Commentary No. 87, Apr. 15, 2002
"Defiance: Does the Superpower Matter?"
George Bush has one priority on his mind right now. That's the invasion of Iraq. Ariel Sharon has one priority on his mind right now - destroy the Palestine Authority and remove Yassar Arafat from the political arena. While Bush has the greatest sympathy for what Sharon is doing, it is interfering at the moment with his priority concern. Even Cheney has told him that.
So reluctantly, Bush issued an ultimatum to Sharon: cease now! This was difficult for him to do in terms of U.S. politics. Everyone is down his back because of it - the right-wing Republicans, the Democrats, the Israeli lobby. But he also has the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Moroccans, the Egyptians, and even the Bahrainis to contend with. The latter have no strength inside U.S. politics, but they have military bases, and the ability to legitimate what Bush wishes to do. So the Israelis have their weapon to use against Bush - internal U.S. support, and the Palestinians have theirs - the U.S. need for tacit Arab support in order to reduce world outrage when the U.S. invades Iraq.
Given this U.S. need, Bush yelled "stop" to Sharon. And Sharon said, I won't, and not very politely. The New York Times, hardly an Arafat enthusiast, said in its editorial of April 9: "This is an insult to Mr. Bush and the United States." And indeed it is. Bush and Sharon are playing chicken. And thus far, Sharon is winning hands down. This is called, in no uncertain terms, defiance of a superpower.
What can the U.S. do about it? Not very much, which is what Sharon is counting on. What will be the consequence? In Israel/Palestine, the results will be disastrous for the region. But elsewhere, the results will be disastrous for the U.S. Defiance is contagious. If Sharon can get away with it, why can't Europe? Why can't Russia? Why can't China? Why can't Canada for that matter - not to speak of Mexico or Brazil?
Power is about the fear of others that they can't get away with it. That's what Bush himself has been saying. He said that the Taliban thought that they could get away with supporting Al-Qaeda in its attack on America. And he, Bush, showed them that they didn't know with whom they were dealing. He may have been right about the Taliban. But what can he do to Sharon? Send in the Special Forces? Cut off their foreign trade, or U.S. aid? Who's kidding whom? Even if he wanted to, which he assuredly does not, such steps are simply beyond the range of political possibility.
Every step that Bush has been taking has been getting him deeper into the mud. He came into office determined not to repeat what he thought was Clinton's mistake - personal involvement in a Middle East settlement. He thought this was a no-win position that weakened the authority of the U.S. President. There was a certain limited, if twisted, logic in this position. But he's had to give it up. First he sent Zinni, then Cheney, now Powell. All that's left is convening everyone to Camp David. And if he did, at the moment, Sharon wouldn't come.
Perhaps, I don't know, they are saying in private discussions in the White House that they may have made some missteps. Can the errors be salvaged? The problem is that a little fiddling with U.S. foreign policy will not change very much. When the car is going downhill and the brakes aren't working perfectly, you have to figure out how to slow down the speed without overturning. You certainly don't usually survive by increasing the speed. U.S. unquestioned hegemony is in disarray. That is the message Sharon, who may think of himself as a great friend of the U.S. and certainly of its conservative presidents, is giving the world. And others, less friendly to the U.S. and certainly to its conservative presidents, will hear the message quite clearly.
The defiance has already had its impact on Europe, where suddenly a basically pro-Israel political atmosphere has morphed into one of considerable disapproval and even hostility. Benjamin Netanyahu, Sharon's Israeli critic on the right, says this proves what he has always believed, that the Europeans are still anti-Semites (presumably unlike the Americans). But this is largely silly rhetoric. Some Europeans are indeed anti-Semites, as are some Americans. But anti-Semitism is not the motor of European attitudes today. Nor is really the plight of Palestinians, which for most of them is only a minor consideration. The Europeans are really acting out their dismay at the unintelligence and dangerous adventurism of U.S. world policy.
As for the Arab so-called "moderates," King Mohammed VI of Morocco permits himself to reprimand Powell on world television. And King Abdullah of Jordan says on television that Sharon has turned Arafat into a saint, meaning I could no more criticize him today in any way than Bush could denounce Mother Teresa. As for Arafat, I am struck by the comments of Uri Aznery, an Israeli peacenik, who visited Arafat in Ramallah after his confinement but before the current occupation by Israeli tanks. He talked of Arafat's calm, almost serene, demeanor and said it reminded him of the character of Kutuzov in Tolstoy's War and Peace. When his generals asked Kutuzov what they should do as they fell back under the impact of Napoleon's invasion, he smiled and said, wait. And when Napoleon was on the edge of Moscow and snow was falling all around, Napoleon decided on his own to retreat. All Kutuzov did was wait. Arafat is waiting.
Putin and the Chinese leadership are equally patient. They too are waiting. Bush however is not waiting. He is diddling.
Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen
from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
Email this Commentary to a colleague
______________________________________________
Go to List of Commentaries