Print ArticleBush´s ´appeasement´ comments to Israeli Knesset on country´s 60th independence anniversary (likened "those who would negotiate with ´terrorists and radicals´ to appeasers of the Nazis), widely believed to be another swipe on Obama´s foreign policy supporting dialogue with countries like Iran and Syria in national interest.
It is widely believed that Bush´s comments are part of Republican strategy to portray Obama as weak in the fight against terrorism. Republicans as one political opined on CNN are trying to create a ´straw man´ by portraying a policy as opponent´s policy, which actually is not the opponent´s policy.
The comments also show that Bush will use his presidential platform to influence the presidential election. It shows three things: 1) It is the acknowledgement of the fact by the White House that Obama is the Democratic Party presidential nominee. 2) Bush has officially opened the National campaign. 3) Gloves are off, and Republicans are all out to get Obama on national and foreign policy issues.
Interestingly, Iran and US ambassadorial level discussions are undercutting Bush´s core argument that idea of engaging with countries like Iran and Syria is ´foolish delusion´. American Ambassador to Iraq R. C. Crocker has participated in direct talks with Iran.
Reportedly, Israel itself is following back channel diplomacy with Hamas through Egypt. The case of abducted Israeli soldier held by Hamas is a case in point. Israeli politics has seen ´yesterday´s terrorists turned statesmen´. In one of the report on CNN it was reported that one of the Israeli PM´s belonged to BL; a Jewish underground organization.
Obama therefore came down hard on both Bush and McCain. He said that Republican leaders were guilty of ´dishonest, divisive attacks´ and had engaged in ´hypocrisy, fear-peddling, and fear-mongering ´in an effort to continue, ´the failed policies´ of the past seven years.
He yoked Bush and McCain together by saying that McCain is ´doubling-down´ on policies that have already proven disastrous and everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. Instead, Obama reiterated his position by saying that he believes we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran – including tough, principled and direct diplomacy."
Hillary joined the criticism and said Bush´s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is offensive and outrageous, especially in the light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address.
Hillary also censured McCain´s new timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq by 2013. She said McCain´s statement "didn´t come with any new strategy or a clear recognition of the very serious difficulties that the Bush policy, now continued by McCain, will encounter. I think it´s time for a change in course."
In ME President Abbas complained over Bush´s visit to Israel. He said it has hurt feelings in the region. He said Nabka (catastrophe) is a shame for humanity. Palestinians use Nabka to refer to creation of Israel. He said that US isn´t an honest broker and America cannot be both friend of Israel and Palestine at the same time.
Political observers support implementation of UN Resolutions and continuation of 2003 roadmap to end longest occupation (of Palestine) in modern history, which is the stumbling block for peace in ME. It was opined that Bush´s broad statements during his Israel visit didn´t help anyone.
The conclusions arrived in the Friday meeting of three candidates´ foreign policy aides held in Washington to discuss their bosses strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan are as following:-
The representatives of Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Barack Obama all said they were disappointed that President Bush didn´t push harder to find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
They each spoke of a need for more economic development in Afghanistan and more accountability with regard to aid sent to Pakistan.
McCain´s advisor pushed for a tougher crackdown on Afghanistan´s narcotics industry, for example, by subsidizing farmers the cost difference between cultivating soy seeds instead of opium poppies.
He also spoke about the need for the U.S. to help put together an Afghan government comprised of tribal leaders from all the country´s ethnic groups, help end corruption that exists inside that government so it is a more functional government truly able to lead Pashtun, Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara communities of that country.
Huckabee´s advisor said that our goal in the Muslim world should be to correctly calibrate, of course, between maintaining stability and promoting democracy."
Right now, the underdeveloped tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are too much of a safe haven for new and established terrorist organizations, he said. "Governor Huckabee knows a micro group can create macro damage."
He called for more transparency from the Pakistani govt. by highlighting that Musharraf´s martial law and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto clearly shows that we didn´t have a Pakistan policy, we had a Musharraf policy.
Obama´s adviser stressed on the fact that Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and added that had so many military resources not gone to Iraq there would have been more attention paid to Afghanistan and both countries would be better off. He recommended addition of two US brigades in Afghanistan to increase our moral suasion to press our NATO allies to increase their presence and reduce the limitations they´ve placed on their troops." He cited Sarkozy surprise visit to Afghanistan one good sign of more international cooperation on the horizon.
I have repeatedly shared my views on American foreign policy in this space. However, I will draw the attention of readers towards following areas to help them ponder what needs to be done and how removed American mainstream leadership, policy makers and their aides are from ground realities:-
Flawed US-Iran policy has led to strengthening of regional influences over Caspian Oil holding 12 percent of world´s oil reserves plus huge reserves of natural gas. Iraq in contrast is less than 3 percent of world oil.
Bush administration by opposing Iran is squandering Caspian Sea oil and gas business and hampering US image in rest of the world. It is a coveted prize in the undeclared three-corned race for influence pitting Russia, Western powers and China. Before souring of US-Iran relations and disintegration of former Soviet Union The Caspian covering some 143, 000 square miles was shared between Iran and Russia under a treaty signed in the 19th century. With the end of USSR, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have joined Russia and Iran. These new comers don´t recognize Russo-Iranian treaties. Any improvement in US-Iran relations in addition to opening up of Iran´s oil and gas industry to international market should improve/open business opportunities for 20% Caspian oil and gas developments for America and rest of the advanced world.
Bush may have won a tactical battle but the statement by Russian FM during Tehran Conference 2007 show dept of damage incurred by Washington to national interest. The FM said Russia was the only one of the five littoral states to have military wherewithal to defend it against the greed and ambitions of the hostile outsiders. Following the meeting the world has seen emergence of new energy club: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) controlling world´s 12 percent oil and gas reserves. OPEC controls 26 percent and remaining are scattered around the world.
SCO is embarking on ambitious pipeline expansion program. It will link with Gazprom and ME. Thereby allowing SCO members including China, Russia to regulate energy flow to Europe, act as energy link between ME, Asia and Europe.
Gulf States have already embraced Asia under their ´Look East´ Policy thereby shifting center of power away from Europe and America if not in Asia at this point of time.
The use of force and occupation can be a reflection of flawed policy but it can never be the solution to US policy challenges. In all probability the way forward lies in dialogue, restoring power of international platforms including UN, ICJ and human rights and conventions to help create an environment for supporting meaningful dialogues.
It puts in perspective Europe´s unwillingness to support Bush´s NATO-Afghan mission. It puts in perspective McCain´s 2013 statement (or previous 100 year continued occupation of Iraq statement). It explains middle class Pakistan´s disdain for Bush´s flawed policies as it tries to secure America´s energy interests with use of force by continuing illegal war against terrorism.
It is opined that instead of using force or continuing using force Washington in step with Beijing can/could have realized its business, energy and commerce interest by respecting the terms and conditions of trading partners on equal terms. Oil producing states are producing oil to sell. But no one including Americans will support Bush´s philosophy that since America needs oil so it got to control it. It puts in perspective the indigenous resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan or for that matter covert and overt disdain in other countries experiencing American interference. All the countries cannot be occupied for all the times. All wars come to an end.
The question that American policy makers should be asking themselves should be how and who will deal with post war mess. How will America deal with real truth as and when it surfaces. Because American public has nothing to do with all this. The polls showing public´s disapproval of both wars reflect that Bush administration has imposed his undemocratic policies on the world and majority of people of America, which is a violation of their constitutional and democratic rights. It would be interesting to see Democrats deal with this challenge because 13 percent US Congress approval ratings show that they have to go ´for miles´ before they can rest.
Bush by resorting to force has not only destroyed America´s image as beacon of democracy, international conventions and human rights and civil and constitutional rights of the individuals for rest of the world but by supporting dictators and repressive regimes as part of flawed policy has promoted culture of suppression, torture and denial of justice that in turn has destroyed the entire governance structures in Europe, Africa, Asia, ME and even US itself. Kenya, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Philippines, and violations of human rights and constitutional rights within UK and US are cases in point. The extent of mess could even dampen Obama´s struggle to undo the damage.
Iran is also facing the price. Reportedly, western investors have invested some 10 billion US dollars but not a single cent has gone to Iran. Of the dozen or so oil and gas pipelines planned to link the Caspian resources to world markets will not pass through Iranian territory despite the fact that it represents the shortest route to open seas.
I will leave the readers to have a hard look on US-Iran because somewhere in all this lies the fate of millions of Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis who are caught up in all this for no fault of their own. Same is true for American troops stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. The candidates aides need to look beyond proposed cosmetic measures. Iraq has some 500,000 security trained personnel. Similarly some 200,000 trained Afghans and battle hardened locals can give both countries internal security within no time.
The questions therefore they should be pondering are: Can Democrats deploy these forces to secure US troops exit? Will they be allowed to do that? Is use of force delivering policy objectives? Can use of force help achieve policy objectives? Can the country afford continuation of two wars? Will global community be ready to do business with post Bush government? How can US defend its close relations with dictators and monarchs? How will America- once a beacon of democracy and supporter of human rights- defend foreign direct investment in US economy by blood soiled Sovereign Funds mostly owned by leaders of repressive regimes?
Finally, a truthful review of US foreign policy is need of the hour to determine right direction for country´s future including US-Iran, Palestine and Afghan policies. Obama and Democrats therefore need to look beyond 'appeasement' like digressions to find a workable solution to US foreign policy challenges.
It is widely believed that Bush´s comments are part of Republican strategy to portray Obama as weak in the fight against terrorism. Republicans as one political opined on CNN are trying to create a ´straw man´ by portraying a policy as opponent´s policy, which actually is not the opponent´s policy.
The comments also show that Bush will use his presidential platform to influence the presidential election. It shows three things: 1) It is the acknowledgement of the fact by the White House that Obama is the Democratic Party presidential nominee. 2) Bush has officially opened the National campaign. 3) Gloves are off, and Republicans are all out to get Obama on national and foreign policy issues.
Interestingly, Iran and US ambassadorial level discussions are undercutting Bush´s core argument that idea of engaging with countries like Iran and Syria is ´foolish delusion´. American Ambassador to Iraq R. C. Crocker has participated in direct talks with Iran.
Reportedly, Israel itself is following back channel diplomacy with Hamas through Egypt. The case of abducted Israeli soldier held by Hamas is a case in point. Israeli politics has seen ´yesterday´s terrorists turned statesmen´. In one of the report on CNN it was reported that one of the Israeli PM´s belonged to BL; a Jewish underground organization.
Obama therefore came down hard on both Bush and McCain. He said that Republican leaders were guilty of ´dishonest, divisive attacks´ and had engaged in ´hypocrisy, fear-peddling, and fear-mongering ´in an effort to continue, ´the failed policies´ of the past seven years.
He yoked Bush and McCain together by saying that McCain is ´doubling-down´ on policies that have already proven disastrous and everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. Instead, Obama reiterated his position by saying that he believes we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran – including tough, principled and direct diplomacy."
Hillary joined the criticism and said Bush´s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is offensive and outrageous, especially in the light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address.
Hillary also censured McCain´s new timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq by 2013. She said McCain´s statement "didn´t come with any new strategy or a clear recognition of the very serious difficulties that the Bush policy, now continued by McCain, will encounter. I think it´s time for a change in course."
In ME President Abbas complained over Bush´s visit to Israel. He said it has hurt feelings in the region. He said Nabka (catastrophe) is a shame for humanity. Palestinians use Nabka to refer to creation of Israel. He said that US isn´t an honest broker and America cannot be both friend of Israel and Palestine at the same time.
Political observers support implementation of UN Resolutions and continuation of 2003 roadmap to end longest occupation (of Palestine) in modern history, which is the stumbling block for peace in ME. It was opined that Bush´s broad statements during his Israel visit didn´t help anyone.
The conclusions arrived in the Friday meeting of three candidates´ foreign policy aides held in Washington to discuss their bosses strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan are as following:-
The representatives of Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Barack Obama all said they were disappointed that President Bush didn´t push harder to find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
They each spoke of a need for more economic development in Afghanistan and more accountability with regard to aid sent to Pakistan.
McCain´s advisor pushed for a tougher crackdown on Afghanistan´s narcotics industry, for example, by subsidizing farmers the cost difference between cultivating soy seeds instead of opium poppies.
He also spoke about the need for the U.S. to help put together an Afghan government comprised of tribal leaders from all the country´s ethnic groups, help end corruption that exists inside that government so it is a more functional government truly able to lead Pashtun, Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara communities of that country.
Huckabee´s advisor said that our goal in the Muslim world should be to correctly calibrate, of course, between maintaining stability and promoting democracy."
Right now, the underdeveloped tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are too much of a safe haven for new and established terrorist organizations, he said. "Governor Huckabee knows a micro group can create macro damage."
He called for more transparency from the Pakistani govt. by highlighting that Musharraf´s martial law and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto clearly shows that we didn´t have a Pakistan policy, we had a Musharraf policy.
Obama´s adviser stressed on the fact that Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and added that had so many military resources not gone to Iraq there would have been more attention paid to Afghanistan and both countries would be better off. He recommended addition of two US brigades in Afghanistan to increase our moral suasion to press our NATO allies to increase their presence and reduce the limitations they´ve placed on their troops." He cited Sarkozy surprise visit to Afghanistan one good sign of more international cooperation on the horizon.
I have repeatedly shared my views on American foreign policy in this space. However, I will draw the attention of readers towards following areas to help them ponder what needs to be done and how removed American mainstream leadership, policy makers and their aides are from ground realities:-
Flawed US-Iran policy has led to strengthening of regional influences over Caspian Oil holding 12 percent of world´s oil reserves plus huge reserves of natural gas. Iraq in contrast is less than 3 percent of world oil.
Bush administration by opposing Iran is squandering Caspian Sea oil and gas business and hampering US image in rest of the world. It is a coveted prize in the undeclared three-corned race for influence pitting Russia, Western powers and China. Before souring of US-Iran relations and disintegration of former Soviet Union The Caspian covering some 143, 000 square miles was shared between Iran and Russia under a treaty signed in the 19th century. With the end of USSR, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have joined Russia and Iran. These new comers don´t recognize Russo-Iranian treaties. Any improvement in US-Iran relations in addition to opening up of Iran´s oil and gas industry to international market should improve/open business opportunities for 20% Caspian oil and gas developments for America and rest of the advanced world.
Bush may have won a tactical battle but the statement by Russian FM during Tehran Conference 2007 show dept of damage incurred by Washington to national interest. The FM said Russia was the only one of the five littoral states to have military wherewithal to defend it against the greed and ambitions of the hostile outsiders. Following the meeting the world has seen emergence of new energy club: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) controlling world´s 12 percent oil and gas reserves. OPEC controls 26 percent and remaining are scattered around the world.
SCO is embarking on ambitious pipeline expansion program. It will link with Gazprom and ME. Thereby allowing SCO members including China, Russia to regulate energy flow to Europe, act as energy link between ME, Asia and Europe.
Gulf States have already embraced Asia under their ´Look East´ Policy thereby shifting center of power away from Europe and America if not in Asia at this point of time.
The use of force and occupation can be a reflection of flawed policy but it can never be the solution to US policy challenges. In all probability the way forward lies in dialogue, restoring power of international platforms including UN, ICJ and human rights and conventions to help create an environment for supporting meaningful dialogues.
It puts in perspective Europe´s unwillingness to support Bush´s NATO-Afghan mission. It puts in perspective McCain´s 2013 statement (or previous 100 year continued occupation of Iraq statement). It explains middle class Pakistan´s disdain for Bush´s flawed policies as it tries to secure America´s energy interests with use of force by continuing illegal war against terrorism.
It is opined that instead of using force or continuing using force Washington in step with Beijing can/could have realized its business, energy and commerce interest by respecting the terms and conditions of trading partners on equal terms. Oil producing states are producing oil to sell. But no one including Americans will support Bush´s philosophy that since America needs oil so it got to control it. It puts in perspective the indigenous resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan or for that matter covert and overt disdain in other countries experiencing American interference. All the countries cannot be occupied for all the times. All wars come to an end.
The question that American policy makers should be asking themselves should be how and who will deal with post war mess. How will America deal with real truth as and when it surfaces. Because American public has nothing to do with all this. The polls showing public´s disapproval of both wars reflect that Bush administration has imposed his undemocratic policies on the world and majority of people of America, which is a violation of their constitutional and democratic rights. It would be interesting to see Democrats deal with this challenge because 13 percent US Congress approval ratings show that they have to go ´for miles´ before they can rest.
Bush by resorting to force has not only destroyed America´s image as beacon of democracy, international conventions and human rights and civil and constitutional rights of the individuals for rest of the world but by supporting dictators and repressive regimes as part of flawed policy has promoted culture of suppression, torture and denial of justice that in turn has destroyed the entire governance structures in Europe, Africa, Asia, ME and even US itself. Kenya, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Philippines, and violations of human rights and constitutional rights within UK and US are cases in point. The extent of mess could even dampen Obama´s struggle to undo the damage.
Iran is also facing the price. Reportedly, western investors have invested some 10 billion US dollars but not a single cent has gone to Iran. Of the dozen or so oil and gas pipelines planned to link the Caspian resources to world markets will not pass through Iranian territory despite the fact that it represents the shortest route to open seas.
I will leave the readers to have a hard look on US-Iran because somewhere in all this lies the fate of millions of Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis who are caught up in all this for no fault of their own. Same is true for American troops stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. The candidates aides need to look beyond proposed cosmetic measures. Iraq has some 500,000 security trained personnel. Similarly some 200,000 trained Afghans and battle hardened locals can give both countries internal security within no time.
The questions therefore they should be pondering are: Can Democrats deploy these forces to secure US troops exit? Will they be allowed to do that? Is use of force delivering policy objectives? Can use of force help achieve policy objectives? Can the country afford continuation of two wars? Will global community be ready to do business with post Bush government? How can US defend its close relations with dictators and monarchs? How will America- once a beacon of democracy and supporter of human rights- defend foreign direct investment in US economy by blood soiled Sovereign Funds mostly owned by leaders of repressive regimes?
Finally, a truthful review of US foreign policy is need of the hour to determine right direction for country´s future including US-Iran, Palestine and Afghan policies. Obama and Democrats therefore need to look beyond 'appeasement' like digressions to find a workable solution to US foreign policy challenges.
view author's RSS feed
