Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GWOT Year 3 - 2004 (mainly Iraq)
Rebranding Bush as man of peace from The Guardian Rebranding Bush as man of peace Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Simon Tisdall and Nicholas Watt Saturday January 3, 2004 The Guardian The White House has retreated from its doctrine of regime change and pre-emptive military action and is returning to traditional diplomacy in an effort to repackage George Bush as a president for peace. Signs of the new strategy that have emerged in the past few weeks include: · North Korea, where authorities yesterday agreed to allow US inspectors to visit its nuclear complex next week. · Iran, where the US proposed, through UN channels, sending a high-level humanitarian mission after last week's earthquake - although Tehran last night asked for any visit to be delayed. · Libya, where the US welcomed Muammar Gadafy's surprise decision to give up weapons of mass destruction. · Iraq, where the Bush administration is pressing for greater involvement from the international community. · Palestine, where US peace envoy John Wolf may be sent to try to restart talks. The signs of a thaw in US relations with these and other countries point to a different approach emerging in Washington. It emphasises cooperation, dialogue and diplomacy in place of the policies that have characterised the Bush administration's thinking to date. While Mr Bush publicly asserts Washington's right to defend its interests by any means, in practice he is increasingly pursuing a collaborative approach. "There is a definite shift in US policy in everything but words," said Joseph Cirincione, an arms control expert. "The official doctrine has not changed but all our actions have, and the result is a shift away from military action towards diplomatic engagement. First with Iran, then with Libya and now with North Korea, we see a much greater effort to affect changes in regime behaviour rather than changes of regime." Analysts in Washington say the Bush administration has little choice if it is to fulfil a highly ambitious election year agenda that seeks to disarm "rogue states" such as North Korea while advancing towards a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, encouraging conflict resolution in Sudan, and achieving credible transformations in Afghanistan and Iraq. All these objectives are complicated and to some degree hindered by the "war on terror" against a resurgent al-Qaida, and by America's failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Despite notable successes in overthrowing and capturing Saddam Hussein and toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, White House hopes of bringing democratic governance in Iraq and Afghanistan hang in the balance amid continuing violence and discord. Iraq is crucial to the administration's policy shift - either because, as conservatives argue, leaders of other rogue regimes learnt a lesson from Saddam's fate, or, as others say, because the conflict has so extended the military, Washington cannot contemplate the opening of a new front. "It's just the force of reality, the consequences of Iraq which has made them change," said Anatol Lieven, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Even by their standards it is not rational to think that America can run another war." With elections 11 months away, Mr Bush does not want to be vulnerable to claims that he has presided over a warmongering strategy that has left Americans little safer than September 11 2001. His shift follows an established pattern in Washington of politicians moving to the centre during an election year. But Mr Bush has an additional consideration with Iraq. He is keenly aware that the electorate's judgment of his performance depends heavily on events there. Despite a rally in his popularity after Saddam's capture two weeks ago, opinion polls suggest overall attitudes towards the war have not fundamentally changed. Public concern at American casualties in Iraq has continued to rise and, ominously for Mr Bush, the violence in Iraq has not lessened. White House policy is also being influenced by Washington's allies, notably Britain. After the chasms over Iraq, the US and the Europeans seem to have reached an understanding about the right mix of diplomacy and force - particularly during negotiations with Iran and Libya. Britain's influence is particularly strong. British government sources were reluctant to talk about the US change of tack last night for fear of giving any impression of gloating. But any signs that Mr Bush is moving back to a multilateral foreign policy will be welcomed in London - if only in private - as a vindication of Tony Blair's strategy of dealing with the president. Friends describe this as "complete solidarity in public, and complete candour in private". Sources say Mr Blair's relationship with Mr Bush is so strong that an informal weekly video conference has now become a regular fixture in their diaries. The conferences are primarily designed to discuss Iraq, though the two leaders have also discussed other issues such as Iran. Sensitive issue, such as Libya, are discussed on more secure lines. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the prime minister's chief foreign policy adviser, talks on an almost daily basis with Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser. Sir David Manning, the British ambassador in Washington, meets Dr Rice regularly. The change in direction is also a result of the constant struggle for influence between pragmatists and hawks that has been a defining feature of the Bush administration. The neo-conservatives appear to be losing ground, with speculation about upcoming bureaucratic reshuffling. "The state department pinstripes have replaced the department of defence bluster," Mr Cirincione said. The move to negotiated, diplomatic solutions is unlikely to be welcomed by the vice president, Dick Cheney, the most influential of Washington's hawks, who have often dominated policy making. But in an interview published this week, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, seemed to suggest the policy battle was finally going his way. Mr Powell acknowledged that the administration's top priority in the coming months would be cooperative peace making, rather than war making. "I'm going to work very hard in making clear to our friends in Europe and elsewhere in the world that America is a partner - spend more time with them, spend more time listening to them and finding ways what we can cooperate together," Mr Powell told the Washington Post. On Iraq, Mr Powell indicated that a switch in US policy was required. He said the UN and Nato had essential roles to play and the US needed to persuade other countries to forgive or reschedule Iraq's $120bn (£67bn) foreign debts. |