Is President Bush's second term witnessing a right-wing takeover? asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed In the transition period between Colin Powell's stewardship of US foreign policy and Condoleezza Rice's, the US State Department is unlikely to come forward with any dramatic initiatives. Powell, the first of four cabinet ministers to resign following Bush's re-election to a second term, is essentially a lame duck secretary of state whose current visit to the Middle East is not expected to achieve much in the way of reactivating the peace process. Following senate confirmation of her appointment, Rice will assume her new post by no later than 20 January 2005. In the meantime, Powell will continue administering the State Department and applying policies of which he was not always fully supportive. In the case of the Iraq war, for example, Powell was clearly uncomfortable with the unilateral approach of the Bush administration, arguing for more time to forge a broader coalition of allies and for closer UN involvement. Despite his reservations, however, he headed the American delegation to the Sharm El-Sheikh Conference on Iraq, which has also discussed the Palestinian issue post-Arafat. Bush, with some prodding from Blair, expressed his resolve to play a more active role in Middle East peace efforts following the death of the Palestinian leader he accused of being the main obstacle to peace. Rice herself is said to be keen on pressing for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As Bush embarks on his second term in office, appearances suggest that the Middle East is likely to figure prominently in his administration's foreign policy priorities, with special emphasis on his pet project, the Greater Middle East. Coined to cover an area stretching beyond the traditional borders of the region and incorporating countries with little in common, this term reflects the geopolitical interests of the Bush administration in addressing what they see as unresolved problems generic to the region and posing a threat to world peace. Bush's re-election by a clear majority removes whatever constraints the highly controversial results of the 2000 election may have placed on his freedom of manoeuvre. Armed with what he sees as a popular mandate, he is restructuring his government with a view to centralising power in the hands of his "neo-conservative" loyalists and ensuring more cohesion and homogeneity in his team. Powell's resignation was the first sign of Bush's determination to change the dynamics of government in his second term. In keeping with his known preference for diplomacy over confrontation, Powell was careful to couch his resignation in the most civil terms, paying homage to the president and playing down the significance of his departure. But although he said that he had always indicated to Bush that he wanted to serve only one term, he made it clear that when he did resign Bush made no effort to dissuade him "there were no offers, counter-offers or anything like that." In fact, the resignation reflected real differences between the two men, in both style and substance. When he first entered office, Powell was one of the most respected figures in US politics, a heroic soldier who had acquitted himself well on the battlefield in the Gulf war. Although he lost the battle with the neo-conservatives led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he retained his popularity both in the United States and around the world. Insiders believe this worked against him, triggering resentment among the members of the president's inner circle, not to say in Bush himself, and paving the way for his removal. When Powell cast his lot in with Bush in the 2001 election, his decision was not entirely devoid of hidden motives. On questions of foreign policy, his views were closer to those of the Democrats than the Republicans. Indeed, he owed his public service debut to a Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. He moved up gradually through the military echelons to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first President Bush. Powell decided to support George W Bush in the belief that the new president, who had no previous foreign policy experience and no known political line, would allow him to set the course for US foreign policy. As it turned out, he miscalculated badly. When he was chairman of the Joint chiefs under the first President Bush, Dick Cheney was secretary of defense. Powell, whose seniority surpassed Cheney's, managed to convince Bush not to march on Baghdad after ousting Saddam's troops from Kuwait. His success in winning the president over to his viewpoint on what was a highly controversial issue catapulted him into political prominence. However, he was far less successful with the second President Bush, who often ignored his advice and sometimes even failed to inform him in advance of decisions touching on his area of respectability. The two men differed on many issues. In the Middle East they differed not only over the Iraq war, where Powell's call for a more multilateral approach fell on deaf ears, but also over the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, where his attempts to accord greater priority to peace-making efforts went unheeded. They also differed over Europe, where traditional allies were contemptuously dismissed by Bush's hard-line cronies as "old Europe" for daring to oppose America's war on Iraq, seriously undermining Powell's efforts to heal the breach in the trans-Atlantic alliance. It is not surprising that nearly half the cabinet resigned following Bush's re-election, or that the main criterion applied in selecting the new members of his team is unquestioning loyalty, a criterion more than satisfied by Condoleezza Rice, who shares her boss's views of just about everything and is quick to defend him against the least hint of criticism. As to Stephen Hadley, who has been chosen to replace her as national security adviser, he is a yes-man whose allegiance to Bush and Cheney is above reproach. Powell believed his popularity would shield him from the manoeuvres of his neo-con enemies in the administration, and that neither Rice nor Rumsfeld's protégé, deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, constituted a serious threat. As he saw it, his only real competitor was Dick Cheney. Perhaps under normal circumstances this would have been the case, but then came the extraordinary event of 9/11, which drastically changed the balance of power within the Bush administration and, indeed, the entire political landscape in America. On 5 February, 2003, Powell presented the Security Council with "evidence" (since proved false) that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, based on intelligence gathered by the CIA. He was later forced to retract his statement, admitting that the administration had been "misinformed". His credibility and authority shaken by the incident, Powell's star began to wane. He had been made a scapegoat for the confusion that reigned in the corridors of power following 9/11, and the neo-cons are now in jubilation because they believe they launched as successful a coup against the last bastion of pragmatism and moderation in the state department with the resignation of Colin Powell as they did in the CIA with the departure of George Tenet. A wide purge of the state department is expected after Powell's resignation, followed by that of his deputy, Richard Armitage. In fact, this has already started with the dismissal of second-line officials. According to reliable sources, Rice will name conservative favourite John Bolten under secretary of state for arms control and international security, as her deputy in place of Armitage. They were also told that she was planning to name Danielle Bletka as her assistant for Near East affairs, but there was such an outcry in the department that she had to put back. Bletka is vice-president of the American Enterprise think tank, a stronghold of the new conservatives that is particularly close to Israel. A possible candidate for the job, according to Al-Hayat newspaper, is the current US ambassador to Cairo, David Welch. Dick Cheney is working actively behind the scenes to ensure that the restructured State Department reflects the neo-con victory. His efforts are paying off, as more and more neo- cons are being elevated to leading positions while the older generation of diplomats who represent the more moderate trend are being marginalised. What is now happening in the State Department has been described as nothing less than an all-out coup presaging a chain of fundamental changes in US foreign policy worldwide. These changes are bound to worry the Europeans, who saw Colin Powell as a moderating influence in Washington. His replacement by a woman not known for her openness and readiness for dialogue, one whose main attribute is her ability to articulate Bush's vision better than he himself can, will not serve the cause of trans-Atlantic unity. For the neo-con coup threatens to intensify polarisation not only inside American society but also in the world at large.
