U.S. Diplomacy

Former US Ambassador Chas Freeman addressed a conference of the University of Continuing Education Association last week.

Before retiring from the Foreign Service Freeman served at posts in nearly every continent and became a specialist in China. Notably, Freeman was Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, from 1989-1992. In 1993–94, he served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based business development firm, and as President of the Middle East Policy Council.

Needless to say, the depth of Ambassador Freeman’s foreign policy experience makes him an excellent source for an analysis of the potential that diplomacy holds as a tool to leverage the critical threats the US faces today. As one would expect, his diplomatic experiences has also made him a natural advocate for employing diplomacy over military force in the international realm. His remarks (published on Middle East Online) on the potential of diplomacy to solve conflicts are powerful ones, and they are worth citing here.

Overall, Freeman wants to see a stronger, more cooperative United States. He believes the only path to achieving that goal is through the use of diplomacy.

Freeman begins by citing the massive expenditures the US spends on its military budget. He comments: “Somehow, however, despite all the money we’ve spent, the debt we’ve accumulated, and the sacrifices patriotic Americans have made in distant foreign lands, our leaders tell us that we have never been so threatened. Given all the enemies we have been making recently, they may be right… Massive military spending has, in fact, become an indispensable part of our political-economy…”

Freeman emphasized the importance of involving diplomats from the outset: “Most of our leaders, in both major political parties, now espouse a reversal of the longstanding American view that coercion, especially through military means, is a last resort to be brought into play only when diplomacy – in the form of persuasion, diplomatic bargaining, alliance-building, and other measures short of war – has failed. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the sequence approved on both sides of the aisle was to shoot first, then send in the diplomats to mop up. Since this hasn’t worked out too well, there is now a lot of talk about how to recruit more diplomats and buy more mops. That’s probably a good idea, but it might be more effective and cheaper to involve the diplomats at the outset and avoid creating such a mess in the first place.”

He continued: “Sadly, theories of coercion and plans to use military means to impose our will on other nations have for some time squeezed out serious consideration of diplomacy as an alternative to the use of force. Diplomacy is more than saying “nice doggie,” till you can find a rock. Weapons are tools to change men’s minds but they are far from the only means of doing so… The weapons of diplomats are words and their power is their persuasiveness. Talk is cheaper than firepower and does less collateral damage, so it makes sense to try it before blazing away at the adversary.”

On the supremely unequal funding of the country’s military and diplomatic services, Freeman commented: “You get what you pay for. In this case, that’s a superbly professional and supremely lethal military and an anemically staffed and undertrained diplomatic service led by inexperienced political appointees on sabbatical from high incomes… It is a truism that skilled work requires skilled workmen. Americans are now without peer in the military arts. To prevail against our current enemies, we must attain equal excellence in diplomacy.”

He concludes by offering some sage advice to his audience, the next President and the American people: “We cannot hope to appeal to the conscience of humankind if we do not continue to embody its aspirations. If we do not restore our country’s good name, others will not follow when we lead or share the burdens we take up. To regain the cooperation of allies and friends, we must rediscover how to listen, how to persuade, how to be a team player, and how to follow the rules we demand others follow… A return to diplomacy, not threats and the use of force, is the surest path to the reassertion of American leadership. It is time to rediscover and explore that path.”

Sage advice indeed.

Referring to the dissipating morale of the American cause, Thomas Paine wrote in the winter of 1776 that “these are the times that try men’s souls.” One might reflect today on Afghanistan as trying NATO’s soul. President Bush envisions a new mission for NATO through Afghanistan, while some see the fissure over troops in Afghanistan as a possible death knell for NATO.

This week President Bush embarks on his final NATO Summit, where he will attempt to persuade NATO allies to redouble their efforts in Afghanistan. His trip will include stops in Ukraine, Moscow, Croatia, and the summit in Bucharest.

The Bucharest summit will raise many issues other than Afghanistan, including the controversial missile defense proposal in Poland (and the alternative proposal in Czech Republic), Kosovo’s independence, and whether Georgia and Ukraine should be extended membership into NATO. All of these issues spark contrasts with Russia, which detests the old Soviet states enhancing their standing with the United States. As a diplomatic gesture, Putin and his successor Dmitry Medvedev were offered invitations to the summit.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili spoke with the Financial Times about the upcoming summit, and portrayed denial of Georgia into NATO as effectively providing Russia with a veto. He also suggested that Georgia could send their troops currently serving in Iraq to Afghanistan, in order to help relieve the troop strain on NATO.

France plans to announce the arrival of an additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan. Coinciding with President Bush’s request for more troops, France will ask NATO members to “devote more resources to rebuilding Afghan society, bringing in judges, teachers, medical workers and civil administrators.”

France’s boost will help ease fears from Canada’s PM Steve Harper, who threatened to remove troops if other allies did not step-up. Additionally, the United States has slated 3,000 Marines for duty in Afghanistan. The strengthening alliance between France and the United States is just a small caveat amid a stronger notion of NATO members splitting over the troop issue in Afghanistan.

Richard Holbrooke writes today that “the conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize. This war, already in its seventh year, will eventually become the longest in American history, surpassing even Vietnam.”

Any troop promises by NATO members other than France will signify a successful trip for President Bush. However, anything less (a likely prospect) will further the crisis.

These days the United Nations seems to be the wealthiest impoverished international bureaucracy around.

This week the Washington Times’ UN correspondent Betsy Pisik reported that the UN made one final stride toward beginning a $2 billion renovation project of its headquarters in Manhattan.

“The organization will shift some 1,800 employees to a Madison Avenue glass tower for up to six years, while the iconic Secretariat Building is stripped down to the concrete slab and rebuilt with modern systems and security.”

Earlier that week Washington Post UN correspondent Colum Lynch reported that: “The United Nations this month presented its top donors with a request for nearly $1.1 billion in additional funds over the next two years — boosting current U.N. expenses by 25 percent and marking the global body’s highest-ever administrative budget, according to internal U.N. memos.”

But improvements in the UN’s physical infrastructure are only a small chunk of what Lynch cites as the cause for the ballooning expenses. Rather, “Much of the increased spending flows from Bush administration demands for a more ambitious U.N. role around the world. During President Bush’s tenure, the United States has signed off on billions of dollars for U.N. peacekeeping operations in Sudan and elsewhere, and authorized hundreds of millions for U.N. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.N. officials helped organize elections and draft a new constitution.”

The request for new funding is intended to cover the renovation project, in addition to funding war-crimes investigators in Lebanon, a $100 million fortress to serve as a UN headquarters in Baghdad, a $7 million anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa in 2009, among other projects.

The WaPost-produced chart at right shows how the UN budget has expanded.

Lynch explained that: “During the 1990s, congressionally required budget caps severely restricted the growth of U.N. expenses, and lawmakers enforced fiscal discipline by withholding more than $1 billion in U.S. dues. But administration officials now concede that they have limited leverage, because the bulk of the money in the latest U.N. supplemental request would fund missions and initiatives that Washington either approved or helped create… [former US Ambassador to the UN John] Bolton acknowledged that the United States has largely abandoned the key tool it had used to hold down U.N. budgets since the mid-1980s: congressionally driven threats of withholding U.S. dues.”

Lynch’s article does an excellent job emphasizing US efforts to shrink the UN’s budget, but it fails to point out that the US currently owes about $2 billion in UN dues—enough to renovate its headquarters.

A recent OneWorld US article notes that “if the Bush administration’s budget passes as is this year, the United States will be another $610 million short of what it owes to UN peacekeeping operations, pushing the U.S. debt to the United Nations above $2 billion.” For more information on US dues shortfall, visit the Better World Campaign’s website.

The political winds have shifted in Pakistan, which leaves the question: How will the dynamics of Pakistan’s new political leaders play out with US policy goals in the region?

This Economist article provides some good context to recent and coming events in Pakistan. The article points out that that Administration’s key ally, Musharraf, faces a serious threat from Supreme Court justices possibly being reinstituted. He could be further weakened by a potential impeachment proceeding. This leaves little room for Musharraf to maneuver. In fact, his only available option to exert his influence is to declare emergency rule. “Mr. Musharraf could try to buy time by re-imposing a state of emergency. However, the army has made clear that it will not intervene unless serious instability looms.”

In another sign of abandonment, General Kayani relieved two of Mushraff’s top general this week. Without the army on board, Musharaff is in trouble. This sets the stage for recently elected Prime Minister Yusuf Gilani. The Economist article suggests Pakistan’s political crisis is not yet resolved and that in-fighting between the coalition’s two major parties, the PPP and PML (N) is likely. With Musharraf’s power waning, the United States must cultivate relationships with PM Gilani and coalition leaders, even through possible in-fighting.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is doing just that today during a meeting with PM Gilani.

“The prime minister made it clear that the new government would continue to fight terrorism in all its forms by using democratic, economic and strategic means. ‘It is also a matter of concern for us and we will confront it with complete determination.’

Mr Gilani said Pakistan accorded high priority to its strategic relationship with the US and desired to expand the relations in all fields. He said US President George W. Bush had called him and pledged full support to Pakistan in us spheres. The prime minister said economic empowerment of people living along the Afghan border was key to addressing the issue of extremism in the region.

He expressed confidence that the establishment of ‘reconstruction opportunity zones’ would help increase economic activities in the area and create new opportunities for improving the standard of life of the people.”

On February 17, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Although Kosovo acted without UN approval, it quickly gained the recognition of major Western powers, namely the United States and Europe’s major powers, while Serbia, Russia, China and over a dozen other countries claimed the declaration was invalid.

While Kosovo is now acting as an independent nation, challenges abound: ethnic partitioning (120,000 Serbs still reside in Kosovo), potential violence, Russia’s disapproving glare, writing a constitution, etc.

Last week the Foreign Policy Association hosted Frank Wisner, a career diplomat who has served as the Special Representative of the Secretary of State to the Kosovo Status Talks since 2005 to discuss the significance of the declaration of independence and the way forward.

Wisner spoke about the need for Protecting Kosovo’s independence by a NATO force, which has keeping the peace in Kosovo for the past nine years.

Wisner also spoke of the diplomatic accomplishments he felt he and his international counterparts achieved in Kosovo: “I was proud finally to be part of American diplomacy dring better than 2 years in which we set our minds on re-tying bonds of communications, common action, comon reflection with our European friends, and forging common diplomacy. It was that diplomacy that carried us together throughout the negotiation and throughout Kosovo’s independence.” 

In February, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) interviewed Winser in a piece titled “Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Unbelievably Regrettable,’” though he conceded that declaration of independence by Kosovo would carry both “positive and not so positive” repercussions.

In this excerpt Wisner describes a positive result of Kosovo’s independence:

“I think the key positive one is that an issue that has hung over all of us over the course of the 1990s—the repression of Kosovo by the Belgrade government, ending in a violent expulsion of nearly half the population, many thousands of deaths, and destruction of property—a situation that produced an unbridgeable gap between the Albanian Kosovar community and the [Serbs]—will be over. In a sense, that’s what history says. If you engage in actions of huge brutality, there is a consequence. Now, the right thing will be done.”

Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University professor and former member of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff, also recognizes that Kosovo’s independence brings both pluses and minuses.

In 2005 Kupchan argued in favor of independence for Kosovo in an article for the Foreign Affairs. In Kupchan’s March 2008 update of this argument he remarks:

“It is unfortunate that Kosovo’s independence from Serbia constitutes partition along ethnic lines and that it occurred without the legitimacy of a UN blessing. Serbia has admittedly suffered a painful amputation; keeping the country on the path to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community will be no easy task.

But the United States and its European partners were right to guide Kosovo to independence–even if they must now contain the fallout. In the long run, helping the Balkans absorb the jolt of a unilateral secession will leave the region far better off than if Kosovo had remained a ticking time bomb within Serbia.”

During his Middle East trip, Vice President Cheney offered several pragmatic remarks concerning the stalemate between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators:

“On Sunday, Cheney said the United States would continue to work toward the ‘long-overdue’ goal of creating a Palestinian state.

‘Achieving that vision will require tremendous effort at the negotiating table and painful concessions on both sides,’ Cheney said, adding that “it will also require a determination to defeat those who are committed to violence and who refuse to accept the basic right of the other side to exist.”

As Laura Rozen notes, Cheney’s urging for both sides to make painful concessions was right on par with what needed to be said, but surprising coming from the source.  While his comments regarding the peace-process may have given pause, he also provided expected assurances that the United States took notice of Iran’s threatening nature towards Israel, and renewed America’s commitment to ensure Israel’s security.

“Before dinner with Mr. Olmert on Saturday night, Mr. Cheney offered robust support for Israel.

‘America’s commitment to Israel’s security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction,’ Mr. Cheney said. The United States, he said, ‘will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security.”

Addressing Arab-Israeli peace, the author of this Jerusalem Post editorial believes Arab states should “lead by example, rather than waiting for the divided and radicalized Palestinians to move first.”  The author might be pleased to read that Yemen’s plan to reconcile Fatah and Hamas has recently gained steam.  That said, Fatah negotiator Ahmed Qureia has begun to back-peddle from the agreement, stating that Abbas had not provided guidance on the proposal because he was hosting Vice President Cheney.

Based on Cheney’s statement’s today one might expect him to be unhappy with the reconciliation effort.  Cheney noted that “it is clearly a difficult situation, in part, because I think it’s true, there’s evidence, that Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria and that they’re doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process.”

The Huffington Post published an op-ed authored by three former Foreign Service Officers titled “Why We Said No: Three Diplomats’ Duty.” The authors, Ann Wright, John Brown,
and Brady Kiesling resigned as US diplomats in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

You may read Kiesling’s letter of resignation, published in the New York Times, here. Brown’s letter is available here.

I recommend reading the whole piece, but here are a few worthy excerpts:

“Love of country and professional self-respect compelled each of us to speak out, in the only honorable way open to us, by resigning. In our letters to Secretary of State Colin Powell, we opposed invading a country that posed no genuine threat to the United States. We underscored that our invasion would not be understood by our allies, that our occupation would be resisted, and that the consequences of the war would be dire for both Americans and Iraqis.”

Five years later, we do not regret our decision to leave the profession we loved. Faced with a flawed policy we had no power to change, the three of us embraced the hope Brady expressed in his resignation letter, that “our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting; [we] hope in a small way to contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share…

The invasion of Iraq had a terrible impact on America’s relationship with the world. The tricks of totalitarian manipulation of public opinion the White House used to “sell” the war at home — simplification of the issues, repetition of empty phrases, demonization of foreigners, and falsification of history — simply did not work abroad.

By counting on such methods, Bush appointees tainted the US informational, educational, and cultural programs that once were the beating heart of America’s public diplomacy efforts. The desperate PR campaign by Mr. Bush’s Texas confidante, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, failed utterly to repair the damage…”

More recently US diplomats clashed with the Bush administration over mandatory tours at the dangerous Baghdad embassy.

It’s worth noting that the Defense Department and its community of retirees also experienced a small-scale revolt over the war in the spring of 2006. A group of generals called for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld over his purported mismanagement of the war.

Exactly one month to the day, Serb rioters broke into the U.S. embassy in Belgrade in a public display of their anger towards the United State for their recognition of Kosovo as an independent state.  International Crisis Group completed an excellent briefing this week summarizing the events of the last month and laying out several key steps that could help alleviate the situation.  It is well worth a click.  Here is the full report, and if you prefer to read the condensed version, here’s the overview.  While we are on Kosovo, FPA recently hosted Frank Wisner, Special Representative of the Secretary of State to the Kosovo Status talks.  Check out the video.

This week violence broke out the capitol city of Tibet. Tibetans demanding independence from China took to the street in a rare act of defiance from almost 50 years of Chinese rule. Tibet’s government-in-exile said 80 Tibetans had been confirmed killed by the Chinese while trying to squash the protests.

The Economist reports in-depth from Lhasa:

“China suppressed the worst outbreak of violence in Tibet since 1989 and perhaps since 1959 (when Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, was forced into exile). The violence spread from the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, to other areas of the region. China blamed the Dalai Lama for fomenting the violence even though he called for an end to it.”

US officials are urging China to ease up on the protesters and to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked that China ”respect the fundamental and universally recognized right of all of its citizens to peacefully express their political and religious views, and we call on China to release monks and others who have been detained solely for the peaceful expression of their views.”

Rice also urged Chinese to reignite dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet who has been exiled from Tibet since 1959:

“We have really urged the Chinese over several years to find a way to talk with the Dalai Lama, who is a figure of authority, who is not a separatist, and to find a way to engage him and bring his moral weight to a more sustainable and better solution of the Tibet issue,” Rice said.

But as PRI’s The World radio program reported, there are no signs of dialogue breaking out any time soon.

The tumult in Tibet ratchets up the scrutiny over China’s human rights practices in advance of the summer Olympics, to begin in five months in Beijing. In an attempt to put pressure on China to reform its practices Nicholas Kristoff, New York Times columnist and genocide activist, deemed the 2008 summer Olympics the “genocide olympics,” in reference to China’s support of the Sudanese government who is international pressure to act to prevent the genocide of its people in its Darfur region.

Here is a Washington Post editorial that foresaw the political issues surrounding China’s dealings with Sudan and its hosting of the international games.

On his way to a scheduled trip to Israel and the West Bank, Vice President Cheney made an unannounced stop in Iraq. Now five years since the invasion commenced, the Vice President met with Prime Minister Maliki to push him on political reconciliation. While he described changes since his last visit ten months ago as “phenomenal“, Cheney may want to recall his top commander’s statements last week. General Patraeus noted the lack of political reconciliation, revealing that no one in the U.S. or Iraq government felt progress has been sufficient. Cheney also plans to discuss a long-term security agreement, perhaps tying the hands of the following administration.

On the next stop of the Vice President’s trip, he will endeavor to keep both the Israelis and Palestinians to uphold their obligations set out in the road map. I would like to invite our readers to comment on what the Vice President might do or say to bring both sides to respect the road map and to promote the now stalled negotiations.