Rome conference fails.

I'm watching al-Jazeera's live coverage of the Rome conference right now.   Al-Jazeera bumper sticker summary:  Rome conference fails because United States rejects a ceasefire.   The camera captured Condoleeza Rice looking visibly uncomfortable as Lebanon's Prime Minister Seniora calmly but angrily denounced "Israel's aggression against Lebanon", and visibly upset when he quietly said that "everything which delays a ceasefire is something which exacerbates the suffering of the Lebanese people" (not an exact quote, just a sense of what I heard him say). Rice expressed grave concern about the Iranian role in Lebanon, and concern for the humanitarian situation - which, at a time when her government is pretty much solely responsible for allowing the bombing to continue, is pretty the definition of adding insult to injury. 

 

I came in late, and therefore didn't see the whole thing, but the overall tone of the press conference (which had already been delayed an hour in an attempt to reach consensus) was grim.  Sure, they issued a statement which affirmed international resolutions on Hezbollah disarmament and called for a UN-sanctioned multinational force.  But those statements were efforts to dress up a failure and make it look presentable. Without any move to a ceasefire, or any implementable recommendations, there's nothing much to dress up.  Even more than at any time over Iraq,  America looks deeply isolated.   

I don't know anyone who will be surprised that the Rome conference failed - it seems to have been designed to fail, to give the US the chance to appear to be "doing something" while giving Israel the time it wants to continue its offensive.   But this policy is so transparent, such an obvious stalling mechanism, that it is probably making things even worse for the United States and for Israel:  when you are faking it, you're supposed to at least try to maintain the pretence so that others can at least pretend to believe you.   The call for an immediate ceasefire has become more or less universal now, other than from the United States and Israel:  even the pro-American Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which initially blamed Hezbollah for the crisis, are now loudly demanding an immediate ceasefire.   

America is totally alone on this.  And more than most Americans might realize, America is being blamed for Israel's actions.   The shift in Arab public discourse over the last week has been palpable.  For the first few days, the split between the Saudi media and the "al-Jazeera public" which I wrote about at the time.  Then for a few days, horror at the humanitarian situation, fury with the Arab states for their impotence, speculation about the endgame, and full-throated condemnation of Israeli aggression.   But for the last few days, the main trend has been unmistakable:  an increasing focus on the United States as the villain of the piece. (That the Israeli bombing of Beirut stopped just long enough for Condoleeza Rice's photo op certainly didn't help.)

While there's disagreement as to whether Israel acted on behalf of an American project, there is near-consensus about American responsibility for not stopping what al-Jazeera is now calling "the sixth [Arab-Israeli] war".     For instance, al-Jazeera's prime time Behind the News on July 25 was devoted to "the American project for a new Middle East" (with no American officials accepting their invitation to participate).    If you review the daily Arab media selections I've been posting in the left sidebar (with short English comments and summaries) you'll see something of this trend over the last few days:  Sami Soroush, in al-Hayat,  a new Middle East through Israeli war?  America keeps making the same mistakes every single time;  Hossein Shabakshi, al-Sharq al-Awsat,  yes the Middle East needs reform and change... but not through the massacre of innocents;  Abd al-Wahab Badrakhan, in al-Hayat:  American plans require Israeli victory at any cost; Yasir al-Za'atra, al-Hayat:  real roots of the escalating crisis is American drive for hegemony in the region;  Hazem Saghiye, al-Hayat, America's responsibility;  and that's not even getting in to Abd al-Bari Atwan (today:  the Middle East against America) and the writers in al-Quds al-Arabi.   

Perhaps this negative focus on America was inevitable, given Iraq and the war on terror and al-Jazeera? 

No.  This wan't inevitable.  Real American leadership, such as quickly restraining the Israeli offensive and taking the lead in ceasefire negotiations, could have created a Suez moment and dramatically increased American influence and prestige (especially if the Saudis had delivered Iran in a ceasefire agreement, as I've heard that Saudi officials believed that they could).  But by disappearing for the first days of the war and then resurfacing only to provide a megaphone for Israeli arguments and to prevent international efforts at achieving a ceasefire, the Bush administration put America at the center of the storm of blame.   I think that the Lebanon war will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities in recent American diplomatic history - not because we failed to go after Iran, or whatever the bobbleheads are ranting about these days, but because we failed to rise to the occasion and exercise real global leadership in the national interest.   

One other thing.  I've always been an advocate of public diplomacy, but let's be real:  no public diplomacy in the world could overcome the fiasco which is America's policy. But even now I think that an actual attempt to explain America's position to the Arab media might have both made some slight difference in shaping Arab arguments and given American officials a stronger sense of how their rhetoric was playing in the Arab world.  That feedback might have helped Rice avoid her steady string of disasters in the region, including her expressed surprise at the extent of destruction in Beirut and her spectacularly ill-considered formulation of the violence giving birth to a new Middle East (no single American remark thus far has earned more enraged scorn).   But the Bush administration has completely punted on public diplomacy, demonstrating absolute contempt for Arab attitudes - it didn't even send officials on to relatively friendly environments like al-Arabiya - and now it's far too late.  "Winning Arab and Muslim hearts and minds" has gone on the trash heap alongside "American promotion of Arab democracy" for the forseeable future.  If the Bush administration has any alternative grand strategy in mind, it's carefully concealing its hand.   

UPDATE:  Reuters reports:

A senior State Department official traveling with Rice said she was very satisfied with the results of the meeting and that the statement showed "strong international consensus" on the issue. He disagreed that Washington was isolated in the meeting.

Things have gotten so bad that I hope this is spin. 

Comments

[Zathras]

The phrase "Suez moment" is ill-chosen, recalling as it does one of the more short-sighted and unworthy periods in American postwar foreign policy.

But had the administration actively sought to focus attention on Hezbollah's having brought on this crisis -- for example, by calling on Nasrallah to apologize -- and leaned hard and publicly on Israel to forego attacks on Lebanese targets not directly associated with Hezbollah, the tone of international discourse on Lebanon would likely be very different.

Instead the President been rigid in his formulation of policy objectives, and has left their implementation to the Israelis. The similarity between his delegation here and his leaving the Afghanistan and Iraqi invasion plans to Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Franks is striking. Whether or not he was paying attention at the time, Bush at least got briefings beforehand from Rumsfeld and Franks.

[Pragmatic]

Are you serious? Hezbollah,a terrorist group, crosses the border into Israel, kills and kidnaps soldiers so the US is responsible for the retaliatory attacks? You sir are a total moron.

[Ben P]

Pragmatic,

Whether or not Mr. Lynch thinks that isn't really the point of this post. Its that this is now the consensus view in the non-Israeli ME. And that's a problem. The US's strategy in the region is hopelessly tangled and contradictory.

[Pragmatic]

Appeasment does not work. See: Neville Chamberlain.

[The Lounsbury]

Mechanical repitition of supposed lessons of very different past historical situations that you barely understand is a great way to get oneself into deep, deep trouble. See WWI, Guns of August.

[lucia]

You are so right. Why, why, why do americans continue to let the american press spoon feed them all that bush bullshit. His whole presidency has been like a bad, bad dream. He's destroyed the image of the US for generations to come and has serious upset the world order. there's also a very good chance he has set the next world war into motion.

[Bolo]

"Hezbollah,a terrorist group, crosses the border into Israel, kills and kidnaps soldiers so the US is responsible for the retaliatory attacks?"
--Pragmatic

No, but we are responsible for restraining and halting the retaliatory attacks. Israel is our client state in the Middle East. It's using our weapons and our geopolitical security umbrella to wage this war. We are the only military force in the world with both the power and the (potential) will to organize stop them. We have been "in charge" of the Western military presence in the Middle East since Eisenhower.

Israeli's disproportionate military retaliation continues with our tacit approval and could not exist without it.

We're not doing the shooting, but we gave them the guns and aren't lifting a finger to stop the results.

[donna]

Pragmetic,

So now Israel has crossed the border and killed hundreds. What does that now justify Hezbollah to do, huh?

I don't think this blogger is the idiot.

[David F]

Immediate cease fire should have been coupled with moving in 100,000 NATO troops to disarm Hezbollah according to the UN Resolution and allow the Lebanon Army to protect their southern border. The reason that there is no immediate cease-fire and the saving of many civilian lives is precisely becuase the Europeans do not want to commit their armies to disarm Hezbollah. If the Europeans really cared, they'd let NATO make the peace, but they really don't care.

[Friendly Fire]

Isreal sent a strong message to four blue-caps this morning.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"We're not doing the shooting, but we gave them the guns and aren't lifting a finger to stop the results."

If "We" is Iran and "Them" were Hezbollah, we could be avoiding a whole lot of criticism right now.

[No Preference]

Brilliant post, aardvark.

Rice expressed grave concern about the Iranian role in Lebanon, and concern for the humanitarian situation - which, at a time when her government is pretty much solely responsible for allowing the bombing to continue, is pretty the definition of adding insult to injury.

What really got me was her offer of $40 million in aid to Prime Minister Saniora immediately after the US had rushed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aviation fuel and munitions to Israel to enable it to continue its assault.

Can you believe it?

[rosignol]

No, but we are responsible for restraining and halting the retaliatory attacks.

Ah. So people in the middle east (and you) apparently think the US's primary role in this mess is to restrain israel.

One question: who restrains Hizbullah? Who smacks *them* down when they misbehave?

What I see is a bunch of Arabs (and Europeans) who think the US's job is to let Arab proxies kill Israelis and call off the retribution when the Israelis start winning.

To hell with that idea.

[Ian Welsh]

Israel's losing. Even the IDF recognizes that. The peacekeeping force is a way for them to save face, because otherwise they will either find themselves in a guerilla war they can't win, or be forced to withdraw.

And no, they can't win the guerilla war, if they could have defeated Hezbollah they would have done it when they spent nearly two decades occupying southern Lebanon.

What was that about history? Those who don't learn...?

[Gary]

I guess we should now change our foreign policy and ask Israel to surrender since the "Arabs" are seething again, outraged, furious, etc. Isn't this game a lil old? Stop your own extremists from breaking the peace and there will be no retaliation. *sigh*

[Bruce]

Isreal is using this conference to assert that it has the backing of the international community for its actions. Inconceivable.

World 'backs Lebanon offensive'

Israel says the decision by diplomats not to call for a halt to its Lebanon offensive at a Middle East summit has given it the green light to continue.

"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," Justice Minister Haim Ramon said.

[ckreiz]

I'm puzzled by why the discussion devolves into Bush-bashing. Israel takes action against Hez, ergo, Bush is a moron. Cf. Arab-Israeli wars in 48, 56, 67 and 73. This intractable problem existed long before Bush and will exist long after him.

[ckreiz]

Put it this way, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder and Clinton were hardly beloved on the Arab Streets. We've always supported Israel and the Arab Street loathes Israel. Ergo, we're loathed. Is this an endorsement of Bush the Junior's diplomacy? Hardly. But Pragmatic (above) has a point- that is, at some point, diplomacy is an empty exercise. Clinton tried his level best to secure a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO. His peristence failed- and one wonders if it would've meant anything, given the Palestinian endorsement of Hamas years later.

Egypt proved to be a rational player and has abided by its peace treaties with Israel. Hez and Hamas appear to be different animals. I'm all for negotiating and diplomacy. But it's difficult to negotiate with a party whose avowed purpose is Israel's total destruction. Or am I missing something?

[Ben P]

ckreiz,

true, but Bush supposedly wants a "new Middle East" with elected governments rather than autocracies. In the light of this, US policy right now is contradictory and I believe many in the administration are being willfully dishonest to themselves.

[ckreiz]

I don't think it's a matter of dishonesty, Ben- simply ignorance coupled with over-optimism.