Bush Is Criticized for Mideast Role
The New York Times
April 2, 2002
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R.
GORDON
WASHINGTON, April 1 -
President Bush, under rising
criticism for his handling of the
growing violence in the Middle East,
expressed frustration today that Yasir
Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has
failed to denounce what he called the
"constant attacks" of suicide bombers.
Mr. Bush, his voice tinged with
resentment during brief comments in the Oval Office this morning, also grew testy
about suggestions that he had kept his distance from the conflict. He said those
who maintained he was insufficiently engaged "must not have been with me in
Crawford when I was on the phone all morning long talking to world leaders."
Despite protestations that he has immersed himself in the search for an end to the
bloodletting in the Middle East, the president has yet to talk directly to Mr. Arafat,
and has not been in direct contact with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel in
recent days, perhaps out of concern that his calls for restraint would be defied by
both leaders.
Today, he once again urged Mr. Sharon to keep "a pathway to peace open," but he
made no mention of the United Nations resolution calling for Israel to pull its forces
back from Ramallah, the West Bank town it has sealed off and where it has placed
Mr. Arafat's headquarters under siege. The United States voted in favor of that
resolution on Saturday.
Over the weekend, Mr. Bush was assailed by critics who
say that he has not been active enough in Middle East
diplomacy. They say that it is not enough to simply repeat
that Mr. Arafat has to show "100 percent effort" to stop
suicide bombings and that Mr. Sharon has to defend his
country, but with restraint.
At the same time, some in Congress like Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and Senator Arlen
Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, say Mr. Bush has not
committed enough of his time, energy or prestige to the
peace effort.
"I believe that the president does have to get more deeply
involved," Mr. Specter said.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell called Mr. Sharon again
today, officials said, urging him to think carefully about
the consequences of Israeli military action and the wisdom
of isolating Mr. Arafat. That call seemed to reflect the
feeling of the secretary's Middle East experts that the
crackdown in Ramallah and the attack on Mr. Arafat's
headquarters would fail to stop the bombings or bring the
Palestinian leader to the negotiating table.
Secretary Powell reiterated that Gen. Anthony C. Zinni,
the president's special envoy, would remain in the region
to help work toward a cease-fire.
While Mr. Bush and his aides have laid the blame for the
latest increase in violence on Mr. Arafat, they have so far
proposed - at least in public - no new ideas beyond
some vague suggestions that the United States might
contribute "monitors" if a cease-fire can be negotiated.
Today, the administration even took one option off the
table: American peacekeeping troops to enforce a any
peace settlement.
Mr. Specter has said the administration has been
considering sending peacekeepers as part of an overall Middle East settlement.
Vice President Dick Cheney had previously been careful not to exclude the
possibility, saying the issue needed to be discussed first with Mr. Bush, and some
experts have said they could be an essential element of a deal.
But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that he had spoken with Secretary
Powell today about the matter and that both agreed that no American
peacekeepers would be offered.
Meanwhile, some members of the administration have been quietly searching for
ways for the United States to restrain Mr. Sharon's military action without
undercutting American support for Israel.
While the administration generally spoke with one voice on the issue, there were
subtle differences in emphasis. The White House stressed a need for Mr. Arafat to
stop terrorist attacks. The State Department made more of a point of a need for the
Israelis and the Palestinians to show restraint.
At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld put the blame on Iraq, Iran and Syria, which he
said were encouraging terrorist attacks by the Palestinians. He declined to
comment directly on the effectiveness of the Israeli campaign but cast the Israeli
response sympathetically in the context of the war against terrorism.
"When the United States is hit by terrorist attacks, you have a choice," Mr.
Rumsfeld said. "You can say, `Gee, that's too bad,' or you can go try to find the
terrorists and do something about it. And it seems to me that in our case, which I
know a good deal more about than I do that case, it seems to me it's a pretty clear
answer."
Mr. Bush and his aides also disputed today that they had provided an exception for
Mr. Arafat to the "Bush doctrine," which calls for the ouster of any leaders who
sponsor terrorism or harbor terrorists. "Chairman Arafat has agreed to a peace
process," Mr. Bush said, defending his continued efforts to deal with him, but
deflecting the question of whether Mr. Arafat is encouraging the terrorist acts.
He added later, "He has negotiated with parties as to how to achieve peace."
But clearly the administration is sensitive to criticism that it has created two tiers
of the Bush doctrine, one for Al Qaeda and another for Mr. Arafat and his
Palestinian Authority. A senior administration official called a reporter today to
argue that "we've been treating Arafat just like everyone else - telling him he has
to deal with terrorism."
The official said that if Mr. Arafat refused to respond to Mr. Bush's demand that he
renounce terrorist acts, "at some point in the future you have to come to the
conclusion" that he should be dealt with more harshly.
nytimes.com |
