|
Bush vs. Kerry: Two Sides of the Same Coin
No
matter who wins, the stance of the White House regarding the
Middle East will continue to be unequivocally pro-Israeli. The
next American administration, Republican or Democrat, will
continue to support without hesitation, the policies of the
government of Israel. On the matter of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, Bush and Kerry are identical twins. 1
– Nathan Guttman, Ha’aretz
 |
|
Both
Kerry and Bush fully endorse Israel’s strategic objectives |
|
The
upcoming US elections will inevitably be one of the most
highly-contested in recent history, coming as they do at a time
when the United States is facing a crisis in international
relations. Globally, America’s unilateralist policies since 9/11
have isolated the world’s remaining superpower. The United
States also faces an unfinished war in Afghanistan, a virtually
nonexistent “peace process” in the Middle East, and an ongoing
war of attrition in Iraq, where scores of US troops have been
killed by insurgents.
In
Afghanistan, where presidential elections have been hailed by the
US administration as a successful implementation of democracy,
critics suggest that US policies favoring Karzai and a small
circle of handpicked Western-educated technocrats raise serious
questions about the elections’ legitimacy. Indeed, the New
York Times prediction that the elections will be seen largely
as “an American-directed political theater designed to impress
American voters instead of Afghan ones,” has been borne out,
judging by the many candidates who boycotted the elections.2
In
Iraq, the Anglo-American invasion brought about not only regime
change, but more importantly, the complete collapse of the already
weakened Iraqi state. The so-called “transfer of power” to
Allawi’s government has changed little in the lives of ordinary
Iraqis, who still have to endure the dictates of occupation forces
and a Western-imposed puppet government. The aftermath of the
invasion illustrated America’s failure to bring about stability
or achieve security. The United States’ grand designs for Iraq
have failed to materialize, with its troops facing a sophisticated
insurgency with no end in sight.
Both
US and Israeli policies, manifested in daily bombings,
assassinations, arrests, mass destruction of homes, humiliating
practices at checkpoints, and daily curfews have inevitably lead
to the rise of more militant Islamist groups committed to fighting
what is increasingly being seen as a “crusader-Zionist” plot
aimed at subduing the Muslim world. According to the International
Institute of Strategic Studies, events in the region have
swollen the ranks of al-Qaeda to an estimated 18,000 members in 60
countries. 3
Other studies
indicate that the humiliation, despair, and oppression that
Muslims continue to endure in the Middle East have allowed
“al-Qaedism” – as a militant anti-Western, anti-Zionist
worldview – to become ever more popular.4
Where
the US promised the people of the Middle East freedom and
democracy, archaic pro-American regimes continue to exercise their
stranglehold on power with consistent US support and a blind eye
turned to gross human rights abuses committed in the name of
“fighting terrorism.” Hence, any US president will have to
contend with a plethora of complex dilemmas created throughout the
Middle East as a result of the United States’ increasingly
belligerent post 9/11 policies.
Differences
between Kerry and Bush would be limited to rhetorical style. |
|
There
is no doubt, however, that a president’s idiosyncrasies and
personal behavioral patterns influence policy style. Hence, Bush
is regarded as a messianic neo-conservative who believes in a US
imperial role in global politics, consequently adopting a policy
of unilateral pre-emption against enemies and adversaries. Kerry
is seen as having more liberal, progressive tendencies, and is
more interested in multilateralism in world politics.
Despite
those character differences between the two candidates, it is
unlikely there will be any significant change in US foreign policy
in the Middle East if either candidate wins. Successive US
administrations have always maintained consistent policy goals
towards the Middle East: maintaining the security of Israel and
its military superiority vis-à-vis its adversaries; securing a
steady flow of oil at reasonable prices; and fighting
“radical” elements seen as threatening to the regional status
quo. In addition, the Arab regimes’ wholehearted cooperation
with the US on almost all issues, coupled with their passivity and
unwillingness to challenge, influence, or even question the US
administration, has meant that US foreign policy trends in the
Middle East have become permanent. Differences between Kerry and
Bush would therefore be mostly limited to their rhetorical styles
of policy propagation, rather than in actual policy content.
Israel
– America’s “Sacred Cow”
America’s
commitment to Israel is unparalleled in the history of
international relations, and is qualitatively different from its
commitment to any other state in the world. It is the highest
recipient of US aid, and can be considered the spearhead of
America’s imperial project in the Middle East. Under George W.
Bush, US policy has shifted from a “special relationship” with
Israel to an all-encompassing embrace of Israeli policy.
New
strategic realities in the Middle East, manifest in the
Anglo-American occupation of Iraq, the limitless “war on
terrorism,” and the global freezing of Islamist funding,
illustrate the current administration’s firm commitment to many
longstanding Israeli strategic goals. Throughout his election
campaign, John Kerry failed to provide an alternative approach to
this facet of Bush’s policies. In fact, the democratic
candidate’s positions seemed identical to those of his
Republican counterpart in that regard.
More
specifically, Kerry endorsed the Bush administration’s
“roadmap,” supported Sharon’s so-called “disengagement
plan,” and backed the April 14 letter of assurances Bush gave
Sharon. He also accepts Israel’s “security first” paradigm,
and the Bush-Sharon policy of isolating Arafat, arguing that the
political process cannot move forward as long as Israel is not
safe – totally disregarding the carnage wrought by Israel in the
West Bank and Gaza, and the unprecedented level of Palestinian
suffering. Furthermore, Kerry supports Israel’s
assassinations’ policy, arguing that Israel has the right to
defend itself against all threats.
 |
|
Bush
and Kerry: Different style, same substance |
Indeed,
the primary victims of US elections and both candidates’ efforts
to win the Jewish vote have been the Palestinian people, who, in the
past few weeks alone, have lived through a brutal Israeli campaign
in Northern Gaza, in which over 120 homes have been demolished, and
140 Palestinians killed, almost a third of whom are children. 5
When
Tim Russert of NBC’s Meet the Press asked Kerry:
“President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six
predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land
seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted that Palestinian
refugees cannot go back to their homes. Do you support President
Bush?” Kerry answered, “Yes.” When Russert pressed,
“Completely?” Kerry reiterated, “Yes.” 6
Strikingly,
while the International Court of Justice declared Israel’s
apartheid wall to be illegal, Kerry told the Jerusalem Post
that “Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of
self-defense.” 7
Kerry had previously published a brief article entitled “The Cause
of Israel is the Cause of America,” in which he described how he
went to Israel “as a friend by conviction” and “returned a
friend at the deepest personal level.”8
In
December 2003, Kerry criticized his democratic counterpart, Howard
Dean, for proposing that the United States adopt an
“even-handed” approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, declaring
that Israel “is a democracy and America’s closest ally in the
Middle East.” 9
Perhaps
the only difference between the candidates is that Kerry would be
interested in more active US engagement in the Arab-Israeli
conflict, as opposed to Bush’s more passive approach. In either
case, the incoming administration can be expected to maintain a full
endorsement of Israel’s strategic objectives.
Iraq
– The Thorniest Issue
The
Iraqi issue is perhaps the most ambiguous of all electoral concerns.
It is difficult to ascertain how either presidential candidate would
deal with the Iraqi crisis in the event of an electoral victory.
Bush’s plan for Iraq involves earmarking an additional $87 billion
dollars for further military operations and aid, and the
stabilization of the interim government of Iraq until national
elections are held in January 2005. On the other hand, Kerry has
made a series of contradictory statements, at one point indicating
his support for the invasion of Iraq, only to later suggest that the
war on Iraq was the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong
time.”10
Kerry’s
positions on Palestine seem identical to those of Bush. |
|
Kerry
supported the Bush administration’s goal of regime change in Iraq,
promising to stay the course until the country was secure and
refusing to set a precise timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.
However, Kerry is inclined to involve more regional and
international actors in the Iraqi quagmire, as opposed to Bush’s
largely unilateral handling of the crisis. In fact, John Edwards,
the Democratic vice presidential nominee, suggested that the Kerry
administration, if elected, will try to obtain greater NATO
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.11
Kerry’s
main bone of contention with President Bush has been the latter’s
handling of post-Saddam Iraq and his failure to achieve a “lasting
peace.”12
In any case, the United States’ handling of Iraq is clearly going
to be determined by events on the ground, as opposed to premature
electoral concerns or character differences between the candidates.
Certainly, no US president can afford to leave Iraq without at the
very least establishing a seemingly stable political structure.
Practically, this means that Iraqi cities will continue to be
bombarded by US aircraft and artillery, and that the level of
violence will continue to escalate as long as no just political
solution is reached.
The
Saudis
Surprisingly,
there are signs that John Kerry, widely regarded as the more
“moderate” of the two candidates, might adopt a tougher stance
on Saudi Arabia. Despite the Saudi government’s endless
concessions and its wholehearted support for the “war on
terrorism,” Kerry stated that he would demand that Saudi Arabia
crack down on “anti-Semitic” and “anti-American” hate speech
and stop supporting Hamas. “The Saudis cannot pick and choose
among terrorist groups,” he said.13
In what is an ominous portent of flagrant US intervention in
domestic Saudi affairs and the basic tenets of Islamic teachings,
Kerry contended: “We need to see the new textbooks. We need to
hear what the government-financed clerics are preaching.”14
Conclusions
It
is not possible to precisely determine the exact potential for US
policy change in the Middle East, should either Bush or Kerry be
elected. The implications of the US-initiated global “war on
terrorism” has imposed its own dynamics on both candidates in a
way that neither can afford to ignore or step back from. Given the
structural aspects of US foreign policy in the Middle East and the
lack of a visible official Arab counter-hegemonic force, prospects
for policy change remain minimal, and the impact of any character
differences between both presidential candidates on policy substance
will be negligible.
Some
analysts astutely pointed out that, despite the popular perception
that Bush’s foreign policy is widely perceived as exceptionally
arrogant, insensitive, and militaristic, it represents no more than
a return to many of the trends that shaped American foreign policy
in earlier periods, and will continue to shape them in the future.
Melvyn P. Leffler wrote in Foreign Policy that during the
Cold War, preventive, unilateral action by the US in the Third World
was not an exception but, in fact, a “standard operating
procedure.”15
In every foreign intervention, policymakers used the same rhetorical
justification that Bush has been using: the quest for freedom.16
Hence, expected differences between Bush and Kerry have more to do
with style than with substance. In that sense, American foreign
policy is one of continuity rather than change.
Kareem
M. Kamel
is an
Egyptian analyst based in Cairo, Egypt. He has an MA in
International Relations and is specialized in security studies,
decision- making, nuclear politics, Middle East politics and the
politics of Islam. He is currently a teaching assistant to the
Political Science Department at the American University in Cairo.
1- Nathan
Guttman, “Another
President Who Won’t Budge the Middle East,” Ha’aretz
August 1st, 2004
2-M.
Nazif Shahrani, “Afghanistan’s
Presidential Elections: Spreading Democracy or a Sham?” Middle
East Report Online October 8th, 2004
3- Richard
Norton-Taylor, “Occupation
has boosted al-Qaeda, says thinktank” The Guardian May 26th,
2004
4- Jason
Burke, “Al-Qaeda:
Think Again,” Foreign Policy (May/June 2004)
5- “Game
Turns Deadly for Palestinian Children,” Fairfax Digital
October 9th, 2004
6-“Kerry
Supports Assassinations by Israel,” Big News Network April 20th,
2004
7-Paul
Wulfsberg, “Better than Bush, Barely,” Al-Ahram Weekly March 10th,
2004
8-Chris
Toensing, “If
Kerry Wins, Little Will Change in US Middle East Policy,” The
Middle East Research and Information Project March 2004
9-Paul
Wulfsberg, “Better than Bush, Barely,” Al-Ahram Weekly March
10th, 2004
10-“Kerry
: Iraq Pullout if Allies Help,” Al-Jazeera (English) September
6th, 2004
11-Glenn
Kessler and Robin Wright, “Edwards Says Kerry Plans to Confront
Iran on Weapons,” Washington Post August 30th, 2004
12-John
Kerry, “If I Were
President – Addressing the Democratic Deficit,” Foreign
Policy (March/April 2004)
13-David
M. Halbfinger, “Calling
Bush’s Foreign Policy ‘Inept’; Kerry Outlines His Own,”
International Herald Tribune December 5th, 2003
14-Ibid.
15-Melvyn
P. Leffler, “Think Again:
Bush’s Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy (September/October
2004)
16-Ibid.
|
