U.S. Diplomacy

President Bush recently nominated a new Undersecretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy, to replace the outgoing Karen Hughes. His pick, James Glassman, is currently chairman of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, the government agency that oversees U.S. international broadcasters, and a a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank. His background, however, lies in US economic and technology policy. You can read more about him here. The AP reports that given the brevity of his term (13 months until the newly elected administration takes office in January 2009), Glassman was chosen “in part because he has already won Senate confirmation for his current job, which he began in June, and the administration was looking for someone who could avoid a bruising confirmation fight in an election year.” Mr. Glassman will be in charge of improving America’s image abroad and leading US efforts to “counter violence and extremism and further the principles of democracy and liberty.” After Bush’s term expires in 13 months he’ll go back to thinking about the American economy. This appointment has drawn the usual snide remarks from the public diplomacy-watchers. Many pundits joked about the book Glassman co-authored, Dow 36,000, published in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst. (The book now sells used for $0.01 on Amazon.com). Andrew Leonard commented on Salon.com: “Few people encapsulated the madness of the 1990s stock market bubble better than Glassman, and the appropriateness of such a blithe purveyor of happy talk as the Bush administration’s chief spinmeister for foreign policy seems both absurd and utterly unsurprising… The best thing that can be said about “Dow 36,000″ is that while wrong-headed, it is not pernicious.”

James Fallows, Altantic Monthly national correspondent and former Carter speechwriter, originally questioned Glassman’s appointment, and after sleeping on it, (or after a late-night phone call from…?) took it back the next day.

Michael Currie Schaffer of The New Republic sarcastically wrote: “Luckily, the America-hating masses of Pakistan probably never had the chance to follow Glassman’s cheerleading into the stock market back before the bubble burst in 2000.” Undersecretary Glassman shouldn’t fret too much, though. In the eyes of the pundits it would be difficult to do a worse job than his predecessor Karen Hughes. Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote: “Hughes wasn’t hired to create cultural change inside the State Department; she was hired to improve America’s image abroad. And she failed miserably at that task, at least in part because she failed to use her close relationship with Bush to get him to stop doing the things that made her job so impossible.” Another blogger opined: “Departing is the shockingly ineffectual Karen Hughes. All right, I take that back. Predictably ineffectual, given that she was nothing more than a beneficiary of the spoils system.” Despite what the bloggers say it’s hard for the polling numbers to make Hughes’ performance look much better. Many global polls show that attitudes toward the US are at an all-time low. At the an impromptu appearance President Bush made at a State Department event bidding farewell to Karen Hughes, he joked: “I wouldn’t be standing here without Karen Hughes,” he said of his long-time advisor. “One of her jobs was to teach me how to speak English.”
       

If the President is looking to learn from the incoming Undersecretary I would warn him against taking Glassman’s advice on the stock market.

President Bush continued his Middle East trip in Saudi Arabia where he spoke of “unity” in order to reify his containment strategy against Iran:

“Mr. Bush focused not only on what the United States believes are Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also its suspected support for Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He called Iran’s government ‘the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism’ and accused it of imposing repression and economic hardship at home…‘So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the gulf and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.”

Meanwhile, Shibley Telhami ponders whether Saudi Arabia is using the Iran issue to bring the U.S. into delivering a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If she’s right, and I must admit she makes a strong case, then one must wonder about the costly sale of precision guided weapons to Saudi Arabia during the summer. Supplying regimes is an inherent risk. Not only did this sale come with a prerequisite of increasing our yearly aid to Israel, one need not be reminded of the CIA funded, and Saudi-Paki backed Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the end of the Cold War. The consequences associated with providing the Mujahideen all that weaponry reverberate today.

Regimes often seem stable, and Saudi Arabia is a prime example. Their conservative outlook and strong ties through our public leaders and intelligence agencies provides comfort, but only to a certain extent. Change is inevitable, and as George Washington warned American generations in his farewell address, there is no such thing as a long-term ally.

Tzipi Livni, negotiating on behalf the Israeli government, and Ahmed Qurie, negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, began talks on core issues today. It’s fair to acknowledge the both sides are nowhere near agreement on any of the major issues. However, keep in mind the slow, yet significant progress made on lesser issues in recent months:

Israel releases 429 Palestinian Prisoners

Olmert denounces illegal settlements

Abbas institutes a security crackdown in the West Bank

Past history has shown that final-status issues typically illuminate the disparity on both side’s positions, leading to the collapse of negotiations (i.e. Barak-Arafat). Theses discussions will be a good indicator for future progress or lack thereof.

The United States faces numerous challenges abroad looking ahead into 2008. On the diplomatic front few loom larger then Israeli-Palestinian relations. In December, the Annapolis Conference opened the door for direct negotiations, with the United States and the international community urging for progress on the sidelines.

President Bush landed in Israel earlier this week in an effort to bring negotiations back into the forefront. At a press conference today, Bush, exuding confidence in both Olmert and Abbas stated “I believe it’s possible - not only possible, I believe it’s going to happen - that there be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office. That’s what I believe.” A bold statement from a President who was disinterested in resolving the conflict through most of his two terms. That said, the reinvigorated (diplomatically speaking) President Bush must continue to push both sides to make significant concessions, in order for his prediction to come true.

Ghassan Khatib, writing in the Daily Star, articulates three challenges facing President Bush:

· The split between Gaza and West Bank, which undermines the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority

· Expansion of Israeli settlements

· Addressing final-status issues

One should note that Khatib is a former minister in the Palestinian Authority; therefore the challenges are skewed in one direction. Nevertheless, the issues he raises are all valid.

It can not be stated enough how difficult it will be to reach agreement on final-status issues. In particular, that is where the President or anyone representing the Untied States can really make a difference. Acting as an honest broker (no easy task on final-status issues) will be needed.

Khatib’s concern over the settlements has President Bush’s attention, which he has cited as an impediment to peace.

However, dealing with Gaza and specifically Hamas remains out of the picture for President Bush.