(Originally posted at: Hoot at the Dark.)
The joint statement by the United States, European Union, Russian Federation, and the United Nations (the Quartet) on the Palestinian elections is a strong repudiation of the initial US position.
From the Quartet Statement:
Mindful of the needs of the Palestinian people, the Quartet discussed the issue of assistance to the Palestinian Authority. First, the Quartet expressed its concern over the fiscal situation of the Palestinian Authority and urged measures to facilitate the work of the caretaker government to stabilize public finances, taking into consideration established fiscal accountability and reform benchmarks.
Second, the Quartet concluded that it was inevitable that future assistance to any new government would be reviewed by donors against that government’s commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.
After Hamas’ suprise victory, Condi shrilly demanded immediate and explicit renunciation of violence as a non-negotiable condition for any aid to the Palestinians. Now, under the exceedingly weak language of the Agreement, the can is kicked down the road, simply to be ‘reviewed’ with the other supposed non-negotiables like recognition of Israel and acceptance of the roadmap (events that can logically occur only AFTER the Palestinians first stop bombing Israelis).
While another in a long series of black eyes for the oxymoronic ‘Bush diplomatic corps’, the Quartet’s statement does reflect a much more realistic approach than the Administration’s initial, kneejerk reaction of threatening to starve the newly (and fairly) elected government out of existence. As we saw with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, it takes time for a previously outlawed party to stabilize itself after winning a seat at the table. But once they get their feet underneath them, the new leadership is a far more likely to stop the violence because now they have something to lose if they don’t. Any attempt to destabilize Hamas right out of the box would only prevent the consolidation of authority necessary for effective control, and thus prolong the suffering on both sides – as the French so tragically learned in Algeria.
On a larger scale, what is also painfully apparent from the Quartet’s statement is just how much international influence the US has lost on this issue. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict was once the almost exclusive province of American diplomats. Now we are meeting jointly as simply one of four powers, where our clumsy, strident policies are either watered down or politely (but firmly) booted. The same phenomenon is happening with North Korea, where the US is actually insisting on a multi-lateral approach – actively ceding its own authority to other nations and drastically diminishing its own position in the bargain.
Given the uber-dangerous incompetence of the current Administration, the reduction of US foreign policy prestige is perhaps helpful to international political stability in the short run. However, if and when this Administration finally slinks off the stage, the next American President will inherit a far less prominent position in a far more dangerous World.
W stands for Weakness.
For What It’s Worth…
Sorry, but reducing the problem to this administration–especially as regards foreign policy and international “intervention” on the part of the US–is imo itself dangerous.
Remember Harold Pinter’s Nobel Speech?
Whether in the long or the short run, I think it’s a good thing for the US to play a less prominent role in international politics. Like it or not: the fact is, our gov has been playing the world’s biggest asshole every since wwII–previous regimes were at least “smart” enough to limit themselves domestically by only being an asshole to minorities and the poorest of the poor in the US.
This regime is being an asshole not only to minorities and the poor, it’s an equal-opportunity asshole running roughshod over the lives of all but the very wealthiest and “whitest” of its citizens–but previous regimes have never scored very well internationally, either, nor will future regimes until the US (its people and its gov) gets over its own superiority complex.
Changing the regime isn’t going to do much good on many, many issues unless we also start seeing some huge conceptual shifts in the national psyche–one of which is going to have to be giving up the notion that we are the world’s keeper, the biggest and baddest and best, and blah blah blah bullshit….
Sooner or later the US was probably destined to relinquish its super-power status.
Yet because of our disasterous diplomacy over the last five years, we will also have far less ability to make that transition on our own terms, in our own time, and with confidence that what follows will be a stable and secure world.
Perhaps you rejoice at the precipitous fall of American prestige. I for one think that the vaccuum created by this sudden, clumsy withdrawl from our traditional role as international stabilizer portends nothing but ill.
I would rejoice at the precipitous fall of any nation’s prestige if that nation demonstrated the kind of track record we de facto have on this score and others. Besides, our prestige has been falling steadily ever since Nam–could be that we just haven’t noticed. It has only been in the past 5 years that we’ve been completely discredited and become, as Michael Moore put it so aptly today, “the laughing stock of the western world.”
At this point, I think it high time we start learning to do things not on our own terms and time, but on the terms established as being most likely to produce stability by as many of the parties involved as possible.
I’m a firm believer in the value of international cooperation, collaboration, consultation and concensus (or as close as one might come).
This country sees itself as a “stabilizer” but I see more evidence of it acting as a destablizing force, now more than ever. And I’m not alone in this perception.
Prestige is overrated.
Peace can happen without prestige.
In fact, could be that prestige is a major stumbling block to peace. Dunno.
Besides, our prestige has been falling steadily ever since Nam–could be that we just haven’t noticed.
Our international prestige was never as high as on the day Bill Clinton left office. The US was at the height of its influence, the world was at peace, and many more were enjoying growing prosperity and expanding democracy. We were certainly not a destabilizer then.
Or perhaps you didn’t notice?
Very few at that time were advocating a reduction in US prestige. Indeed, some were calling us the ‘indispensible nation’
Now we’re all going to have to learn the hard way just how ‘indipensible’ the US really is.
Peace can happen without prestige.
You are dead wrong on this. The only thing that comes from a lack of prestige is chaos and violence. If you need any proof of this, just take a look around at th current world situation.
withdrawl from our traditional role as international stabilizer
Thanks for the laugh!
Seriously, we’re maintaining our traditional role. Clumsily as you say, dangerously actually, but it’s not like a 180 degree turn-around.
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, by William Blum
I was just thinking…those who’ve been on the losing end of our “stabilization” would seriously beg to differ.
a lot of people would beg to differ, eh?
This conversation calls to mind Robert J. Lifton’s “Superpower Syndrome”. Here’s an Amy Goodman interview with him on the subject.
Yeah, like Europe (East and West), Japan, Taiwain, South Korea – all those little, insignificant places, huh?
Nicaragua, Chile, Guatamala, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Haiti, etc.
I’m not a particularly big fan of America exceptionalism, given our nation’s rather checkered history with regard to destabilizing other nations and with regard to war. Regrettably we’re neither a nation of peace nor of laws. I wish it were not the case.
Thanks for the refresher course-;) for a moment there, I was wondering if I’d somehow missed the point where the world was at peace. Nope.
We had about 5 years in the late nineties of relative peace, and we were on track for a lot more. But that’s all gone now.
Snark if you must. But the wrong turn the US took in 2000 blew a chance for both the US and the world to finally enjoy some well deserved peace after a century of bloody conflict.
This much we agree on 100%. BushCo is the most dangerous regime this country’s ever had. Many people throughout the world feel it’s the most dangerous regime the world’s ever seen–at least in relatively recent times.
If you looked at the Lifton link I provided above, he agrees, too.
I think a Gore presidency would have steered this country in a much better direction, and perhaps even that, for the first time in our history as a nation, we may have actually begun acting as a stabilizing force–not only outside this country, but also for our own citizens.
Then came BushCo….
Seriously, we’re maintaining our traditional role.
Our traditional role is to promote mutual defensive alliances within internationally recognized rules of engagement for the purposes of avoiding large-scale conflict.
Don’t see much of that going on right now.