Secretary Rice thinks “we now have a real opportunity to seek peace,” but conditions on the ground between Israelis and Palestinians are not necessarily favorable for a breakthrough. The Bush administration is poised to go ahead with a Middle East peace initiative in Annapolis near Washington later this month, while some Israelis and Palestinians want to call it a “meeting” rather than a “conference” to lower expectations.
Many US presidents have chosen to humiliate themselves with unsuccessful brokering moves between Arabs and Jews. Last, but not least, was President Bill Clinton. To a certain extent Clinton’s concerted attempts shortly before he left office in January 2001 were viewed relatively optimistically back then because of his leadership qualities and personal popularity in the world. But with lame duck President George W. Bush, who has little or no international credibility, prospects for a real success seem even slimmer. Furthermore, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, respectively, who would be invited to Annapolis, are lame ducks in their own right, given the vulnerabilities of their political situation at home.
Why in the world is the Bush administration is pushing this, then? Don’t they see these simple facts? Why did Secretary Rice make eight trips to the region this year? The answer most probably lies with New York Times columnist David Brooks’ analysis: “The peace process is an occasion to gather the ‘moderate’ states and to construct what Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center calls an anti-Iran counter-alliance.”
In the mind of Washington’s rulers, there is a clear link between the need for a “responsible’” Palestinian state and the need to stop Iran’s strategic offensive in the region. According to Rice, “Violent extremists with the government of Iran increasingly in the lead are doing everything in their power to impose their fear, their resentments, and their hate-filled ideologies on the people of the Middle East. ... This makes the two-state solution more urgent than ever.”
Iran’s aggressive Middle East policy, especially evident in Iraq, has resulted in an unprecedented level of Sunni solidarity. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran with much deeper involvement in the region has become a common fear factor for many Sunni-dominated nations, Israel and the West. A joint picture of “moderate” and “responsible” states heeding the call of the US is needed. And there can’t be a better pretext than the Middle East peace process.
So where does Turkey fit into this picture? Expectation was that Foreign Minister Ali Babacan would be invited to represent one of the “responsible” nations and that he would accept the invitation. The irony is that Turkey will be in the list of US “responsible” nations, in spite of -- or I should say thanks to -- its refusal to follow some “irresponsible” policies of the Bush administration. While a targeted disengagement policy is in effect in Washington, Ankara has really played a responsible role by positively engaging with all major players, including “rogue states” such as Iran and Syria. Although Turks are naturally aligned with Sunni elements, given historical ties, and they don’t want more nuclear arms in their vicinity, they think the only feasible way to contain Iran is through further diplomatic engagement.
Thanks to a positive engagement strategy, Ankara has lately become a common destination for unusually high-profile guests from the region. Breaking a 40-year-long tradition, Saudi King Abdullah has come to Turkey two years in a row. Bashar Assad has become the first-ever Syrian president to do so. Visits from high-level Iranian delegations have become routine. Just this week Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres were in Turkey offering a rare joint appearance on foreign soil.
One should neither exaggerate nor underestimate the role Turkey aspires to play in the Middle East. Peres caught the mood in Ankara when he said “Turkey can make a unique contribution as both a global architect and a local actor.” It is obvious Ankara would like to raise its global profile by trying to steal some role from major Middle East peace mediators. Whether that can be accomplished remains to be seen, since the US does not always necessarily see Turkey as an asset and countries like Egypt, which are in the business of peacemaking, could be jealous. On the other hand, parallel with democratic and economic stability, Turkey will undeniably continue to lobby and eventually have more say in the fate of its immediate neighborhood.
The Middle East peace process and talks have unfortunately become a pretext to pursue domestic and foreign policy interests for many countries. It’s partly because of the lack of sincerity and the conflict of interests among the so-called mediators that after all these years we don’t have peace in Palestine and Israel. I really don’t expect the Annapolis meetings to be an exception.
