In Focus: Games of deceit Though it has failed to implement its agenda, the US still has a few dangerous weapons in its arsenal, writes Galal Nassar Considering the modest outcome of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent tour of the region and her talks in occupied Palestine, one is entitled to ask: why does President Bush insist on holding a Middle East peace conference in mid-November? Not even the Israelis are optimistic. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, wish to "temper expectations" concerning the conference, according to Maariv. The Israelis don't believe this is the right time to discuss thorny issues, such as Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees, for two reasons. One is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is too hobbled by domestic divisions to enforce any agreement. And the other is that Olmert himself cannot make any substantial concessions that could pave the way for agreement. So here is a conference that can at best come up with another statement of principles. And we've had many of those in the past, from Oslo to Sharm El-Sheikh and Wye River. Since president Yasser Arafat put his foot down at Camp David seven years ago, most statements of principles were rendered irrelevant. Why exactly do we need another one? Even Israel's foreign minister doesn't seem to want to go down this well-trodden path. She has told her US counterpart that it would be better to focus on economic matters instead, or the shape of Palestinian institutions, or the structure of Palestinian security services. For months now, the Bush administration has been engaged in a public relations exercise on all fronts, from Palestine to Iraq and from Lebanon to Iran. The US administration has run out of options, but not of the wish to dupe the American public into thinking that good tidings are around the corner. It's all about gaining time ahead of the presidential elections. It's all about giving President Bush the chance to parade himself, on his way out of the White House, as one too principled for our world to bow, too honest to give in. President Bush knows he's not leaving the White House a winner. So he's going to leave as a frustrated idealist, or so he would have us believe. This is not to say that Bush hasn't lowered his expectations. Speaking at a news conference 19 September, he said that the goal in Iraq now was to lower the violence to an "acceptable" level, create a viable government (what exactly is Nuri Al-Maliki doing?), create an Iraqi army that can safeguard stability and secure the country's borders (what exactly happened to the billions spent on that army for the past four years?), and promote a befitting democracy (i.e. a democracy of sectarian quotas and factional strife). The Bush administration may be too weak to make the Israelis agree to a peace formula acceptable to the Palestinians and the Arabs (assuming that the US administration truly wants such an agreement). But it has enough power to prevent the Arab-Israeli conflict from running its course. It has enough power to try and impede resistance in Palestine and the region. In Iraq, the US is too weak to impose its schemes, but it is strong enough -- so far -- to mess up the country. In Lebanon and Syria, the US is too weak to dictate the course of events. It is too weak to help Israel control Lebanon, as it tried to do in summer 2006. But the US is strong enough -- thanks to local, regional, and international alliances -- to undermine any attempt by Lebanon or Syria to live in peace and stability. In Iran, the US cannot curb Tehran's nuclear programme or regional role. But it is strong enough to drive the Iranians into a position of self-defence. It is strong enough to threaten the region and the world with another devastating war. It is strong enough to undermine the stability of Iran's neighbouring countries and throw the entire planet into another oil crisis, into another round of economic woes. In a nutshell, the Bush administration has a few cards up its sleeve. It has small tactical advantages, but not the strategic clout it was thought to have wielded following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is determined to parlay these small advantages into big wins, however small its chances are of success. But remember Lebanon in summer 2006. Remember how the Israelis failed and remember how they tried to camouflage their defeat with vengeful acts. This is what happens when one's ambitions are beyond one's means. The Bush administration is running out of options, but not of weapons. The first weapon it has is psychological warfare. Since the invasion of Iraq, the US administration allocated a large budget, and a special department in the Pentagon, to psychological operations. Its guiding principle, which it borrows from Goebbels, is simple: lie, lie and lie again, and some people will start believing you. The power of the media has come into full play in Iraq, where the US has been doctoring the news to its liking. The second weapon is public relations. Public relations companies -- just as private "security" companies -- are big and just as sophisticated as you'd expect foreign ministries and armies to be. Interestingly, an Arab regime known for its heavy reliance on security services used to refer to its security apparatus as a "public relations" office. This is just an example of how closely related PR and security are. It doesn't matter what you achieve, so long as you can deceive. In the Middle East, for instance, the peace process has supplanted peace. We've had a peace process for four decades now, and peace is still as distant as ever. The media is integral to any PR campaign. And the US administration is using the media to market itself. However, the media cannot sell everything. Some policies are too inept to swallow. Some defeats are too ignominious to brush aside. This is where PR comes into the picture. This is why so many officials fly into the region (even for meetings with the likes of Abdel-Sattar Abu Risha in Iraq). Initiatives are announced only to be forgotten. Reports are commissioned and recommendations given. Too many recommendations to recall, and yet not one right decision is made. The story of the victims, especially from our region, is not one that can be allowed to come out. This is why the media and PR people go out of their way to call it sedition and infighting, or "creative" chaos. We've been promised a new international order and what we have now is a new international chaos. Behind every picture that flickers on the screen there is always a message. Behind every initiative there is something sinister waiting to happen. And when you back one group of people, it's only to stab them in the back later. This brings us to the third and last weapon that the US administration still has. The US still has the power to spread civil wars, ethnic strife, sectarian conflict and partisan infighting. This is not a weapon to be used with subtlety. Either you do things our way or you lose your stability and independence. This is the message one sees the US administration sending in this region. And so far it has been a deadly message. So how long will our region remain hostage to these three weapons? How long are we going to put up with disinformation, psychological warfare and spin- doctors? We need to understand what our foes are doing. We need to anticipate their moves and foil their designs. Resistance is the only means through which we may free our people, unify our ranks and rise above our own failings. Resistance is just as crucial to our future as unity and democracy are.
