Of Delusions And ‘The Deluge’: Genesis Of The ‘Summit With Terrorists,’ Roots Of A Failed Foreign Policy

(Washington, D.C.): The Clinton Administration has responded reflexively to the spate of murderous bombings in Israel over the past few weeks: When in doubt, hold a summit meeting. Such meetings offer what President Clinton and his handlers like best — impressive photo opportunities, occasions for grand opening statements, earnest conversations between policy wonks and the issuing of high-sounding, but generally irrelevant, joint communiques. They afford, in short, the appearance of action when something has to be done and the Administration either cannot or will not do something effective.

 

Such a gambit is particularly troubling in this case because Wednesday’s meeting seems less a summit on terrorism than a summit with terrorists. After all, it will prominently feature Yasir Arafat, senior officials from numerous Arab nations, Boris Yeltsin and his newly minted Foreign Minister, Yevgeny Primakov. If the U.S. had its way, it would also include Syria’s Hafez Assad.

 

What is Wrong With This Picture?

 

Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, most Arab governments and the Kremlin — and Primakov personally — have long been involved in Middle Eastern terrorism. There is, moreover, reason to believe they still are. For example, Arafat routinely tells his people in Arabic of his support for the "martyrs" and "heroes" that he condemns in English for Western consumption as "terrorists" and "enemies of peace." His Palestinian Authority has forged strategic understandings with Hamas, allowing it to operate from safe havens in the territory now under his administration, and using Western-supplied financial resources to support its activities. For their part, Arab leaders have traditionally sought to buy peace at home by paying baksheesh to enable terrorist organizations to wage war against someone else — especially against the Israelis.

 

Soviet/Russian policy, as administered and executed by KGB operatives like Primakov, has traditionally been aligned with Middle Eastern states who engage in terrorism themselves or enable others to do so. The Kremlin has, moreover, helped to train, arm and underwrite terrorist cells operating from and in the Mideast. And now Primakov has placed a high priority on refurbishing Moscow’s relations with several of the region’s pariah states most closely identified with international terrorism, notably Libya, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

 

Speaking of Syria, Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced on Sunday that he hoped Hafez Assad would come to the summit in Sharm el-Sheik since everybody involved in the "peace process" should be there. Never mind that Syria is officially listed by the United States as a state-sponsor of terrorism, thanks to its continued protection of numerous terrorist organizations’ headquarters, bases and training facilities on its territory and that of Syrian-controlled Lebanon.

 

Delusions and ‘Delugeism’

The convening of an international conference on terrorism involving such figures transcends the usual triumph-of-form-over-substance that is the Clinton Administration’s stock-in-trade. It epitomizes two other qualities that are contributing greatly to the general meltdown of U.S. foreign policy now underway.

 

Delusions: The first of these is the Clinton team’s propensity to base American diplomacy and national security decision-making on delusions. In this case, evidence of delusional wishful thinking includes:

 

• the fanciful belief that a man like Arafat, who has devoted his entire adult life to the single-minded pursuit of the destruction of the state of Israel, has suddenly been transformed into a reliable Israeli "partner for peace";

 

• the unfounded conviction that economic ties will induce Israel’s sworn enemies to concentrate on enriching themselves when, in fact, it is more likely simply to provide fresh cash-flow for underwriting their deadly campaign against the Jewish state;

 

• the absurd notion that the security of the state of Israel could, to a significant degree, be subcontracted out to Yasir Arafat and his proto-military force; and

 

• the preposterous idea that sharing sensitive American intelligence and technology will help Arafat’s Palestinian Authority destroy terrorists with whom it is allied. In fact, the result will more likely be to acquaint the terrorists with the nature and capability of U.S. intelligence, allowing them to tighten up operational security and to liquidate possibly irreplaceable American sources of information.

A thoughtful discussion of these and other delusions animating both Israeli and U.S. policy toward the peace process was published in today’s Washington Times (a copy is attached). This op.ed. article was adapted from a longer and extremely important essay authored by Douglas J. Feith — a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Middle East specialist on the National Security Council and active member of the Center for Security Policy’s Board of Advisors — appearing in the current edition of the Middle East Quarterly.

 

‘Delugeism’: The second phenomenon is what might be called the "après Novembre, le deluge" syndrome. Like Louis XV of France, who correctly anticipated the bloody tide of popular unrest that would flood his country during his successor’s reign, President Clinton must know that his luck is running out on an array of foreign policy problems from Beijing to Bosnia, from Northern Ireland to North Korea and most especially in the Middle East.

 

Bill Clinton is nothing, however, if not a master of the art of temporizing. He is constantly staving off a looming defeat by mutating his position, appeasing his opponents or otherwise conjuring up — for the moment at least — a way of finessing the problem. Unfortunately, in geopolitics as in one’s own life, deferring tough choices generally only makes matters worse. It is often interpreted (usually correctly) as a sign of weakness. Frequently, the options available after problems have been allowed to fester are less attractive and/or effective; all too often, they are also far more costly.

 

Never has this Clinton practice been more evident than with respect to his effort to secure reelection this fall. It is now common knowledge around the world that the President wants no unpleasantness before November. Despots see a vulnerability to be exploited, diplomats a blank check for virtually any option that will postpone the day of reckoning until after the polls close.

 

In the Middle East, this means not only summits designed to laud Yasir Arafat (look at the applause for his temporary round up of "the usual suspects" that passes for his current crackdown on Hamas) and to boost the sagging election prospects of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres (a deplorable intervention in the internal affairs of a fellow democracy). In all likelihood, it also will translate into new U.S. financial, political and strategic concessions that will perpetuate the delusions and add to the coming deluge.

 

The Bottom Line

Tomorrow, the House International Relations Committee will hold hearings on the Mideast peace process. Incredibly, this is only the second time since the Oslo accords were signed in September 1993 that Congress has bestirred itself to take a hard look at what is going on in the name of peace, a look informed by testimony from knowledgeable critics.

 

Unless Congress moves to challenge the twin pillars upon which the Clinton Mideast policy increasingly rests — namely, delusions and "delugeism," however, form will continue for a while longer to triumph over substance, to the serious detriment of American interests in the region and to the great peril of the state of Israel.