Clinton Peace Bid Likely to Pose Problems for Bush

When President Clinton personally presented his Middle East peace plan to Israeli and Palestinian officials last month, he added a blunt postscript: The U.S. plan would expire Jan. 20 with the inauguration of a new president.

“These are my ideas,” Clinton said, according to a transcript made available by the Palestinian delegation. “If they are not accepted, they are not just off the table; they also go with me when I leave office.”

Read one way, it was an astonishing assertion that only he could mediate between the historic adversaries. But the comment also gives President-elect George W. Bush a graceful way to discard a controversial proposal that he had nothing to do with formulating.

A senior White House official endorsed the second explanation: “There is an understanding that a new administration might have different ideas or a different approach. It is logical to assume that the new team will have to take some time to get into this.”

Israeli-Palestinian animosity--whether expressed by violence in the streets or in complex negotiations--could produce an early test of Bush and his foreign policy team, headed by National Security Advisor-designate Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State-designate Colin L. Powell, who is receiving daily briefings from the Clinton camp on the status of the delicate discussions.

Middle East specialists say that Clinton’s diplomacy in the waning days of his presidency will create problems for Bush no matter how it comes out. Failure could intensify the Israeli-Palestinian violence. But success would require Bush to embrace a controversial proposal containing elements that the incoming president may not like.

“Whatever Clinton does, he is going to front-load the new administration with difficulties,” said Geoffrey Kemp, the National Security Council’s Middle East expert in the Reagan administration. The new administration has other priorities, and Powell is still being briefed, he said.

A State Department source, who asked not to be identified because he is not an official spokesman for the incoming secretary, said Powell is receiving regular telephone calls, at least once and often twice a day, from peace envoy Dennis B. Ross, the point man for Clinton’s last-ditch diplomacy.

But the official said the communication is essentially one way, with Ross talking and Powell listening. The secretary of State-designate hasn’t offered suggestions for changes in the diplomatic effort.

“He and the entire Bush team have been very scrupulous on the issue of not telling us what to do,” the official said. “This is their time for learning.”

When Bush announced his choice for secretary of State last month, Powell pledged that he would remain “very much engaged” in the volatile Mideast.

If Clinton can pull off an accord--and even his aides acknowledge that it is unlikely--the result would certainly be a boon for Middle East and world peace. For decades, support of Arab-Israeli peace has been a priority for U.S. administrations of both political parties.

If Clinton had brokered a settlement during the failed Camp David summit in July, Bush would have had no difficulty in accepting it, even if he had reservations about any of its provisions. U.S. foreign policy, after all, is a continuum, with each new president bound by the agreements of his predecessors.

But the proximity of Clinton’s diplomatic initiative to the presidential transition poses a number of political problems for Bush.

“For the Bush team, there are bad outcomes and worse outcomes, no good outcomes,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

If Clinton fails, the result could be increased Middle East violence. And, at a more political level, a failure to reach an accord almost certainly would result in hard-line Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon defeating caretaker Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the Jewish state’s Feb. 6 special election.

Polls show Sharon with a substantial lead over Barak. In the past, U.S. presidents, including Bush’s father, have had difficult relationships with prime ministers of Sharon’s Likud Party. Sharon himself had troubled relations with U.S. administrations in his earlier posts of defense minister and foreign minister.

But the political perils for Bush if Clinton fails are dwarfed by the difficulties if Clinton succeeds.

Even if a deal can be signed before Jan. 20, its implementation would surely come on Bush’s watch. If Bush gave unqualified support to the pact between Inauguration Day and Israel’s election day just two weeks later, it would be read as a U.S. endorsement of Barak--who would base his campaign on the agreement. If Sharon wins, he and Bush will get off to an even rockier start than they might anyway.

Moreover, there are elements to the Clinton plan that conflict with Bush’s governing philosophy. For instance, the plan calls for an “international presence,” almost certainly a U.S.-led multinational military force, to monitor compliance with the agreement.

The plan says the force “can only be withdrawn by mutual consent,” essentially a blueprint for a permanent military deployment--just the sort of peacekeeping role that Bush criticized during the presidential campaign.