2008 Woodie Awards
Foreign Policy: Are We In or Out?
RONIT KAPOOR
Issue date: 4/11/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
"Where is George Bush?" Many might ask this question if they were to take a gander at the important issues going on in the Middle East. Syrian President Bashar Assad is in the middle of peace talks with Israel. The President of Iran frees fifteen British captives, and the King of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah, hopes to lead the Mideast peace process. But nowhere in any of these events can US President's name be seen.
As Bush looks at Iraq as his top priority, he is keeping himself away from matters involving other nations. In fact, he scorned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to speak with Assad. What's more, some members of Congress feel the same way he does. Dick Cheney stood by the President's stance saying, "The White House is maintaining its criticism of Pelosi's trip. Her visit to Syria just rewards Assad for his bad behavior."
The reason that Pelosi had partaken in the Syrian - Israeli peace process was because she wanted to talk to Assad about his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, militant extremist groups who are generally identified as terrorists. Also, during her visit, Pelosi was able to convey that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.
There are those who question if her actions were really necessary. Foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon doesn't think so. "There's only marginal harm that can from this, and probably marginal benefit." Nothing much can result from Pelosi's trip.
However, other US officials said that her visit to Syria was justified and can prove to be of benefit, not only for the US, but for Syria, Israel, and Iraq. Representative Frank Wolf said, "I don't care what the administration says on this. You have to do what you think is the best interest of your country."
The best interest of the nation, though, may be to stay out of the international affairs that have gone on recently, according to Tom Raum, writer for Newsday. Tensions probably would have skyrocketed between Britain and Iran if Bush intervened. Fortunately, the bitterness between these two countries started to wane as President Ahmadinejad released the British sailors and marines. Furthermore, Abdullah's actions for peace without the involvement of the US were pleasing to Saudi Arabia's neighbors, since they disliked the close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US.
Bush's decision to remain on the sidelines can be looked at as good or bad in many cases. He could get involved in such issues as those mentioned before, and in a way, that will allow him to pay attention to and do what is best both for his nation as well as the nations of others. Nancy Pelosi's actions might have upset Bush, but it should help him to know that he has assistance from his colleagues, especially in matters involving other countries.
As Bush looks at Iraq as his top priority, he is keeping himself away from matters involving other nations. In fact, he scorned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to speak with Assad. What's more, some members of Congress feel the same way he does. Dick Cheney stood by the President's stance saying, "The White House is maintaining its criticism of Pelosi's trip. Her visit to Syria just rewards Assad for his bad behavior."
The reason that Pelosi had partaken in the Syrian - Israeli peace process was because she wanted to talk to Assad about his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, militant extremist groups who are generally identified as terrorists. Also, during her visit, Pelosi was able to convey that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.
There are those who question if her actions were really necessary. Foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon doesn't think so. "There's only marginal harm that can from this, and probably marginal benefit." Nothing much can result from Pelosi's trip.
However, other US officials said that her visit to Syria was justified and can prove to be of benefit, not only for the US, but for Syria, Israel, and Iraq. Representative Frank Wolf said, "I don't care what the administration says on this. You have to do what you think is the best interest of your country."
The best interest of the nation, though, may be to stay out of the international affairs that have gone on recently, according to Tom Raum, writer for Newsday. Tensions probably would have skyrocketed between Britain and Iran if Bush intervened. Fortunately, the bitterness between these two countries started to wane as President Ahmadinejad released the British sailors and marines. Furthermore, Abdullah's actions for peace without the involvement of the US were pleasing to Saudi Arabia's neighbors, since they disliked the close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US.
Bush's decision to remain on the sidelines can be looked at as good or bad in many cases. He could get involved in such issues as those mentioned before, and in a way, that will allow him to pay attention to and do what is best both for his nation as well as the nations of others. Nancy Pelosi's actions might have upset Bush, but it should help him to know that he has assistance from his colleagues, especially in matters involving other countries.
Be the first to comment on this story