Bush Is Criticized for Mideast Role
The New York Times, April 2, 2002
April 2, 2002
Bush Is Criticized for Mideast Role
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.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
senden