PRESIDENT'S MIDDLE EAST TOUR: TUNISIAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TUNIS 000058 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR NEA/IPA AND NEA/MAG (HOPKINS AND HARRIS) E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/17/2018 TAGS: PREL KPAL IS IR TS SUBJECT: PRESIDENT'S MIDDLE EAST TOUR: TUNISIAN INTELLECTUALS WELCOME EFFORT BUT CRITICIZE SUBSTANCE AND PROCESS REF: TUNIS 44 Classified By: Ambassador Robert F. Godec for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) At a January 15 a gathering with intellectuals at the Ambassador's residence, most participants expressed the view that President Bush's visit to the region was evidence of concrete follow-up to a positive process set in motion at Annapolis. Participants criticized various aspects of the trip, however. Some took issue with how the United States is pursuing its goals in the Middle East, assessing that the Annapolis conference and President Bush's follow-up on this visit represented "too little, too late." Others questioned the goals themselves -- suggesting that the visit was more about geopolitics than the peace process. Several interlocutors raised doubts about Israeli good will, especially in light of continued Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem, which, several complained, seemed intended to "torpedo" the process. One participant cautioned against demonizing Iran, given recent overtures from Gulf states to Iran. Ambassador emphasized that the Annapolis process, and the President's subsequent visit, represented an opportunity for peace that the region should seize. End Summary. -------------- -------------- President's Trip, Commitment Seen as Welcome, Genuine -------------- -------------- ¶2. (C) Coming on the heels of the January 13 MFA statement expressing "satisfaction" with President Bush's efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace on his current trip to the region (reftel),Ambassador Godec used his January 15 dinner with independent intellectuals to probe attitudes about the President's trip. The dinner was a follow-up event to a September 2007 roundtable on US-Arab relations co-sponsored by the Middle East Partnership Initiative and DEFI SARL, publishers of the weekly magazine l'Expression. Most dinner participants welcomed President Bush's initiative to breathe new life into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "There is something serious that developed in Annapolis," said retired Ambassador Ounaies. "It was not just words." ¶3. (C) This sentiment was echoed in a separate meeting on January 16 between the Ambassador and Mustapha Ben Jaafar, leader of the independent opposition party Democratic Forum for Work and Liberty (FDTL). Ben Jaafar said that he saw "something new" coming out of Annapolis and the President's trip. He sensed "genuine commitment" on the part of the President to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front. At the same time, he said, there are "plenty of people" who are trying to sabotage the process. -------------- ... But "Too Little, Too Late" -- Especially In Face of Israeli Settlement Activity -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Journalist Ridha Kefi and Dar As-Sabah publisher Raouf Cheikhrouhou voiced skepticism about the chances of success, echoing the headline carried in last week's l'Expression magazine about the trip: "Too Little, Too Late." Another dinner participant expressed the view that thus far, the process had been overly meeting-focused. "It's not enough just to have meetings," he said, "You have to really be engaged." Several participants agreed that the Israeli government's issuance of tenders for more settlement construction in East Jerusalem and environs in the aftermath of both the Annapolis and Paris conferences belied its good faith in these negotiations. Olmert effectively "torpedoed" Annapolis, charged retired diplomat Ounaies. Ambassador noted the US Government's opposition to such settlement activity and calls for the parties to deal with this issue in the context of the roadmap. ¶5. (C) Dinner participants were generally skeptical that the Bush Administration would be able to pull off its stated goal of a Palestinian state by the end of the year. One professor touted the constructive role that deadlines can play in negotiations, but another participant sounded a note of caution that President Clinton, too, had tried to use his last year in office as an action-forcing event. -------------- "Winning the Right War" Means Using Soft Power, Not Demonizing Iran, TUNIS 00000058 002 OF 002 Not Stirring Up Sunni/Shia Tensions -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Journalist Ridha Kefi questioned the underlying objectives of President Bush's trip. He asserted that the trip was more about US geopolitical goals than advancing the Middle East peace process. Specifically, he saw the "real goals" of the trip as isolating Iran, stabilizing Iraq, and working with the region's oil producing countries to find a solution to the current energy crisis. Other participants jumped in, sharing their analysis of missteps they believe the United States has made in the global war on terror in the Middle East context. ¶7. (SBU) Referring to the publication "Winning the Right War," recently published by the Brookings Institution, Ambassador Ounaies said the United States needs to make sure it is fighting the right war. In the Middle East context, he continued, the United States should be emphasizing soft power -- engaging in more visits, promoting exchanges, and listening. Another participant agreed: the "real" war the United States should be fighting is against under-development, and for modernization and democracy. ¶8. (SBU) Ambassador Ounaies opined that it had been "bad form" to demonize Iran, so soon after Gulf countries had made overtures to Iran. Specifically, he noted the Gulf Cooperation Council's invitation to Iranian President Ahmedinejad to attend its December 2007 meeting, as well as the recent Saudi invitation to Ahmedinejad to go on the Hajj. Another participant expressed the view that President Bush's focus on Iran during the Gulf portion of his trip had served to inflame Sunni/Shia tensions, something the region could ill afford. One professor opined that, rather than raising the specter of military action against Iran, the United States would be better served by a "Nixon in China" scenario. Ambassador emphasized that Iran poses a serious threat to the region, providing weapons and financing to extremists around the world. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶9. (C) Ambassador Godec's exchanges with intellectuals on the implications of the President's trip have been positive and constructive. Tunisian counterparts have been anxious to express the hope that the United States succeeds in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, even while they voice skepticism about what is possible under current circumstances or regrets that more couldn't have been done sooner. One interlocutor summed up the stakes: "The United States is condemned to high expectations, becaue if you fail, we all fail." End Comment. Plese visit Embassy Tunis' Classified Website at: htp://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/tunis/index.cf m GOEC