minaz
rep points mean nothin
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 177
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
President George Bush’s tour of the Middle East in his final Presidential year is somewhat different to his other trips. I am not talking about his excursions on ranches in Texas, but what in the past has been a reluctant flight overseas- especially the Middle East of all places. Way back in 2000, before the 9/11 era, George demonstrated how little he knew about international political figures, and his understanding of world politics was debatable. One issue and region which would dominate his presidency was that of the Middle East. So why has it taken a good seven years for him to make any little significant headway in the region?
His supporters may argue that he has attempted to bring peace in the form of democracy, examples being the regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq through democratic elections. They may also argue that he also took a leading part in the Road Map for Peace- which kinda backfired when Hamas were elected. He has also taken the lead in standing hard against Iran and its nuclear ambitions & international defiance. But one thing is for sure, is that throughout his reign he has applied little or no pressure upon the Israeli’s. The support of Israel’s policy: of assassination, ‘Security Wall’, treatment of the Palestinians, the military support of Israel’s army and most importantly the support of the 2006 Lebanon war- which many countries condemned and the UN called the actions “War Crimes”. Many analysts (such as Chomsky and Fisk) believe this support is partly due to his strong Evangelical belief- that the second coming of Christ will follow the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However this week Bush has spoken in a tone which is not familiar towards Israel before- that they have to return the lands taken from Palestinians in 1967. This may seem not significant (to many it is a bit of common sense), but compared to anything he has said to Israel before this is probably the most outstanding, especially for the Middle East. In fact Bush wants viable progress towards peace within a year. But why take this stance now?
Many of you know the answer already- that he has under a year left as president. Like his former, Bill Clinton, Bush is trying to seal his presidency by broking a peace in the region. When Clinton hosted the Camp David summit in 2000, he too was leaving office in that year, he also needed to try and go down in history by creating peace- not for the Lewinsky affair or missed opportunities such as in Rwanda. If one was to name what George Bush does not want to go down for, then a fairly long list could be produced- but I shall only mention Iraq. This is similar to our (well my) former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has become a Middle East Ambassador, a move because he feels that his time in office has not brought peace to the region and being his only downfall in office? My question is for what purpose has George Bush taken a revived stance in the Middle East?
•For his legacy?
•Is it to start a new policy that his successor will continue?
•Does he finally feel that his reign has done more bad than good?
•Try and create a positive that will overshadow his failure that is Iraq?
•Or do you feel that it is nothing new?
I look forward to your opinions.
-MINAZ-