Could it be that there was a whiff of desperation this week over
the Middle East summit in Annapolis? One gets the feeling that
these days, the Bush administration is acting more with history in
mind than anything else -- certainly more than with a sense of
reality. One need only look back to President Bush's predecessor to
find a similar legacy syndrome at work.
While it may be harsh to compare Mr. Bush's Annapolis initiative
to President Clinton's failed Middle East diplomacy at the Wye
River Plantation, the comparison is justified. There is no more
reason to expect long-term success from Annapolis than there was
from the Wye River conference, given the difficulties of the issues
and the haste with which the summit was cobbled together after a
long series of delays. Is it really now or never? In the politics
of Middle East diplomacy, that is a tempting, but dangerous
assumption.
Unfortunately, the temptation for the president to give in to the
siren call of a search for legacy is in evidence on a number of
foreign issues. These issues range from the Middle East, to Iran,
to North Korea, to the Law of the Sea Treaty, to free trade
agreements. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
With Democrats in control on Capitol Hill, the prospects for the
president's domestic agenda get dimmer by the day and a major
overhaul of immigration policy or Social Security are all but
impossible -- unless the president buys into the Democrats'
agenda.
On foreign policy, meanwhile, Iraq is now showing the potential
for real progress following the successful surge policy. But as the
Iraqi government's petition for a standing-forces agreement with
the United States indicates, our presence will be needed there for
a long time. For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Iraq will
strongly color her legacy, a prospect that may not be so
comfortable. Hence, one might suspect the urge to look for other
legacy projects.
It will be worth, however, recalling the words of former British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to the current president's father
before the Gulf War, "this is no time to go wobbly."
The problem with Annapolis, as my colleague Jim Phillips has
pointed out, is that it was conceived a long while ago as a means
to reach a "political horizon" for a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the pressure-cooker timetable of a
closing U.S. presidency, it has been reduced to a symbolic
diplomatic kick-off. A two-state agreement would be a tremendously
difficult achievement under the best of circumstances given the
lack of trust on both sides, the lack of domestic political support
for both the Israelis' and the Palestinians' presidents, and the
lack of actual commitment to peace by Hamas and its Middle East
sponsors like Syria and Iran.
The knotty problems of such a final status agreement suggest the
degree of difficulty: Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the
right to return of Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem,
water rights, borders and security arrangements. And while Hamas
has demanded a six-month accelerated timetable to achieve all this,
it is not prepared to give the Israeli side what it wants -- a
simple acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist. Does this sound
familiar? If it does, it is because these difficult areas remain
unchanged from negotiations at Wye, and before that at Oslo and at
Madrid.
But why should the Bush administration not at least make the
attempt to solve these issues with a final throw of the dice, some
will ask? The reason is that consequences may not be sufficiently
considered by an administration that will not have to live with
them. Furthermore, the follow through will be entirely in the hands
of the next occupant of the White House, making it a matter of pure
conjecture. The Wye River gamble was not the only failure of Mr.
Clinton's last days in office. He also left poison pills for the
Bush administration in the form of signing onto the International
Criminal Court and the Kyoto treaty, both of which turned out to be
huge diplomatic problems for his successor.
It would be far better for the president in his last year in
office to focus on the most important task at hand, and that is
getting Iraq right. The war on terrorism and Iraq will indelibly be
Mr. Bush's legacy. As for the rest, Mr. President, "don't go
wobbly."
Helle Dale is
director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in the Washington Times