Mr Bush may be half-right, but he has broken the first rule of statesmanship

A little more than two months ago, the US President George Bush stood in the White House rose garden and announced a radical and welcome about-turn in policy. With the dove-ish Secretary of State, Colin Powell, at his side, he spoke of his Administration's intention of returning to wholehearted engagement in the Middle East, recording his support for a Palestinian state, while calling for an end to terrorism and the withdrawal of Israel from all occupied territory.

The speech delivered by the US President on Monday from the selfsame rose garden could hardly have been more different. Gone were the calls for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory; gone, too, were calls for an immediate halt to the building of settlements. In their place was an out-and-out demand for the replacement of the Palestinian leadership as a necessary condition for a settlement.

Mr Bush did not mention Yasser Arafat by name, but his message was clear. Until the Palestinians elected leaders more congenial to the United States and to Israel, until they reformed along more American lines, there could be no peace, certainly not one that Washington could underwrite.

Mr Bush's decision to turn his attention back to the Middle East, on the eve of the world leaders' summit in Canada, has had one positive effect. It has placed the subject on the international agenda and reopened a discussion about how the hideous cycle of violence might be halted. And in tackling the question of the Palestinian leadership head-on, Mr Bush has said no more than is acknowledged behind the closed doors of diplomacy: it is hard to envisage a lasting peace so long as Yasser Arafat holds the reins of Palestinian power. But what Mr Bush omitted to say, and is surely as true, is that the cause of peace is unlikely to be furthered while Ariel Sharon holds power in Israel. It takes two to make peace, and neither leader seems disposed to make the requisite concessions or show the requisite vision. This is what makes third-party intervention so urgent – and where all the inadequacies of Mr Bush's latest approach start to show.

Mr Bush's speech, and the lead-up to it, risks making matters even worse, if that were possible. By leaking selective details about support for a "provisional" Palestinian state, the White House raised expectations and trapped Mr Bush into having to say something at a time that was not of his choosing. The result was delay and the impression of indecision.

By calling directly for new Palestinian leaders, and recommending new elections, new courts, new business practices – everything, in fact, short of new people – Mr Bush broke the first rule of statesmanship: non-interference in other people's internal affairs. And he did so in a way that was politically and practically counterproductive. As so maddeningly often, he showed himself utterly deaf to the likely international reaction. The response from European leaders, even from Tony Blair, was lukewarm, with the rider that it was up to the Palestinians who led them and how. From all but the most pro-American Arabs there was indignation that will only strengthen Mr Arafat's regional and domestic support.

Not for the first time, Mr Bush may learn the hard way that a 21st-century US President must play not just to Peoria, but to a wider world. Constructive Middle East engagement needs a broader perspective than the rose garden offers and a vision that goes beyond the next election.