home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=91TT1123>
- <title>
- May 27, 1991: The Political Interest
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
- May 27, 1991 Orlando
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- WORLD, Page 35
- THE POLITICAL INTEREST
- Baker's Real Agenda: 1992
- </hdr><body>
- <p>By Michael Kramer
- </p>
- <p> "The mutual hostility of Arabs and Jews [has always been] of
- the severest sort. Because most of their disagreements stem from
- differences in ideology and religion, they have never been able
- to settle them by peaceful arbitration."
- </p>
- <p> Whatever else may have changed about James Baker's world
- view since he wrote those sentences in his Princeton thesis 40
- years ago, the Secretary of State's underlying pessimism about
- the prospects for peace in the Middle East has remained
- constant. As the most political of diplomats, Baker shares
- Irving Kristol's observation: "Those whom the Gods would destroy
- they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict." So why
- has Baker now joined a long line of U.S. leaders who have
- attempted to do just that?
- </p>
- <p> "Well," says a senior Administration official, "we
- promised to try. We didn't exactly link dealing with Saddam to
- a serious attempt to waddle around in this mess afterward, but
- that was clearly the President's message to the Arabs, and we
- are determined to keep our word. None of the toing and froing
- may go anywhere, which is obviously where you'd have to put your
- money if you cared to bet, but history shows that whenever a
- Middle East peace process is at least perceived to be ongoing,
- the chances for war recede."
- </p>
- <p> All of that is fine, and undoubtedly true, but there's
- another reason for Baker's frenetic shuttling--the securing
- of George Bush's re-election in 1992. Many American Jews harbor
- an inchoate but visceral belief that while Ronald Reagan and
- George Shultz were seen as instinctive friends of Israel, Bush
- and Baker are at best neutral toward the Jewish state. "We've
- reinforced that perception with a series of statements viewed
- as unfairly squeezing Israel," concedes a State Department
- official, "but if we can generate even a little progress--or
- just the appearance of progress--the hostility should fade."
- </p>
- <p> Even a minor Middle East peace conference will help ease
- the suspicions about Bush and Baker. "Never mind a full-blown
- Arab-Israeli sit-down," says a White House aide. "If the
- Israelis and some West Bank Palestinians can be brought to the
- table to discuss anything at all, we can then say that we
- advanced the state of play with respect to where our
- predecessors left it--and that should help us domestically."
- </p>
- <p> Toward that goal, Baker will cajole and maneuver--but
- serious pressure on Israel is unlikely. Baker truly believes
- that the parties themselves have to want peace if anything is
- to change. A flawed compromise (which in the current context
- means a solution that results from superpower arm-twisting),
- Baker wrote in his senior paper, "would alienate both parties
- and would, in the long run, be worse than adopting either's...all-out solutions." So while the Administration considered
- telling the Israelis that aid would be frozen unless they
- stopped building settlements on the occupied West Bank, few top
- officials advocate such a hardball move anymore. "Even if we
- tried that," says a Bush adviser, "Congress would kill us.
- They're up for re-election in '92 too."
- </p>
- <p> What if nothing moves on the peace front, and American
- Jews conclude that Bush has tilted too far toward the Arabs in
- his attempt to jump-start the process? Then the nation will
- hear some words in a 1992 campaign speech designed to mitigate
- the political fallout. As already conceived in draft form,
- Bush's message will run something like this: "We proved in
- Kuwait that we will shed blood to preserve a nation's integrity.
- We will do the same for Israel if we have to. Can you really be
- sure than an untested Democratic President would do the same?"
- A thin reed, perhaps, but probably enough to stem a wholesale
- defection of Jewish voters.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-