Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2005, pages 36-37
Arab Review
Condoleezza Rice’s Visit to the Middle East: The New Face of U.S. Foreign Policy?
By Peter C. Valenti
AS PART of a seven-day diplomatic tour of Europe and the Middle East, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Middle Eastern leaders from June 18 to 21. Following stops in Ramallah, Jerusalem, Amman, Cairo and Riyadh, Rice headed to Belgium on June 22 for the International Conference on Iraq. In addition to her high-level meetings with the region’s leaders, Rice also held numerous press conferences and sat down for interviews with various news agencies, including Israel’s TV2, Egypt’s Nile TV, Dubai-based Al Arabiya and Iraq’s Al-Iraqiya.
Because of the intense media coverage of her tour, Arabs heard plenty of Rice’s statements on such issues as Lebanon’s elections, Syria’s intransigence, spreading democracy in the region and Israel’s planned pullout from Gaza. Naturally, Arab analysts and media commentators had a lot to work with.
In general, Rice was well received. Commenting on Rice’s emphasis on democratizing the region in her speech at the American University in Cairo, the June 21 edition of Egypt’s al-Ahram editorialized, “No one differs with Ms. Condoleezza in the importance of democracy, nor with the development of the institutions with which to realize it, nor with the importance of holding free and honest elections in Egypt whether [for] the presidency or parliament.”
Unfortunately for Rice, as Abdullah al-Qaq explained in his June 20 op-ed in Jordan’s Addustour, many people in the region see Washington’s policies in the region as Janus-faced. “The reality is that the campaign initiated by America through its secretary of state and its envoys dispatched to the different nations of the world will [ultimately] be impotent in effecting its goals,” al-Qaq predicted, “as a result of the American administration’s loss of its credibility because of American violations of human rights in Guantanamo and Iraq...”
As proof of al-Qaq’s claims, for example, letters to the Saudi Asharq al-Awsat reacting to its June 21 coverage of Rice’s visit to the Kingdom voiced suspicion. Proclaimed one letter-writer, “It seems that Ms. Rice still dreams of the need to spread democracy the American way. Yet the game has been revealed. This democracy of theirs in Iraq is an excellent indication of their sincerity.”
The lead editorial in the June 20 Addustour noted that the new U.S. secretary of state also must put her diplomatic spin on a new reality. “The role of the United States has changed completely from being considered a sponsoring nation of the peace process in the region since it has become one of the warring nations in the region,” the editorial pointed out, “and now it wants to secure an amicable atmosphere with the traditional sides of the conflict without resolving the situation in any fundamental way...”
Of course, Rice fielded many questions from local reporters about her role in furthering Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and pushing implementation of the road map. With both a positive and hopeful tone, the June 19 editorial in the Palestinian al-Quds argued that both Rice’s visit and President George W. Bush’s recent White House meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are “tangible indications of the concern and attention of the United States to move the Palestinian-Israeli peace process forward.”
However, the editorial noted a key discrepancy in U.S. diplomacy. Reviewing the May 26 meeting between Bush and Abbas, the editorial pointed out that Bush himself called for Israel to “remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion” and for its forces to “withdraw to their positions on September the 28th, 2000.” These statements prompted al-Quds to ask, “Will it come to pass that these American proclamations and demands will be conveyed to the Israeli government, or will the purpose of [Rice’s] visit be diminished to merely coordinating the evacuation of the [Gaza] settlements...and to repeat American demands of the Palestinians to dismember organizations which [the U.S.] characterizes as terrorist, and consolidate Palestinian security services?”
Nasuh al-Majali made an astute observation in Jordan’s al-Ra’i of June 19. Noticing the continued emphasis Rice and other U.S. officials have placed on the need for the Palestinian Authority to crack down on groups like Hamas—echoing the Israeli assessment of PA deficiencies—while failing to use similarly strong language urging Israel to make major concessions, al-Majali wondered, “What power is it that Hamas and [other] Palestinian organizations have that can destroy a nuclear-armed nation like Israel, bristling with arms from head to toe?”
Ultimately, as al-Majali pointed out, despite perhaps the best intentions of Rice, U.S. foreign policy is restricted by domestic politics and thus avoids discussion of the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict—and, indeed, of Hamas: “the continuation of the [Israeli] occupation, with American support.”
The Arab perception that there is a deficit of U.S. demands placed on Israel along with an overabundance of demands made of Palestinians seemingly was vindicated within minutes of Rice’s departure from Jerusalem on June 19. Quite literally even before the dust had settled from Rice’s visit, the Israeli Housing Ministry announced its intention to build 700 new homes in the settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Beitar Eilit, which surround occupied East Jerusalem.
Hours later, at an Amman press conference with Jordanian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Qasrawi, Rice was asked about this stunning Israeli move. “I discussed both the issue of settlements and the wall with the prime minister, with the foreign minister and with anybody else who would listen,” she stated. “The fact is that the United States has very clear policy on this and we don’t expect to see any activities from the Israelis that try and prejudge a final status agreement...”
It was both Israel’s apparent backhanded slap at Rice as well as Rice’s own lackluster reaction to it—her weak “we don’t expect to see” statement—that prompted the blunt observation in the June 20 editorial of Qatar’s al-Raya. “The timing of this [Israeli] announcement,” al-Raya explained, “comes as a confirmation on the part of Israel that it is the possessor of the final word in the region and that the American position is nothing but words on paper...”
Given Israel’s propensity to demonstrate its prerogative without facing any repercussions from Washington, the editorial noted, and the fact that the Housing Ministry announcement came two days prior to the scheduled meeting between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, “we can understand the degree of difficulties that the Palestinian Authority will face in its negotiations with Israel.”
It is therefore no surprise that to many Arab observers the supposed quid-pro-quo structure of the road map—or, indeed, the entire peace process itself—seems to be a fantasy in light of Israel’s unilateral decisions and the absence of any U.S. pressures on Tel Aviv. The June 20 editorial of the United Arab Emirates’ al-Bayan exemplified this incredulity. Summarizing statements by U.S. officials, the editorial attempted to discern the negotiated and structured peace process beyond the Gaza pullout—a decision made unilaterally by Israel and merely endorsed later by Washington. “In exchange for only rosy promises and inducements,” the editorial noted, “it is claimed that by [the PA] ensuring calmness for the [Israeli] withdrawal [from Gaza], this will ”˜encourage’ the Israelis to move ahead in the direction of the road map! Of course these promises come without any commitments in this matter.”
Yet again, then, Palestinians, and Arabs in general, are left with a fundamentally unchanged view of U.S. diplomacy. As a capstone to Rice’s grand tour of the region, intended to engender better Arab sentiment toward U.S. foreign policy there, one is left to ponder the diplomatic acumen of an offhand comment Rice made during her June 21 press conference in Riyadh. More than half a century after Palestinians began their existence as refugees and political pariahs and their struggle for recognition and justice, and setting off one of the most influential historical conflicts of the 20th century, Rice was asked, “Madame Secretary, good morning. I’d like to ask you, Ma’am, how do you see the possibility of having an independent Palestinian state before 2008?”
Her response: “Oh, was that date chosen for any particular reason? 2008? I’m only kidding. I know the date.”
Peter C. Valenti, a free-lance writer and translator, teaches Islam and modern Middle East history at New York’s New School University.
