Dubai, United Arab Emirates. There
is hardly a government in the Middle East or elsewhere that does not
want to see both the regime of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction
removed. Most of those governments, however, resent the authoritarian
way in which President Bush has been trying to impose his wishes upon
them.
He is asking virtually every other country to accept his agenda for
Iraq, but he refuses to consider their concerns. He only consults with
his cheerleaders, mainly Dick Cheney, Condaleeza (Condi) Rice, and Don
Rumsfeld among his advisers, as well as Ariel Sharon and Tony Blair
among foreign leaders. All others are told in no uncertain terms: If
you are not for us, you are against us. The United States, i.e., Mr.
Bush, knows best what is good for the world. Others are free to discuss
or protest the President's decisions but, realistically, they only waste
his time.
Foreigners questioning the President's judgment are likely to find themselves
denounced as anti-American, ungrateful, and, worse yet, aiding and abetting
the criminal Iraqi dictator. For the millions who protest against his
war, Mr. Bush has a defiant message: If you do not follow us, we will
go it alone!
Numerous times, the President and his aides have warned the members
of the U.N. Security Council that they and the 58-year-old Council are
doomed to becoming irrelevant if they oppose the President's final solution
for the Iraq crisis. The White House has so far rejected as "unhelpful"
any compromise proposals by Russia, France, Germany, and Arab countries.
Germany in particular has been singled out for contemptuous comments,
even though the Germans provide U.S. forces with their largest and most
comprehensive bases overseas and even though 4,000 German troops support
the U.S. as allies in Afghanistan. Mr. Rumsfeld, former U.S. Ambassador
to NATO, listed Libya, Cuba, and Germany as the least helpful countries
in the fight against Saddam Hussein; and Condi Rice characterized Chancellor
Schröder's objections to war against Iraq as "poisonous."
Arab countries are to be the launching pad of the attack on Iraq. Yet,
at their conference at Sharm el Sheikh, Arab leaders refused to lend
military support to the U.S. in any war on Arab soil. Arabs, like most
people around the world, worry that the killing of more Iraqis is prone
to destabilize the Middle East further and provoke more terrorist violence
against them and against Americans.
A majority of the Turkish parliament rebuffed the President's demand
to allow the staging of U.S. troops on Turkish soil because the White
House ignored the 95 percent of Turkey's population that fear war with
Iraq offers nothing but more economic hardships and threatens more terrorism-concerns
that Mr. Bush either ignores or represses. Even the government of the
Philippines is spurning Secretary Rumsfeld's request to allow US combat
troops on terrorist-infested Jolo Island.
"If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm," the
President declared, "we'll meet the enemy who hides his military
forces behind the civilians, who has terrible weapons, who's capable
of any crime." After the war, Mr. Bush wants "a sustained
commitment," and promises that "we will stay in Iraq as long
as necessary and not a day more." These words are very similar
to the litanies with which Likudnik Ariel Sharon tries to justify Israel's
oppressive occupation of Palestinian territory and the destruction of
its people and infrastructure. Could it be that Sharon's bellicose style
has become the President's model?
Neither Mr. Bush nor his advisers seem to recognize how much their uncompromising
diplomacy and their indifference toward the massive protests against
their hard-line policies damages America's image. The President's confrontational
style has alienated more of America's allies and friends than any U.S.
administration ever. What is now at stake is not only the removal of
an international threat but also America's well-earned reputation as
a resourceful conciliator rather than a belligerent bully.