New U.S. Middle East Envoy Wins Approval but Little Confidence for His Mission
America's new Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is back from his first trip to the region and will likely return there later this month. He met with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and visited Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

US envoy embarks on policy review in Pakistan
The US troubleshooter on Afghanistan and Pakistan pledged to forge a new strategy and urge allies to do more in the war against Islamist insurgents on a maiden visit Monday to the war-torn region.

Ecuador, US play down diplomatic spat
The United States and Ecuador played down talk of a diplomatic row on Monday, days after Quito's decision to expel a US official. Speaking on Ecuadorian radio, Minister of Security Miguel Carvajal said the decision to expel Armando Astorga on Saturday would not further damage already-strained relations between the two countries.

Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (effectively the #3 position in the Department), penned an opinion piece for Newsweek this week titled “We Should Talk to Our Enemies.” In it, he defends Senator Barack Obama's stance on talking with US enemies, such as Iran. Here's an excerpt: “One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of “bad judgment that is dangerous,” an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials. Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I’ve been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I’ll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries‚ when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing…” He continues: “If we aren't willing to talk to Iran, we may leave ourselves with only one option‚ military action. The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks. Similarly, there will be no peace treaty between Syria and Israel if we don't support the talks underway between those countries…” He concludes: “America faces a complex and difficult geopolitical landscape. The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.” Burns undoubtedly has the qualifications to come down on this hotly contested issue. I do hope that the next President, whomever he should be, listens to his sage advice. But I can't help but wonder, could it also be an attempt to vie for a certain cabinet-level position in an Obama administration…?

Today the State Department welcomes about 100 fellows of the “I-VOTE” program to a reception in the diplomatic reception rooms. I-VOTE, which stands for International Visitors Observe the Elections, is a program of State's ECA Bureau. Here's their description:

“I-VOTE is an exchange initiative of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' International Visitor Leadership Program. I-VOTE will immerse participants in national, state and local election processes by introducing them to election officials, political analysts, citizen activists, students, academics, voters and the candidates themselves for an increased understanding of the U.S. political system.

The Election Fellows will gain insights through professional programs in Washington, DC, and in one of five battleground or swing states: Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, or Ohio. On Election Day, they will observe activities in other communities across the nation. They will reunite November 5 in Boston at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government for a symposium to analyze the outcomes and ramifications of the elections, as well as to share their program experiences and insights.

…In Washington, DC (October 26-29), as part of their orientation to the U.S. political process, the Election Fellows will hear from Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Goli Ameri, former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, former Democratic Congressman and governor Jim Blanchard, Politico Managing Editor Bill Nichols, CEO of Burson-Marsteller and advisor and polling analyst Mark Penn, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and Founder and CEO of Politics-360 Greg Fawcett. At Gallup's World Poll Conference Center, the Fellows will have an insider's view of the world of political polling from Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport and other experts.”

I look forward to the Nov. 5th symposium, and hearing about their experiences!

The Council on Foreign Relations recently won an Emmy for its video Crisis Guide on Darfur. I’ve gotten through the first two chapters and I can tell you that it is extremely informative. It highlights both the devastation that the civil war has wrought on the Sudanese and also the efforts of the international community to bring peace to the region. The “Historical background” section is narrated by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the State Department.

Have a look.

An article published in Foreign Policy magazine this week discusses the Foreign Service's newly reformulated examination process for new hires.

First, here's something I didn't know:
“In a 2007 survey, American undergraduates rated the State Department the fourth-most desirable employer in the country, just behind the private-sector dream team of Google, Disney, and Apple. (The Central Intelligence Agency ranked sixth, after the Peace Corps.) In 2006, more than 17,000 people took the FSOT. Just 10 percent passed the written exam, and a fifth of those made it through the daylong oral assessment that follows. In the end, less than 3 percent of all applicants were offered a job in 2006. That's an acceptance rate significantly lower than that of Harvard Business School.”

The article's author discusses how the test to join the service has been revamped:
“As part of State's recruiting and hiring push, a new FSOT was unveiled last fall. The test and hiring process was designed with expert help from management consultant McKinsey & Compan… When State sat down with McKinsey in 2006 to explore revamping the test, the consultants recommended some major changes. After a year of behind-the-scenes tinkering, the Foreign Service Officer Test was officially relaunched in September 2007. Some parts, like the oral assessment, remain the same. Others are completely different. The four-part written test is now offered exclusively online, multiple times per year in hundreds of different locations around the world. And following McKinsey's advice, for the first time in decades the selection process pays close attention to a candidate's background and résumé.

In looking harder at the "whole candidate," the new test represents a deep philosophical shift State hopes will help attract a broader, more diverse group of Foreign Service officers. The new test is designed to attract "as broad a cross section of America as possible," Marianne Myles, former director of State's Office of Recruitment, Examination and Employment and now the ambassador to Cape Verde, told me. "You don't have to be a political science major. We hire people who run the whole gamut."

The author goes on to describe how his experiences taking the old test in 2002 and the new and improved test this year differed. I as surprised to read this:

“As I clicked through the questions, I was surprised to see a large number‚ probably one sixth of the total‚ read like a pastiche of management-consultant jargon. I clicked through puzzlers about motivating employees, corporate restructuring, and organizational conflict management. A sample captures the feel: "A work group that has high performance norms and low cohesiveness will most likely have which of the following levels of performance: (A) Very high (B) High (C) Moderate (D) Low…”

The author concludes: “As I left the consulate, I couldn't help but wonder at the way the written test was structured. This was the one opportunity the State Department had to really plumb my knowledge of America and the rest of the world, and they spent most of it asking me about things like sentence structure, how to be a better boss, and whether I had experience using a phone.

Later, I asked Myles, the recruiting chief, about the management questions I had encountered. (I interviewed Myles several months after taking the test and didn't inform anyone at the State Department I intended to write about the exam before I took it.) "Foreign Service officers have to have management skills early in their career," she explained. "An entry-level hire could have significant-size staff to deal with in a given embassy."

Yes, but: Setting aside the question of how nailing six or seven multiple-choice questions proves I'm ready to manage employees, should diplomats be selected for their management skills, or for their ability to craft and implement effective foreign policy? Does it make sense to use the same test to hire managers as public diplomacy officers?”

Both Myles and the author have a point. What's your take?

Now may or may not be a good time to mention that Harry Kopp's new A to Z guide to the Foreign Service, Career Diplomacy, has hit bookstores. You can read more about it here: www.careerdiplomacy.com.

The Henry L. Stimson Center and the American Academy of Diplomacy have unveiled a new report on how the next President can strengthen American diplomacy.

Titled “Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future,” the report finds that:

“The State Department, USAID, and related organizations lack the tools to meet today's complex global challenges. It calls for urgent investments in diplomacy and development assistance to rebuild America's foreign affairs capability. The report's recommendations in the four major categories of foreign affairs activity — core diplomacy, public diplomacy, economic assistance, and reconstruction/stabilization — include:

• Greatly expanding public diplomacy activities, especially educational and cultural exchanges to achieve a more positive global attitude toward the United States.

• Transferring authority over selected Security Assistance programs — totaling $785 million annually — to the Department of State from the Department of Defense.

• Significantly increasing funding to permit ambassadors to respond effectively to humanitarian and political emergencies.

• Establishing a robust surge capacity for reconstruction and stabilization efforts under the authority of the Secretary of State.

You can read the full report here, or, if you live in the Washington area, you can attend the report's launch event on October 16th.

United States Embassy in London, England (Alastair Grant/AP)

The State Department announced last week that it will move its Embassy in London from its charming location on Grovesnor Square across the Thames to a more secure location. The International Herald Tribune reports that:

“The demand for more space, greater security and better energy efficiency have prompted the United States to plan a move from the smart (read: wealthy) Mayfair district to the Nine Elms Opportunity Area in Wandsworth, just south of the River Thames.”
“This has been a long and careful process,” U.S. Ambassador Robert Tuttle said in a statement yesterday. “We looked at all of our options, including renovation of our current building in Grosvenor Square. In the end, we realized that the goal of a modern, secure and environmentally sustainable embassy could best be met by constructing a new facility.”

As the UK daily The Guardian points out:

The US state department spent $15m (£8.5m) last year trying to upgrade security at the Grosvenor Square embassy, erecting high fences and concrete barriers and generally offending the aesthetic sensibilities of the neighbours. But the building remained a relatively easy target for a determined truck-bomber.

It was opened in 1960, at the start of the Kennedy era, and its wide glass expanses reflect a more innocent age. Now they are a security nightmare. Efforts to have all the surrounding roads closed failed due to opposition from the local council. Some local residents, fearing they were living next door to one of the world's most enticing terrorist targets, sold up and moved out.

The new embassy will be on a more spacious site at Wandsworth's Nine Elms “opportunity area” between Battersea power station and the MI6 headquarters at Vauxhall Cross. Not quite as glamorous an address as Mayfair, where John Adams, America's first envoy to Britain and its second president, set up house in 1785. But as the current ambassador, Robert Tuttle pointed out, the new site will actually be closer to the heart of British government, with views of parliament.”

An article in Time magazine relates some of the current building's historical significance:

“The move marks the end of a storied relationship. Over two centuries, five presidents, four vice presidents and ten secretaries of state have served at Grosvenor Square. In the late 18th century, John Adams, America's first Ambassador to the Court of St. James, opened a diplomatic post there, and in 1938 the Square became home to America's main diplomatic mission to Britain. During WWII, the Square earned the nickname “Little America” when Dwight D. Eisenhower placed his military headquarters on its leafy grounds.

The Embassy's relations with its neighbors began to sour after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although the State Department started a program of heavily fortifying its embassies against terrorism, some residents saw the Grosvenor Square site as vulnerable. In 2006, a neighborhood association, the Grosvenor Square Safety Group, bought two-page advertisements in The Washington Post and the Times of London that accused the Metropolitan Police and local governments of a moral failure for not closing the two roads adjacent to the embassy. Russian Countess Anca Vidaeff, who lived across from the embassy's side entrance, even held a three-day hunger strike to protest what she claimed was inadequate security. “My property is my pension but I cannot rent or sell my house and my life is in danger,” she told the press.

The result was a $15 million security upgrade that included raised concrete flower beds, six-foot-high blast walls, guard shacks and traffic-blocking structures. Enhanced screening facilities were also introduced to catch suicide bombers. Yet all those physical measures ‚ which must be removed as part of the move ‚ have not entirely resolved the embassy's security challenges.”

The Canadian national daily, “The Globe and Mail” had some harsh words for the decision to move the embassy. From an editorial titled “Siege Diplomacy,” published today:
“The announcement last week that the United States will relocate its London embassy from Grosvenor Square, in the heart of the British capital, to an out-of-the-way spot south of the River Thames may be good news for property developers, but should concern almost everyone else.

The London move is the latest and most dramatic example of a worrying trend toward vastly scaling down American public diplomacy abroad, abandoning embassies that were once beacons of American culture and openness in favour of walled suburban fortresses. (Canada, meanwhile, has shuttered missions in key cities including Milan, Osaka and St. Petersburg).

The United States is on an embassy-building spree, having constructed 56 new diplomatic facilities abroad in the past several years, with dozens more on the way. Almost all such structures are now set back at least 30 metres from the street, often surrounded by high fences and designed according to a charmless standardized template. The highest-profile U.S. embassy to open recently, in Berlin, was pilloried as a hideous “lump” in the German press, despite years of wrangling over its design.

It is all a far cry from the last great era of American construction in foreign capitals, after the Second World War, when a confident country hired some of its best architects to present itself to the world. They produced a series of spectacular structures, generally in the glassy International Style and almost always in prominent places. They included libraries and other facilities designed to share American culture with the locals….

Bunkered and isolated embassies are hardly the best advertisement for Washington's role in the world, and will remain a lasting hangover of the George W. Bush's prickly attitude toward much of the planet long after he leaves the White House.

The U.S. has, admittedly, come by its new preferences for embassy design honestly. The bombings in 1998 of its missions in Kenya and Tanzania horrified American diplomats, and made obvious the continuing risks to their safety in many countries.

But there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Security concerns can be addressed within attractive and accessible structures, and Washington should think long and hard about what a new generation of embassies that ignore this fact will say to the world about the United States….”

Public Radio International's “The World” program hosted a US historian, Thomas Naftali, for a discussion about the embassy's move. Naftali calls the decision a shame, and that it sends an unfortunate signal. He said: “The embassy should be our front door, a way for foreigners to get to know us… when our embassy is not as public our presence is not felt as much. What it comes down to is this: is an embassy a front door or a front line?”
What are your thoughts on the move? What might the implications of the move be for the conduct of U.S. diplomacy?

Two weeks ago the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think thank, hosted world leaders in town for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly for separate, public discussions about current issues in world affairs.

Those distinguished leaders include: Ali Babacan, Turkey 's Minister of Foreign Affairs; Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, President of Argentina; Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine; Alvaro Uribe, President of Colombia; Sergey V. Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation; Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile; and David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, United Kingdom.

Quite a distinguished bunch.

First, Mr. Ali Babacan of Turkey spoke about Turkey's role in regional diplomacy (watch this interview here).

“To many academicians who study geopolitics, the diverse regions surrounding Turkey are all fascinating case studies.  For us, they are a fact of daily life where, unfortunately, there is never a dull moment.  The Caucasus, the Balkans, Italy, Central Asia, North Africa — these are regions with their distinct dynamics and intractable issues.  This is why Turkish foreign policy is endeavoring to find feasible solutions to the many regional disputes and (frozen ?) conflicts we are today faced with.

We do this not just because it is in our interest, promotes security in our immediate vicinity, but also because, as experience shows, the cost of inaction is almost always much higher….”

Second, President de Kichner of Argentina related a Latin American perspective on the US’ recent unilateral turn (watch the video here):

“In the international arena, ever since the decision for — or in terms of multilateralism and when we think about the invasion of Afghanistan, as a result of the attacks on 9/11, we can see what happened starting at that point and what happened since then with broken multilateralism.  You know, we have seen unilateral decisions which have been heavily criticized not only within the U.N., but have also come under criticism from natural allies of the U.S.

This breaking of multilateralism is, in our view, a decision which has made the world less safe.  And we must — in order to give legitimacy and credibility to the fight against terrorism, we must make sure that decisions are universal and multilateral, acknowledging the United Nations as the appropriate instrument that can blend all of our differences, that can represent us all based on authority, relying not only on might, on the use of force, but on international law.

And why is it so important to reaffirm the concept of international law and of democratic civilization?  Because that is right at the heart of the fight against terrorism.  If we use similar instruments to those used by terrorism, in other words, not abiding by international law, we may run the risk of might, of sheer force not being enough in this fight that is profoundly cultural and political, a fight which we must wage from the democratic world.  And we firmly believe that the basic premise must be respect for international humanitarian law and international law as such.  That will give us legitimacy in the face of others…”

Third, Ukranian President Victor Yushchenko spoke about Ukraine's 17-year history as an independent nation and its most important goal–national security (watch the video here):

“When we talk about what is the most important in the current policy in order to maintain our territorial identity and our sovereignty and independence, this is a model of security policy.  What kind of security policy would be most appropriate for the interests of the Ukrainian nation?  European — European, general continental, Euro-Atlantic, model of collective security.

So when we speak about the first thing that Ukraine needs, the first service for 21st century, the 22nd century, this is our need to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic system of collective security.  This is a global fundamental answer, how to preserve Ukraine and our history from those tests against it that every decade of the 20th century forced us to suffer.  So when we speak about the main point of our foreign policy, this is the process of integration.  We want the world to recognize Ukraine and Ukraine to recognize the world.

We’re talking about European integration and we’re talking about the — Ukraine is a European country.  It always was.  And she is and she always will be European…”

Fourth, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, answered a wide array of questions from the moderator and audience. After speaking briefly about Colombia's relations with its Andean neighbors, said (watch the video here):

“I will not speak about my neighbors.  I need to speak about Colombia.  We are working for higher standards for our democracy to be better every day.  Security for all Colombians, freedoms, social cohesion, a state made up of checks and balances and our fight for transparency.  (Inaudible) — for people to trust in our democratic institutions.  One very important point in our country is that Colombians have — (inaudible) — institutions.  In Colombia, a president cannot choose one investor over the other.  Investors depend in Colombia on our institutions.  And our institutions are transparent and totally friendly to investors.

One key point you should keep in mind.  When you want to remember Colombia, please think of Colombia as a country of trying to do the best to have investment confidence.  Maybe Colombia, for its specific realities, reasons, has much more interest in bringing investors to the country than other countries in the region.  We are open for (any with ?) investment in our country…”

Fifth, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained why the U.S.-Russian relationship has recently been described as “rocky”:

“Well, first of all, thank you for this opportunity to meet again with the members of the council.  Since I was a bit late because of the meeting with Secretary Rice, we decided that I wouldn't make any opening remarks, but I have them and we will leave them with the council for you to consider how to use them.

As to the meeting, I did not feel any rocky style.  Certainly a rocky style is not my style, and it was not secretary's approach to this meeting.  We discussed our relationship.  We, I believe, agreed that we have to be pragmatic.  We would never be able to agree on everything.  And of course we discussed the immediate things on which we disagree, the situation in the Caucasus.  But we, as I said, agreed that we must not make this situation a rock on which everything else would be hit.

And we considered our future areas of cooperation, including the issues related to nonproliferation.  And it's obvious that we have to get clarity.

And we — I welcome the pragmatic mood of the secretary and the pragmatic mood of the discussion, as I welcomed the pragmatic attitude of President Bush yesterday when he spoke in the General Assembly and devoted most of his speech to the issues which are indeed important to the entire humanity, including Russia and the United States, like terrorism, like human trafficking, drug trafficking, proliferation.  All these demand collective effort.  All this is impossible to do without uniting all assets we all have, and the Russian-American cooperation is certainly a key to such worldwide endeavor.

So it is also — it is also clear that pragmatism in our relations, after the very emotional reaction in the West — and in the United States, in particular — to the Russian action to stop the aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia, the action firmly rooted in the right for self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the charter.  Of course, this coming down of the situation between the two countries and coming back to the pragmatism, which always was a feature of the American policy and of the Russian policy of late, would take some time.”

For an American take on the current state of Russian-American relations, specifically Condoleezza Rice's, read this report by the Associated Press published today.

Sixth, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet spoke about cooperation between Chile and the United States in the global and regional context (watch video here):

“Let me begin by assuring the United States that it can count on Chile as a reliable partner, not as an unconditional ally, but certainly an open and frank one, a country that attaches great importance to multilateralism and international law, the principle of consensual solutions to international controversies, and the exhaustion of diplomacy in response to crisis.  This partnership with the United States goes beyond any administration in particular, and therefore Chile's ready to collaborate with the new president and his team.

We live in a complex world.  The United States is unique amongst nations in terms of the scope of its power.  However, globalization has expanded the list of worldwide problems and has made it clear that the only way to tackle global challenges effectively is through multilateral cooperation, given that — (inaudible) — and challenges are emerging worldwide, problems that affect us all, such as terrorism, climate change and the energy crisis, poverty, uncontrolled migrations, organized crime, pandemics and even (protectionism ?). And of course, to put it more in (the consciousness ?), today the — (IMF ?) said that the crisis will be — could be named as the three Fs, he said, the food crisis, the fuel crisis and the financial crisis.

Well, the strategy, then, to confront all of these problems should be collectively generated and to collectively generate the public good — the global public good so as to develop the governance capacity required for the 21st century.  In this perspective, we feel that the world, Latin America and Chile are ripe for renewed and strengthened multilateralism, and Washington's decisive engagement will be critical…”

Finally, UK Foreign Minister David Miliband spokeabout the significance of the U.S. presidential election for the future of transatlantic relations:

“I think you can make a pretty good case that this is the last election, the last U.S. presidential election that gives the winner the chance, with the European Union, to use the transatlantic alliance to forge and define a global foreign policy agenda.  But if the next president stays in office for eight years, in eight years’ time, the idea that a transatlantic alliance can come together and set a global agenda that is an inclusive global agenda of the rising powers — so we’re under no illusion, I’m not talking about recreating a transatlantic empire, but I do think that eight years’ time, it's easy to imagine that it will be practically impossible for a transatlantic alliance to set a global agenda for the global rules of the road…”

[this is because] “…there are three great shifts in power going on around the world.  There's obviously a shift in power from West to East.  There's a huge shift in power from the national to the international level.  And there's a critical shift in power, in my view, going from governments to people.

That's why I talk about civilian surge around the world, the benefits of — it goes to technology, the fact that there's an emerging global consciousness powered by those technologies.  That people are inspired by what they see and know about around the world allows them to recognize how other people live their lives and to ask questions about why they’re living their lives in a particular way…”

I highly recommend giving these discussions a full listen or read.

Where can you watch Condoleezza Rice talk foreign policy and then play piano, James Glassman discuss public diplomacy, Tom Friedman read from his new book, and King Abdullah II of Jordan related the US-Jordan relationship? The Aspen Institute's video blog.

So far I’ve watched the first three of the above mentioned Aspen-sponsored events, and I highly reccomend them. The questions put to Glassman are insightful, as are his responses.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Aspen, it is an “international nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue” based in Washington, Aspen Colorado and Maryland.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs released last week a public opinion poll about Americans’ views on foreign policy issues. The findings show the American public's number one foreign policy worry is the country's standing in the world.

The Financial Times reported on the findings:

“The… survey found that 83 per cent of respondents thought that improving their country's world standing should be a "very important" foreign policy goal. This was the highest priority, ranking above the 80 per cent who saw protecting US jobs as very important.

“Americans understand the message that is coming from the rest of the world that the US is too unilateralist," said Steven Kull, director of the International Policy Attitudes programme at the University of Maryland.”

Below is a chart from the poll's report detailing Americans’ top foreign policy goals. (For more findings, view the poll's full report).

Here's the problem: these data were collected in July. Now that the American financial sector has collapsed, how much do you want to bet that Americans’ second priority–protecting American jobs–has now trumped the first? Historically, Americans tend to turn inward when times are hard. This is unfortunate, since the collapse has likely made the world less willing to trust American leadership, thus this foreign policy goal harder to achieve.

Jim Hoagland discussed this prospect in his Sunday column in the Washington Post. He called for the end of “financial unilateralism,” and noted the sober remarks of a US ally.

“Here for the U.N. General Assembly opening and to receive a humanitarian award at a black-tie dinner, Sarkozy, an unabashed admirer of the United States, had other sober advice worth considering. He spoke in a hotel ballroom filled with Wall Street financiers who underwrote the gala — but his words seemed aimed not only at them but also at Bush, Congress and ultimately the American nation:

“You cannot demand to lead and then say that you are not responsible when things do not work out. You cannot accept only the rewards and duck the bad consequences of your actions.”

Americans cannot take for granted a world leadership role that comes with little cost or sacrifice, as they have tended to do in the Clinton-Bush era. That role must be earned anew, and the costs cannot simply be passed down to our children and grandchildren. Otherwise, as John Maynard Keynes might have said, in the long run we are all poor.”

Hoagland and Sarkozy remind us that in harsh economic times it is even more important for the US to lead, and for the American people and government to be concerned when our leadership role becomes called into question. Understandably–and unfortunately–it's hard to see right now beyond our own financial worries. Let's hope I am wrong, and that Americans don't loose site of what was just in July a top foreign policy priority–improving the country's standing in the world.