Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pelosi's Visit Offers New Peace Opportunities
NEW YORK - One of the most famous characters in fiction, Cervantes' Don Quijote de la Mancha, is credited with saying, "The dogs are barking at us, Sancho, a signal that we are making strides." To remember this sentence now is most appropriate in view of the loud reaction to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. Pelosi may achieve what confrontational actions have been unable to do, supported by Assad's assurances that he is being open to peace talks with Israel.
Pelosi's visit was sharply criticised by President Bush, who said that the Speaker's visit undermined US foreign policy. President Bush, however, wasn't critical of the visit to President Assad by a delegation of House members that included Republicans Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt, who met with President Assad before Pelosi.
President Bush's criticism was predictably joined by that of Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor who stated, "Nancy Pelosi, having undercut our troops in the field, is now going off to see - to Syria to pay her respects to Bashar Assad, who's allowing terrorists to come across the (Iraqi) border to kill American troops."
That criticism seems to ignore the fact that Pelosi was able to achieve, in a short visit, what a continuous belligerent attitude by the Bush administration has been unable to achieve, and which may very well pave the way for serious peace talks and, eventually, peace with Israel.
Pelosi not only conveyed to President Assad a message from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel is also open to peace negotiations with Syria. She also expressed her concern about Syria's alleged connections and support to Hamas, the issue of fighters entering Iraq through the Syrian border and the still unresolved situation of Israeli soldiers being held captive by militant groups.
President Bush, who in his criticism of Pelosi's visit, called Syria a "state sponsor of terror", seemed to ignore one of the most important conclusions of its own designated Iraq Study Group's recommendations: that the US should start direct talks with Iran and Syria aimed at solving the present chaotic situation in Iraq.
One of the most persistent negative factors hindering peace in the Middle East in recent times has been the inability of the main actors to even start negotiations, and to demand as a pre-condition for holding talks what should be the final objective of a negotiation process: cessation of support of groups that promote violence and/or the formal recognition of the State of Israel.
Also, by systematically demonising both the Iranian and Syrian presidents, the Bush administration has ignored a basic historical reality, that each country has the foreign policy that is convenient to its own interests and, unless those interests are taken into account, every negotiation is bound to fail. As a contrast, Pelosi has indicated that she is willing to talk to every government that has an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.
For Pelosi, this is a unique opportunity to show that a different, open approach can be more beneficial than a systematic denial of other parties' concerns. Her opening talks with Syria should also be aimed at obtaining Syria's co-operation on the issue of the captive Israeli soldiers.
Solving this issue could dramatically alter the present climate of antagonism in the Middle East and lead hopefully to more productive peace talks.
By advancing the Middle East peace agenda, Pelosi may prove to be a more astute politician than many of her male colleagues ever thought her to be.
© Gulf Times Newspaper, 2007
10 Comments so far
Show AllIt hardly took courage on her part. Pelosi is owned by AIPAC. with the exception of Olmert (popularity in Israel on same level as bush here )the Israelis had little negative to say about her. At least that's what I read in Haaretz. Sure Bush/Cheney blasted her in our corporate media, but aside from their hardcore constituency nobody's listening to them anymore. To Joe Sixpack and the soccermoms it looks like she's actually doing something. Smart political move.
But she's hardly antiwar. She's supported the war since its inception in the guise of "suppporting the troops" and continually voting in favor of funding the war.
Being in favor of redeploying the troops and stepping up air and missile terrorist attacks on Iraqis is very different from being antiwar.
"She also expressed her concern about Syria's alleged connections and support to Hamas, the issue of fighters entering Iraq through the Syrian border and the still unresolved situation of Israeli soldiers being held captive by militant groups"
No doubt it is better that the US sends members of its government to meet Syria rather than declare war and bomb them, but it ignores Pelosi's admitted statement of carrying Israel and America's agenda to Damascus.
Her requests were pressures on Syria to commit to influencing and pressuring Hezbollah and Hamas to release captured soldiers as well as to stop supporting both groups.
Nancy Pelosi has never once mentioned the five decades of suffering against the occupied Palestinian people, women and children included, locked away in Israeli prisons in contravention of internaional law. And what of Israel's atrocities against the Lebanese people?
Why should we be pleased over this visit?
"Pelosi's visit was sharply criticised by President Bush, who said that the Speaker's visit undermined US foreign policy."
Well, Bush still thinks that an illegal invasion and occupation of another country strenghtens foreign policy and makes the United States look like an imperial military phenonemon, governed by the almighty himself.
"That criticism seems to ignore the fact that Pelosi was able to achieve, in a short visit, what a continuous belligerent attitude by the Bush administration has been unable to achieve, and which may very well pave the way for serious peace talks and, eventually, peace with Israel."
Peace talks are not a part of the Bush equation. And obviously, the Israeli government doesn't seem to be very enthusiastic about peace talks, either. Bush and Olmert are clinging to that neocon talk that, "defeat is not an option". Defeat of what? Their imperialistic agenda of controlling the Middle East at any cost? These people are delusional!
As Ray McGovern, veteran CIA analyst has said, and many others agree, "defeat is not an option - it's a certainty." Pelosi knows it, and so does Congress - at least the ones who still have a functioning brain.
As far as I'm concerned, this was a necessary visit. The Democrats have only been in control of Congress for a little over 3 months. Granted, some of the bills they've been bringing to the floor are abominable and seem to be perpetuating the agenda of the neocon Bush administration, or should I say, the failing and falling, corporate-run, government empire. Yet, the fact remains, they have only been in power for 3+ months. There's plenty of time to decide where our vote will go before the primaries - even if they are moved up to February, which would be a mistake for Democrats, since they really haven't convinced us that they're on the right track.
At the moment, my vote will go to Kucinich first and Ralph Nader, second. Most Democrats are either missing or ignoring the wishes of the people: GET OUT OF IRAQ....AND FIX THE BOGUS TRADE AGREEMENTS that are devestating the lives of citizens in this country!
These two issues have been written in stone. Pay attention to them.
It is quite probable that Pelosi's visit to Syria has the Bush Administration in dire straights because she has outfoxed the Bushies.
A key, seemingly non-related event took place this past week which may be an indication of what is really taking place. That was the report that Saudi Arabia offered the Kurds two billion dollars to give up their quest to return the oil city of Kirkuk to Kurdish control.
If the Saudi's are going around attempting bribes for a contrived peace in Iraq of such magnitude it would not be improbable that something is up along these lines with Syria. Here's perhaps how the Bushies planned the next few months to work out.
US troops go through the motions of surging in Baghdad. The military victory continues to remain just over the horizon. The Oil Law is passed; another sign of impending victory. The Saudis work secret negotiations on Bush's behalf with Syrians and Iranians and direct talks with the Sunni insurgents, Kurds and through Iran with the Shiite militias. Billions of dollars are put on the table for peace all tied into Iraq's future oil development. The fighting calms down. Bush declares victory and a great comeback..
Problem is the Speaker of the House, got the jump on the diplomacy that will bring about the peace. Bush is stuck with starting the war but the Democrats are credited with ending it. When the troops are on the way out.... The press and the American people are going to revisit how we got into this war in the first place. That will be when Bush and Cheney will face the wrath of the rest of the American people and it won't be pretty. I certainly hope.
I wonder if she bothered to talk about the 100s' of thousands of Iraq people who have fled to Syria with limited or no resources. Afterall, the US government is responsible for their plight.
Now, if Pelosi had also mentioned to the Israelis that they have to discontinue settlement expansion, recognize numerous UN resolutions, and cease illegal targeted assassinations (and the murder of Palestinian children) before the world would recognize their "peace" efforts, then maybe we'd have something to cheer. As it is, she reinforced her AIPAC connections and her rabid pro-Israel allegiance, and served notice to Syria that the new Democratic Congress stands behind every illegal human rights violation Israel commits...all of which have nothing to do with peace in the Mideast.
Right on Rio--
Pelosi like the proverbial broken clock is finally right. (look for another opportunity for her to be correct but not for a while and only by "accident"!)
It's too bad that the "Barbie Doll" running theHouse can't go to the Wizard of Oz and like the tin man, lion, and scarecrow finally get a brain, a heart, and some courage!
In her NPR interview she insisted that she followed the administration (and AIPAC's) agenda during her visit.
I don't think the Bush administration and supporter criticism ignores what Pelosi was able to achieve in a short visit. On the contrary, it sounds like pride. After all, Pelosi is a competent, diplomatic, knowlegeable woman. She may have followed the Bush agenda at some level, but what you say and how determines how effectively issues come across. She doesn't strike me as arrogant, as aggressive or to have the negative qualities that have often be used by media to describe Bush and his team in international relations (IR). If Pelosi can save face in IR, its about time someone did.
Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies totally disagreed with this writer.
Listen to the KPFA Morning Show Archives, for Friday, 04/06/2007 at:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=19563