President Bush needs to exhibit statesmanship

Gonzalez is a third-year political science student.

By Nathan Gonzalez

When thinking of the legacy of a “great statesman,”
we often invoke the images of Ronald Reagan standing before the
Berlin Wall, as he shouts “Tear down this wall, Mr.
Gorbachev.” Or perhaps Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin
ein Berliner” ““ though Germans would have preferred the
indefinite article omitted. These phrases evoke a sense of American
pride that transcends generational lines and serves as a standard
on which to judge our present endeavors as a nation, as well as our
direction for the future.

When thinking of President George W. Bush, however, one cannot
help but think that something is lacking. While I am a Democrat,
this isn’t a partisan attack. I do want this president to
succeed, especially in the realm of foreign policy, just as
Clinton’s self-proclaimed foes wanted our former
president’s actions to bear fruit when our troops were in
combat. The strong identity of this nation in fact supercedes all
partisanship now, as it has in the past. Yet my unease comes when a
president who is enjoying incredible popular support does not seem
to be capitalizing on such a clear, if unlikely, mandate.

One notable example is Israel’s current defiance of
President Bush’s words. Bush’s statement, “Enough
is enough,” meant nothing to Israel. Since our country
provides Israel’s life-blood in economic and military aid, we
should have proven capable of compelling her to avoid actions that
further mark us as targets for vengeful terrorism. So long as our
president demands that Israel do something, and it isn’t
done, we lose. As petty as “face-saving” might seem on
a personal level, in the realm of international relations it is
imperative for a country to seem the stronger and more resolved
among the rest if it is to deter aggression. We cannot afford the
image of a “paper tiger,” as our enemies have branded
us. It doesn’t matter what destruction we are capable of
incurring. What is important is that we deter others from invoking
our defenses in the first place. Our military might and quality of
life depend on this.

Past presidents have understood the power of
“statesmanship.” When President Clinton was engaging
North Korea in dialogue, and Iraq’s weapons manufacturing
facilities were building bombs, it was understood by Americans that
the White House was at the command of the president. Today, jokes
branding Vice President Cheney as the commander-in-chief are no
longer something to laugh at since the very presidency, and with
it, America’s credibility, is in jeopardy. As far as the
citizens of this country are concerned, the war in Afghanistan, as
it happened, was the result of a compromise between hawkish and
dovish cabinet members, not a decisive action taken by President
Bush.

Perfection is certainly not a requisite for great statesmanship.
Yet whoever our president is, he or she must prove capable of
exercising leadership. If President Bush publicly demands an
Israeli withdrawal, his diplomatic efforts should support such
statements. The words of an American president should not be empty.
President Bush must take the helm and show that he is willing to
overrule his cabinet, the special interest groups and the wishes of
Prime Minister Sharon, whose shortsightedness will hinder our
ability to work with leaders of the Middle East in the future.