Believe it or not, that will be the case.The Annapolis joint statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas clearly points out the defining role the US would play in a new peace process launched there. And that will be exercised by President George W. Bush. Here is how the final sentences of the "joint understanding" statement reads: "The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States" Notice the emphasis on the word "judge."
The statement underscores the honest broker role of the US. The targeted settlement date, end of 2008, corresponds with the lifespan of Bush's reign in the White House. So this is basically a commitment by three leaders that they will do their best to finalize decades of conflict until Bush leaves office. Although Abbas and Olmert will be the ones who are monitored, a successful outcome will mainly depend on the personal commitment of the monitor-in-chief, President Bush. And there are many doubts on that score.
Yes, Bush has pledged to devote his effort during his time as president to do all he could to help Israeli and Palestinian leaders achieve the ambitious goals laid out. He also gave them his "personal commitment to support their work with the resources and resolve of the American government." But at the same time, on several occasions, he underlined the fact that the parties themselves are responsible for the pace of progress and that Washington cannot achieve progress for them. Bush "is not going to do the negotiating for the Israelis and the Palestinians," White House spokesperson Dana Perino said at a news briefing, adding: "He has said that Americans can be helpful; he will be there; he's only a phone call away. But they're going to have to do the hard work of talking to one another."
It doesn't hurt a US president to start another Middle East peace process if he does not commit himself too strongly to the endgame. Clearly, if the Annapolis process yields a major success, that will be presented as Mr. Bush's. He will be able to include a desperately needed achievement in his otherwise poor presidential legacy portfolio. But if talks fail, there are more than enough scapegoats. Even in that case, peace efforts will have saved some face for the US administration, distracted attention from failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly provided a good cover for anti-Iran diplomatic efforts. Stealing the show from Iran in the region is one of the most important priorities of the Bush administration. They know the road to perdition for the US in the Middle East goes through losing both Baghdad and Jerusalem to Iranians.
In this endeavor it's good to have a respected and hardworking secretary of state. Condoleezza Rice has been very instrumental in being able to put together the Annapolis meeting and securing the participation by key regional players, including alienated Syria and skeptical Saudi Arabia. She might be an asset to broker things relatively honestly, which means pressing not only Palestinians but also Israelis in a considerable way. Whereas Rice can play the role of an angel whispering into Mr. Bush's ear from his right shoulder, the devil role fits Vice President Dick Cheney best. At the White House, there is probably no better friend of non-compromising elements of Israel and their American sympathizers than Mr. Cheney. Many of his Middle East advisors are hawkish Zionists.
Under these circumstances, can the US really be an honest broker and an impartial judge? Can President Bush achieve what his predecessors Clinton, Reagan and Carter were unable to achieve. Personally, I doubt it. But I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong.
