Interesting column, though reports are that Sharon intends to offer the FM post to Bibi (along with a deal to succeed to the PM at some point). Sharansky should get a bigger pulpit somewhere:
Saul Singer's INTERESTING TIMES: Sharansky for foreign minister
Now that the unity government has broken up, our political class is engaged in its favorite sport: divvying up ministries. Most of these slots are largely meaningless, aside from the entertainment value of following who is up and who is down. But at this moment there is one potential posting that could make a real difference, even in a government whose days are by definition numbered.
No, I am not referring to the defense ministry, even though our nation is under attack. The expected appointment of former IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz is an unfortunate one, because it is unhealthy for the military ranks to be extended one key notch into the civilian arena. Even the best military thinking needs to be critiqued by leaders from outside the military system, perhaps especially during wartime. But it is doubtful that even the best defense minister would make much difference now, while we are in pre-Iraq, pre-election limbo.
What could make a difference now is actually a post that is considered prestigious but largely redundant, that of foreign minister. In Israel, prime ministers tend to be their own foreign ministers, even if they do not formally hold the job, because peace and security have been the top agenda item since the founding of the state.
Despite this, there is one somewhat unlikely leader who, in this particular post at this particular time, could make a real mark: Natan Sharansky.
The reason is not that he is particularly charismatic (though his sense of humor compensates). His accented Hebrew and English is difficult to understand. He does not have the imposing presence of a Colin Powell, or the statesmanlike mien of a Shimon Peres. But Sharansky has something they haven't got: an idea whose time has come and the credibility to preach it.
As early as one month after the famous 1993 Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn, Sharansky warned in The Jerusalem Report, "If we really want to give the rosy picture of peace a chance, we must try to ensure the building of real democratic institutions in the fledgling Palestinian society, no matter how tempting a 'solution' without them may be." "Palestinian autonomy," he continued, "can become a unique test case for the determined introduction of democracy in the Arab world.... Making political concessions and generous financial donations without 'interfering in domestic affairs' almost dooms the process. On the other hand, rigidly linking the concessions and assistance to human rights policy nurtures the chance for real peace." It took nine years, the collapse of Oslo, and September 11 for the United States to come around to this view. In his landmark speech of June 24 calling for a new Palestinian leadership, US President George W. Bush declared, "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.... If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe... entitled to the benefits of democratic government." Sharansky himself may have been instrumental in triggering the Bush speech. On June 20, he addressed a conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. US Vice President Dick Cheney was in the audience.
In that speech (see www.aei.org/ee/ee1.htm) Sharansky recalled how the Cold War was won, and how the current "war between the world of terror and the world of democracy" can be, too. "The democracies will win," he predicted, but it is "not sufficient to destroy terror. It is imperative to expand the world our enemies try to destroy, to export democracy." To Sharansky, the cardinal rule of international relations was coined by Andrei Sakharov: "Do not trust governments more than governments trust their own people." This may seem obvious, but while until now democracy and human rights were important concerns, they were not central to the strategic thinking.
Oslo was the classic example: The West knew that Yasser Arafat would create a corrupt dictatorship and yet banked on the idea that he would at the same time fight terror.
Bush's June speech was the first major crack in what Sharansky calls the "post-Cold War love affair with 'friendly dictators.'" But one speech does not uproot old habits. The State Department's new "road map" and the Israeli reactions to it indicate that neither Washington nor Jerusalem has fully absorbed the new idea that democracy matters.
"Elections are not," Sharansky noted in Colorado, "the starting point of democracy; they are the end of a lengthy process." The State Department does not understand this, nor do most Israelis. Sharansky is the only Israeli leader who can help make sure that Bush's June 24 baby does not die in its crib.
As Israel's foreign minister in the crucial months before and perhaps after the American liberation of Iraq, Sharansky could play a indispensable role in ensuring that real democratization is at the center of the new Middle Eastern architecture. He personally knows a string of US presidents and has unmatched diplomatic experience, including with European leaders and, of course, with Russia. Few moments could be as pregnant with opportunity and danger as the present one. Bringing Sharansky into the inner circle could be the smartest, most pivotal, appointment Sharon could make.
jpost.com |
