its interests by any means, in practice he is increasingly pursuing
a collaborative approach.
"There is a definite shift in US policy in everything
but words," said Joseph Cirincione, an arms control expert.
"The official doctrine has not changed but all our actions
have, and the result is a shift away from military action towards
diplomatic engagement. First with Iran, then with Libya and
now with North Korea, we see a much greater effort to affect
changes in regime behaviour rather than changes of regime."
Analysts in Washington say the Bush administration has little
choice if it is to fulfil a highly ambitious election year agenda
that seeks to disarm "rogue states" such as North
Korea while advancing towards a settlement between Israel and
the Palestinians, encouraging conflict resolution in Sudan,
and achieving credible transformations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
All these objectives are complicated and to some degree hindered
by the "war on terror" against a resurgent al-Qaida,
and by America's failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
Despite notable successes in overthrowing and capturing Saddam
Hussein and toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, White House
hopes of bringing democratic governance in Iraq and Afghanistan
hang in the balance amid continuing violence and discord.
Iraq is crucial to the administration's policy shift - either
because, as conservatives argue, leaders of other rogue regimes
learnt a lesson from Saddam's fate, or, as others say, because
the conflict has so extended the military, Washington cannot
contemplate the opening of a new front.
"It's just the force of reality, the consequences of Iraq
which has made them change," said Anatol Lieven, a fellow
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Even
by their standards it is not rational to think that America
can run another war."
With elections 11 months away, Mr Bush does not want to be
vulnerable to claims that he has presided over a warmongering
strategy that has left Americans little safer than September
11 2001. His shift follows an established pattern in Washington
of politicians moving to the centre during an election year.
But Mr Bush has an additional consideration with Iraq. He is
keenly aware that the electorate's judgment of his performance
depends heavily on events there. Despite a rally in his popularity
after Saddam's capture two weeks ago, opinion polls suggest
overall attitudes towards the war have not fundamentally changed.
Public concern at American casualties in Iraq has continued
to rise and, ominously for Mr Bush, the violence in Iraq has
not lessened.
White House policy is also being influenced by Washington's
allies, notably Britain. After the chasms over Iraq, the US
and the Europeans seem to have reached an understanding about
the right mix of diplomacy and force - particularly during negotiations
with Iran and Libya.
Britain's influence is particularly strong. British government
sources were reluctant to talk about the US change of tack last
night for fear of giving any impression of gloating. But any
signs that Mr Bush is moving back to a multilateral foreign
policy will be welcomed in London - if only in private - as
a vindication of Tony Blair's strategy of dealing with the president.
Friends describe this as "complete solidarity in public,
and complete candour in private".
Sources say Mr Blair's relationship with Mr Bush is so strong
that an informal weekly video conference has now become a regular
fixture in their diaries.
The conferences are primarily designed to discuss Iraq, though
the two leaders have also discussed other issues such as Iran.
Sensitive issue, such as Libya, are discussed on more secure
lines.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the prime minister's chief foreign policy
adviser, talks on an almost daily basis with Condoleezza Rice,
the president's national security adviser. Sir David Manning,
the British ambassador in Washington, meets Dr Rice regularly.
The change in direction is also a result of the constant struggle
for influence between pragmatists and hawks that has been a
defining feature of the Bush administration. The neo-conservatives
appear to be losing ground, with speculation about upcoming
bureaucratic reshuffling.
"The state department pinstripes have replaced the department
of defence bluster," Mr Cirincione said.
The move to negotiated, diplomatic solutions is unlikely to
be welcomed by the vice president, Dick Cheney, the most influential
of Washington's hawks, who have often dominated policy making.
But in an interview published this week, the secretary of state,
Colin Powell, seemed to suggest the policy battle was finally
going his way. Mr Powell acknowledged that the administration's
top priority in the coming months would be cooperative peace
making, rather than war making.
"I'm going to work very hard in making clear to our friends
in Europe and elsewhere in the world that America is a partner
- spend more time with them, spend more time listening to them
and finding ways what we can cooperate together," Mr Powell
told the Washington Post.
On Iraq, Mr Powell indicated that a switch in US policy was
required. He said the UN and Nato had essential roles to play
and the US needed to persuade other countries to forgive or
reschedule Iraq's $120bn (£67bn) foreign debts.
|