Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

Can America solve the Middle East crisis?

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 7/28/2006

In 1920, H.G.Wells published his “Outline of History”. It was meant to awaken people to the realization that only a rationally ordered world – state would save humanity from destroying itself. But how secure are such conclusions today in the Middle East shrouded by the brutalities of irrational war? That may seem an odd question to ask, given the assumptions that the consensus in the Middle East is more pro – American than it looks.

Nevertheless, there is a bigger, more important question: is this all out war against Lebanon in the name of Hizbollah, a chance for America to play an active and influential role in the Middle East? To draw such conclusions would be tempting, but premature. America will always face a dilemma in the Middle East: wanting to engage in region and to influence it constructively, but valuing a certain distance, and freedom of action.

That is why the sudden action taken by the Bush administration, by sending US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East, most probably to initiate a negotiated ceasefire, and moreover by announcing its own $30m package to ease the suffering of civilians, has been applauded from all fronts.

Moreover, it has been reported by the media that the US was also working with Israeli and Lebanese officials to open up humanitarian corridors in Lebanon, after President George W Bush promised ships and helicopters to provide aid to Lebanon.

Much of this solidarity shown to Lebanon reflects the great American sprit – helping those in need. But sadly, this cannot be said regarding its foreign policy. The most important thing about the American policy is that they are hypocritical.

Two hypocrisies currently hinder the diplomatic measures in the Middle East. The first and simplest to disperse of is the Bush administration’s drift towards acceptance of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan for a unilateral, Israeli-dictated "settlement" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To which observers say that the dictated peace officially promoted by the US, would give the Palestinians nothing. They further warn that if the US agrees in such a unilateral order, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue, and people will continue to die in both sides.

The second hypocrisy is this: Washington's brawny support for Israel's war against Hezbollah is correlated to its tactical calculations towards Iran. And that is why the Bush administration sees Israel's action against Hizbollah as a major element of the global war on terror, as Israel along with the United Kingdom are its most important allies on the war America has waged against the terrorism.

The tactical rationale was obvious. America needed to get attention away from Iran, at least for a while, where the whole world charges them that they are unnecessary antagonizing Iran. This was reinforced by the fact that even majorities of the American public rates the peace process between US – Iran, higher than the possible war.

But Bush administration wants to showcase before America the hand of Tehran behind much of what is going on in Lebanon, as a defeat for Hizbollah would send a message to Tehran. The very message which America has always wanted to send.

However, in the midst of this all, if somehow, American intervention is able to stop the war, it will affect the Middle East, and will retain America’s influence in the region, with American ideas and American pressure along with the freedom to go in or to stay aloof.

Hence, to rule out America now, on principle would be wrong even if you are sceptical about whether the region will hold a lasting peace and stability under its current design.

In practice, Bush administration should throw its full weight behind a genuine agreed solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is, however, a final part to the picture of the peace. “America should come out with a solution or clearly declare to both sides what that solution should be, and should take necessary measures to implement the solution,” some diplomatic experts are saying.

The Bush administration should do this because World history from the Stone Age to the current Israel – Lebanon war is fascinating in its own right as a record of sufferings and triumphs of mankind. But given the immense diversity of human experience over time, attempts to discover a pattern yields “laws” of dubious validity.

And given the combination of unsettled and worsened tribulations committed all over the world, intentionally or intentionally, Mr. Bush is almost certain to leave behind a vicious legacy, as he stands way above other ex- presidents as one of the worst presidents in the entire history of the United States.

But before his retirement, he wants to balance that equation because nobody wants to be remembered as such. And luckily for him, he has time and the platform to revolutionize him and his foreign policies. So a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would allow him to be remembered as a true peace broker, and it would open more avenues for him to solve other problems shrouding America.

Nevertheless, now, it won’t be easy even for Mr. Bush to solve the crisis because the situation in the Middle East is getting from bad to worse. More than 400 Lebanese and up to 60 Israelis have died in nearly two weeks of conflict, which began after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on 12 July, according to the sources.

And observers say there is huge roar of pessimism and disappointment among the publics in Lebanon that the talks between Ms Rice and Mr Olmert did not result in more concrete action.

“US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has held talks in Jerusalem with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert as she seeks to ease Israel's conflict with Lebanon but , Mr Olmert declared there would be no let up in the campaign against Hezbollah militants,” according to the official reports.

In any case, however, America must push harder. In the context of the massive diplomatic measures taking place in the Israel, even just a few days delay to the ceasefire – would be seen as an American diplomatic failure, though it is evident that with this war Washington is virtually going hand on hand with Israel in its all out war against Hizbollah militants.