The runup to Bush's trip to the Middle East reminded me very much of Cheney's famous 2002 trip, when all he wanted to talk about was Iraq, and all the Arabs wanted to talk about was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Bush clearly views the purpose of the trip as mobilizing support for confronting Iran, something in which the Gulf states these days don't seem to have a lot of interest. Most of the Arab media, at least, sees the trip almost exclusively through the Palestinian-Israeli lens. Hardly any other issue rates even a mention in most of the commentary - not Iran, not democracy, not even Iraq.
The coverage largely mirrors the political divide in Arab politics over the last few years. On the one side, you've got the al-Arabiya director Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed (who often gives voice to one part of the Saudi ruling elite) writing a love letter to Bush in al-Sharq al-Awsat which can barely contain his excitement about "the most important visit [by an American President] in fifty years." Despite the sad seven years without a visit, Rashed is overwhelmed that Bush found the time in in his busy schedule to come by. Bush may not have much time left in his term, but he has plenty of minutes to go - and can bring to bear a powerful personality, great experience, a profound vision, and... so on. Only the Palestinian issue is really worth mentioning: Bush's promise to create a Palestinian state, and Saudi willingness to work with him on that goal despite all the other problems. Similar sentiments can be found from Ali Ibrahim (also in al-Sharq al-Awsat), who bravely argues that Bush still has a chance to fulfil his promises about a Palestinian state. Most of the pro-Bush commentary in the Arab media has focused on laying out an array of reasons that Bush will deliver a Palestinian state; very little, if any, has expressed excitement over rallying against Iran.
The influential Egyptian columnist Fahmy Howeydi, on the other hand, pours scorn on the idea that Bush will deliver a Palestinian state: he has already issue quite public guarantees to the Israelis, he writes, which render such an outcome impossible. Abd al-Bari Atwan, editor of al-Quds al-Arabi, yesterday called on Arabs to welcome Bush as a war criminal. Egyptian political scientist Hassan Nafaa writes in al-Hayat that as much as he would love to believe the wonderful claims that Bush was about to finally do something positive in the region, he could find no reason to believe that - all the evidence, he writes, instead points to Bush continuing to pursue the same hostile agenda he's pursued his entire Presidency, and to mouthing empty words on Palestine to gain Arab support against Iran. Mohammed al-Hamadi writes in al-Ittihad (UAE) that Bush had offered the Arabs nothing positive in seven years - why would that change now? And despite the recent charges of the neutering of al-Jazeera, this report at least is full of highly critical Palestinian voices.
Hamadi sounds a theme which runs through several other articles (such as Salah al-Din Hafez in al-Ahram): he hopes that Bush gets more from the meeting than some nice travel photos, and suggests that Bush might talk to some Arabs on the trip and learn a bit about what they actually think. Both point out that Bush would likely learn that not all Arabs are violent terrorists, but that most of them intensely hate his policies towards the region - no matter what his advisers tell him. Hafez and Hamadi both savage Bush over his complete failure to support democracy in the region, a point which his fans in the Saudi media fail to mention.
The overwhelming focus on the Palestinian issue and the virtual silence on both Iran and Iraq strikes me as the most interesting thing in the commentary thus far. The sharp divide between fans and critics of the Bush visit just replicates well-known political divides in the region. The extent of the fawning in the Saudi-dominated media is also notable, I suppose - and was rewarded with an interview on al-Arabiya - but also not that much of a surprise.
Me? I don't expect much from Bush's trip. The time to tour the region getting to know the issues, the countries, and the people was - oh, I don't know, seven years ago? The Annapolis initiative seemed to me DOA, a photo opportunity designed to avoid confronting any serious issues, and nothing which has happened since has made me reconsider. I've already argued that the GCC is largely losing interest in a confrontation with Iran, even if they retain considerable concern about its rising power, and I don't think that Bush declaring his seriousness in person will really tip the tide since I don't think that Arab doubts about American resolve are really the main issue. I don't even expect that he'll get out and meet with many ordinary folks, given the (very real) security concerns. But maybe he will get some nice travel photos, at least.
An analysis in today's Le Monde echos your take re Bush and the Palestinian issue, AA.
I kind of wonder why Bush as President did not visit Israel before this, besides any issue of getting to know the Arab personalities/viewpoints. Funny too how his stay in Jerusalem just happens to be from "9" to "11". I suppose the visit is some sort of consecration.
Speaking of fawning. Heh: Olmert: George, you are a "decider"; Ehoud, you are a "visionary".
Last, if this is a trip to mobilize the Arabs against Tehran, well, then that US naval group nearly certainly entered Iranian waters to elicit a reaction. The use by Fox and CNN of videos and voice recordings of the "outrage" of an Iranian "provocation" is rather over the top.
Posted by: nur al-cubicle | January 09, 2008 at 03:30 PM
maybe you should write for le Monde
Posted by: Fred | January 09, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Great idea, provided the job comes with a case of Pommerol!
Posted by: nur al-cubicle | January 09, 2008 at 06:54 PM
it is going to be a waste of jet fuel. Bush and the Israelis are just so far off from a solution that could be acceptable to the palestinians that the trip is pointless. I think the arabs figured this out in Annapolis, and i think only abu mazen is still dreaming.
i really dont know why he is going except to shut up condi.
Posted by: saeed uri | January 09, 2008 at 08:03 PM
AA - what do you make of this? http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AA5C923C-FAC2-450C-BD5C-18D9AE5F3AE2.htm
I realize that Abu 'Awda has supposedly been on the outs with 'Abdallah for a while, but do you think this reflects official Jordanian thinking to any degree? Any connection with the fact that Bush isn't stopping in Jordan this time?
Posted by: delmarva | January 10, 2008 at 08:54 AM
As this is plainly a "legacy tour," Arab media reaction is not as interesting as it might be otherwise. Interesting comment would compare and contrast expectations in the region to what the White House wanted to come from the trip. What the White House wants, though, is to check a box on the Bush Presidency's travelogue and produce some photos for the presidential library, objectives that aren't relevant to anyone else. So there will be a lot of talking past one another in the Mideast this week.
Most American officials are probably hoping the President doesn't make things worse. I don't think the administration is wrong, for example, that GCC goverments have been and will remain deeply suspicious of Iran under its current government, but feeling that way and wanting to "confront" their much larger neighbor are two different things -- something I think Sec. Gates understands, even Sec. Rice understands. President Bush, well, that is another story, and I think there are probably some American officials counting the hours until this trip is over. And the President can resume his battle for fiscal responsibility in Washington.
Posted by: Zathras | January 10, 2008 at 10:44 AM
The presidential "Grand Tour" is a fixture of the last years of a failed presidency.
Posted by: dilbert dogbert | January 11, 2008 at 09:56 PM
I would be more interested in hearing wich part of his entourage is following along. Is it Gates people or Cheneys people?
Posted by: fnord | January 13, 2008 at 09:07 AM
please help me save me i am in serious danger clinton and c.i.a thritened me my english isnot good enough my blog in arabic explain everything please save me my bloghttp://494949.blogsome.com
Posted by: moddar alzoubi | January 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
This trip reminds me of Nixon's trip to the Middle East in 1974, and I think it was done for the same reasons.
Posted by: Marshall | January 13, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Just a bit off-topic here (or is it?), but a few hours ago an explosion targeted a U.S Embassy convoy in Beirut (just for the record, I live in Mount Lebanon, a 20-minute drive from the U.S embassy). People are coming up with all sorts of explanations. One is that the explosion is related to Bush's visit to the region... I frankly don't buy this. Ironically, it's an association that the Israeli press seems to have quite a bit of fixation on... Any thoughts about this?
Posted by: Shoghig M. | January 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM
First thoughts are: Hmm, they tried to take out the Norwegian foreign minister in Kabul last night. New wave?
Second thoughts: There is a meeting being held between sunni, kurds and shia factions in Iraq for political reconciliation in Beirut these days, most propably aimed at that? Please post details..
Posted by: fnord | January 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Fnord, I was never good at understanding sarcasm, so you'll have to explain what you meant by that...! And go over it slowly, will you, I'm a bit thick-skulled.
Thanks in advance!
Posted by: Shoghig M. | January 15, 2008 at 01:46 PM