Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she had “better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op.” What she meant, of course, was that she had better things to do than invite people to Annapolis exclusively for a photo op. So have no fear, jpeg collectors: from the moment Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas arrived at the White House on Monday, the cameras were rolling.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the photos that each Annapolis participant chooses to publicize are highly significant. Given that it had the most invested in the conference’s success, the White House naturally led the Annapolis photo race, offering a full slideshow of the opening state dinner, and as many photos as possible depicting Bush as the matchmaker behind an Olmert-Abbas courtship. The Israelis were not far behind, with photos suggesting that the courtship had progressed to the point that Abbas and Olmert even sat around a table with each other’s families. The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also made an impressive contribution to the Most Hopeful-Looking Photo Contest, depicting Bush forming the human chain with his counterparts.
Perhaps the real photo story emerging from Annapolis, however, was Bush’s relentless pursuit of the hallowed Middle East Money Shot, which typically features the sitting American president dramatically guiding an Arab-Israeli handshake. Jimmy Carter was the original choreographer of this image, while Bill Clinton was fortunate to enjoy the famous pose twice: at the signing of the Oslo Accords and the forging of Jordanian-Israeli peace. (Clinton narrowly missed out on a third Money Shot at the signing of the Wye River Memorandum, where he was boxed out by an ailing King Hussein.)
Prior to Annapolis, Bush had posed for the Money Shot only once—at the inconclusive 2003 Red Sea Summit on the “Road Map,” where Abbas, then Yasser Arafat’s impotent prime minister, locked hands with Ariel Sharon. But during the one-day Annapolis Conference, Bush went on a tear, managing no less than three different shots of himself standing amidst new best friends Olmert and Abbas.
Of course, the Money Shot is not as meaningful as it once was: it no longer signifies the signing of a treaty and, as Rice demonstrated in February, even a secretary of state can pose for one. But the optimism it symbolizes was apparently too seductive for the American and Israeli presses to pass up: The New York Times, MSNBC, FoxNews, Ma’ariv, and Ha’aretz all featured the Money Shot prominently in their Annapolis coverage.
Yet, in the absence of concrete steps taken to further peace, the pessimism of Arab photojournalism seems more apt. Arab press coverage of Annapolis naturally depicts Bush meeting with Abbas, but domestic Palestinian opposition to peace talks that challenge their viability is also a major theme. Moreover, Olmert is rarely displayed alongside Abbas, and the two are never seen shaking hands—with one key exception: Hezbollah’s al-Manar station, predictably misusing the symbols of Arab-Israeli peace, proudly features the Money Shot.
“China and Russia are using the rogue nations and Islamic terrorist groups against the west in a long-term, covert strategy of stealth aggression against the west. The purpose of which is to destabilize and lessen the influence of the US.”
I don’t understand why this is a goal for China and Russia. The way I see it, if the U.S. is destabilized, then China’s vast investment in the U.S. is endangered. How is this good for them? We have seen that when the U.S. economy tanks, the world economy follows. Even avowed enemies like Iran and Venezuela are taking a bath with the drop in demand for their export – a drop directly attributable to the collapse of American credit. Russia I can better understand. It has little financial stake in the U.S. However, the Islamic threat is no less a danger to them than it is to us — possibly more of a threat, given the experience of Afghanistan and Chechnya. How does undermining America help them in the long run?
Diane,
From the economic premise and point of view you’ve expressed, it helps them not at all.
I contend that the Chinese leadership is primarily motivated no more by strictly economics than we are, that in fact, by their lights they are patriots. And patriotism, or the belief that Communism should rule the world is what motivates them, just as it did Mao.
Communist patriots whose real view of the US (in their heart of hearts) is not that far off from the Islamist view of the US as the Great Satan. China did not and has not renounced their philosophical underpinnings. They are still communists and they are still our enemy. The trade between us allows us to forget a simple truth. They are our enemy because had they the power they would destroy us tomorrow and the economic consequences would deter them not at all.
We have the power to destroy them and yet we won’t without just cause and that, as much as anything else is the real difference between us.
Russia’s top leadership is made up of old KGB ‘apparatchiks’ and its highly likely that they too remain true believers. Lifelong beliefs are not easily jettisoned. Could you easily walk away from what you believe to be right and true?
The collapse of the Soviet Union did not create a ‘memory wipe’ wherein prior loyalties were magically transformed into a desire to now sing Kumbaya with their former American capitalist enemy.
The reality of the collapse did force a ‘pragmatic’ geo-political view into the ascendancy and thus lip service must be paid to the change from the Soviet Union to merely Russia. But rest assured, many former apparatchiks would welcome the return of the ‘old ways’. As the old generation fades away this will be less true of Russia but nations do not often treasure friendship and loyalty the way individuals may.
I rather doubt that either the Chinese or the Russians think it likely that the Radical Islamists can defeat us but just keeping the US ‘off-balance’ and less able to directly focus upon them yields valuable benefits in increased influence and decreased US influence. That lessening of influence is already at play…What did we do about Georgia? No more than the typical European response of wringing our hands.
And should the terrorists succeed in attacking America with a nuke(s), it would greatly damage us, physically, economically and psychologically most of all. Since they are using twice removed proxies there is little risk and the potential ‘reward’ is incalculable.
Near permanent martial law would almost certainly result in the US, especially if more than one attack occurred. The US is highly vulnerable to sneak attack by sea and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran will almost certainly result in greatly increased nuclear proliferation.
Third world, nuclear armed nations will not be able to stop a black market in nuclear arms from emerging and if Al Qaeda buys some ‘stolen’ nukes and uses them upon us, to whom shall we retaliate? Their network is in over 60 countries.
And if we can’t retaliate, then fortress America will emerge because security sufficiently threatened… trumps freedom every time. An isolated, martial-law ruled, ‘fortress’ America retreating from overseas involvement would be a geo-political dream for the Chinese and Russians. They would be able to greatly increase their influence.
The Europeans would be on their own in facing Russia and the Chinese would quickly swallow Tiawan. Revenge upon Japan for WWII atrocities might well follow (the Chinese have NOT forgotten) and the rest of the Asian continent would ‘get fully behind’ the new sheriff in town. South Korea would very likely fall.
Unless directly attacked by another country, which they would not be stupid enough to do, the loss of New York and another major American city to terrorist attack would make us extremely reluctant to use nukes in any kind of a retaliatory scenario and our allies would be completely on their own.
As for the Islamist threat being a danger to them too…well, not really. You see, there’s no doubt in the Iranian leadership’s minds or any reasonably intelligent terrorist’s leaders mind, that China and Russia would respond to any attack upon them with overwhelming retaliatory force. Just as the Russians did in Beslan, when they sacrificed hundreds of children to kill the Islamist terrorists. We all know how the Russians brutally handled Chechnya. You simply don’t punch a much larger man in the face, when you know he’d just as soon kill you, as look at you.
Afghanistan was long ago and besides the only reason why Afghanistan didn’t fall was because of American involvement, so it’s not an apt circumstance. If Iran or its proxy terrorist groups attacked either China or Russia, this time there would be no American ‘cowboy’ riding to the rescue of the Islamists and they know it. Any response by China/Russia to an attack upon them would be viewed by us as entirely justified. Hell, we’d help them with intel if needed.
It’s a great geo-political chess ‘game’ they and we are playing and the games ‘moves’ can take decades to unfold. Millions of lives are at stake and we can’t afford the luxury of willful denial regarding the true geo-political situation.
Somehow I keep thinking of a sort of historical analogy–the Spanish Civil War. The line from a number of people on the left is that the wedstern powers should have intervened more actively, if only with supplies and arms, because this was the first line of resistance against fascism, etc. (For the moment I will leave aside the fact that not long after that war started the effective choice actually was between one form of tyranny and another.)
Yet, the argument can be made, quite convincingly, that Israel is sort of analogous to the Spanish Republic in that it is the first line of active resistance against jihadism. I do not, however, see a lot of people in the west flocking to Irsrael’s side on that account.
Many very learned and erudite people comment here and perhaps one of them can answer a question: Israel’s prosecution of the Gaza War is “disproportionate.” From time to time in order to get back one prisoner or the remains of two murdered soldiers, the Israelis will release hundreds of terrorists at a time. Hundreds for one or two–isn’t that disproportionate? And why don’t people call it so?
Geoffrey -
You paint a horrifying and plausible scenario. It has me thinking that living in Los Angeles might not be such a good idea. How’s the weather in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho?
The part of your analysis that I don’t buy is the bit about Chinese and Russian leaders being anti-American at such a bone-deep level that they would knowingly inflict on their own people a nightmare of war, famine and long-term economic blight — all to bring swaggering America to its knees. (Then again, the Hamas leadership seems perfectly willing to do that to Gazans for the sake of inflicting minor damage to Israel — if you’re right, perhaps the Islamists aren’t so different from “civilized” nations like Russia and China.) But I don’t think you’re right about that. I think if and when a terrorist organization detonates a nuke, the world community will pull together and shut down the proliferation pipeline. I have often thought that the solution to out-of-control gun violence is to control the distribution of ammo. (Nothing in the second amendment about that!) Similarly, the answer to nuclear proliferation is controlling the distribution of nuclear ammo (uranium, plutonium, etc.)
But I digress. China is on becoming a capitalist empire, its success depending on cheap exports. Does the Moaist leadership want Taiwan so badly that it will chew off its own leg (i.e. promote world economic collapse) to get it? Russia ditto. They say Moscow is the most expensive and extravagent city in the world now, a playground for the new class of capitalist autocrats. Will they whistle away their luxuries to regain control over the former Soviet republics (which will require costly invasions and long-term occupation)? Will they risk their ascendancy on it, because we know that war breeds political instability.
I can imagine long-ago monarchs — drunk on their own sense of divine choseness — acting in this rash way, but modern-day millionaires and political leaders? Perhaps I lack sufficient imagination.
Alex,
As you imply, the ‘disproportionate’ argument is ‘twaddle’ on several levels, including the double standard to which you point.
Diane,
It is not imagination which you lack, it is in an endearing faith in people’s ‘sensibleness’ wherein you err. Many people are sensible but far too many are not.
If ‘people’, as a whole were truly sensible, almost all of the crime would instantly disappear. Wars would never happen and politicians would put the common good ahead of narrow self-interest. The world would be so different that compared to what we do have, it would almost be paradise. Only disease and the occasional physical accident would remain to be combated. Ah! The liberal paradise on earth realized…
I don’t think I overstate the ‘bone-deep’ animosity of the Chinese and Russian leadership, as their actions demonstrate their true attitudes. Giving lip-service is cheap and pragmatism is still their primary attribute. They are not in a position to act as they wish they could, as the US is at this time, simply too strong.
Nixon and Kissinger made a bet that, in time, capitalism could transform China and that may yet come to pass. But to do so, we will have to see the emergence of an actual political alternative within China to the Communist Party. I don’t believe that has ever happened in any communist nation.
Capitalism is an economic system, it and democracy are not the same thing. So far, the Chinese have demonstrated that capitalism and communism can co-exist, whether that can remain viable long-term is yet to be determined.
And it is in the political sphere in which those nations animosity toward the US lies. China and Russia’s leaders do NOT believe in democracy, in fact, they adamantly oppose it. Communism presupposes that life can be fair and therefore concludes that capitalism’s inherent unfairness must therefore be evil. Democracy, or in our case, a ‘representative republic’ is viewed as a tool that capitalist’s use to maintain control of the masses. To be rationally consistent, they must therefore oppose the foremost proponent of democracy, the US.
The economic disadvantages that the collapse of the US would bring are certainly a consideration but at the national level, political considerations almost always trump economic concerns. To do otherwise, would be, to be ‘sensible’… but sadly, people are not sensible.
This is especially true when ideology becomes paramount.
On a personal note. Until but a few short months ago I lived a bit north of LA. While my move was not due to considerations of the vulnerabilities of our seacoast cities, I am now living but a short distance from Yosemite…and the weather is just fine.
this is essentialy an indictment of capitalism itself and is not appreciated by me
I gave up my faith in the basic goodness of the human animal and the quest for a liberal utopia after 9/11 opened my eyes. But I still believe in the human animal’s capacity for self-interested calculation. If I’m wrong, why didn’t the USSR gamble on a nuclear first-strike against the US back when it had the chance?
Our Nuclear submarines…