It’s obvious that the big news story of the day is the Middle East peace meeting at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, where delegations from 46 countries and international organizations will meet to discuss Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. What’s far less obvious is whether the gathering will make any difference at all.
Even before the two sides — or three sides, or 49 sides — meet Tuesday, critics have declared Mr. Bush’s Annapolis gathering the photo opportunity that Ms. Rice emphatically said it would not be only a month ago.
“The mother of all photo ops,” an Israeli official called it on Monday, underscoring the fact that when it comes to Middle East peace, skepticism is always in order.
That, however, does not necessarily mean that it will be a failed photo op. Mr. Bush’s approach has resulted in the first international conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict since the Madrid conference organized by his father’s secretary of state, James A. Baker III, in 1991.
The real measure of Annapolis, officials on all sides agreed, will be what happens afterward. That almost certainly will depend on how much political capital Mr. Bush’s administration is willing to spend when the two sides reach another impasse on the difficult “final status” issues like the future of the border, the capital and Palestinian refugees.
“This is not a slogan,” said Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy for Presidents Clinton and H.W. Bush. “If you’re going to do Middle East peace process, you can’t just lay out a broad vision.”
And therein lies the problem. If the Annapolis conference is all about follow-through and a serious investment of political energy, it’s likely to fail — because Bush has shown absolutely no willingness to take this process seriously.
Bush waved for the cameras a few years ago in touting the “road map,” and has done practically nothing since. The AP’s Jennifer Loven explained that when it comes to Middle East peace, “Bush has been more a sporadic speaker than engaged enforcer during his seven years in office.”
There was his inclination to discard all things Clinton, coupled with the recognition that past intensive efforts, including the Clinton-sponsored sessions that broke off just before Bush became president, had not paid off. The Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war drew the bulk of the White House’s attention. […]
“Hands off would be an understatement,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator. He now heads the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation and the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation.
Nathan Brown, a Mideast expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said, “What’s remarkable is the extent to which he’s been disengaged, with only episodic parachuting in with absolutely no follow-up.”
And people wonder why optimism for today’s discussions is so low.
Everything about today has the feel of an obligatory gesture. Bush has made it clear he’s humoring Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — he’s “made it clear that he has no intention of trying to force a peace settlement on the parties” — giving everyone the impression he’s going through the motions.
Daniel Kurtzer, Bush’s ambassador to Israel in his first term, conceded, “You don’t get a sense that he’s invested in [this peace process]. Nobody associates President Bush with this policy.”
In other words, it’s a little late for the president to start pretending to care. The world seems to know better, and has little hope that Bush will demonstrate any real leadership after the diplomats return home.