U.S. Diplomacy

There have been rumors circulating (or for some hawks, wishful thinking) that the Bush administration has been considering a unilateral attack on Iran. The move would be aimed at halting the Iranian government’s nuclear enrichment program, which the US government believes will lead to the development of not just nuclear energy (as the Iranians claim) but nuclear weapons.

The recent resignation of U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon, caused a stir in the administration that was revealing of the administration’s mindset on the issue.

The Washington Post reports: “The abrupt resignation of the Pentagon’s top Middle East commander has silenced one of the Bush administration’s fiercest opponents of a unilateral military strike against Iran, yet top administration officials themselves do not see real prospects for military action before the end of President Bush’s term, current and former U.S. officials say.

According to the Post Fallon “had irked the White House in recent months by publicly opposing possible military action against Iran. But support for a military strike within the administration has eroded steadily in recent months, and Fallon’s departure will do little to change that, the officials said.”

Further taming the rumors of a US attack on Iran is William Akin op-ed countering the US News and World Report article (linked to above).

Support for an attack against Iran is also eroding among the global public. The BBC World Service recently released a 31-country poll that showed: “Across all 31 countries surveyed in the latest poll (the 21 tracking countries plus an additional 10 countries polled for the first time), most respondents oppose the use of economic sanctions or military strikes. Compared to results from a June 2006 BBC World Service Poll, support for economic sanctions or military strikes has declined significantly, including in countries that were previously among the highest supporters of tough action.”

Meanwhile, in the absence of official diplomatic relations between the two nations, some members of the American NGO community are engaging the Iranians in face to face diplomacy (that is not to say, though, that the State Department isn’t working tirelessly to foster a more positive relationship with Iran). Jonathan Granoff, President of the Pennsylvania-based Global Security Institute (GSI) tells of a recent trip he took to Tehran at the invitation of Iranian Foreign Ministry. Last week Granoff spoke at the conference held by the Institute for Political and International Studies of the Foreign Ministry of Iran titled the “International Conference on Iran’s Peaceful Nuclear Program and Activities: Modality of Cooperation with the IAEA.”

According to Granoff he was the only American at the meeting: “I accepted an invitation to speak, although there were no other presenters from any Western country at the morning plenary session. In fact, there were no other Americans speaking at the conference, although there was a small US interfaith delegation in attendance.”

About delivering his speech he commented: “Whether any of these points resonated with the Iranian decision makers at the conference, only time will tell. However, I can comfortably report that in every instance I was treated with respect and no effort was spared to ensure my travels were comfortable. Moreover, I had the opportunity to spend some free time in Tehran and was surprised to find such an active, engaging population with whom I did not encounter any negative responses to being an American. In fact, it seemed everyone wanted to participate in conversation and many people spoke English… I wish Americans had as much understanding and appreciation of Iranians as they seem to have of us.”

So this past week, although the Bush administration lost an opponent of war in Iran, support for a US attack on Iran waned in the White House and in the eyes of the global public, and Iran gained a new American friend. All in all I’d call it a good week for US-Iranian relations.

John Bolton, former Bush-appointed Ambassador to the United Nations, recently authored a book, titled Surrender Is Not An Option.

The American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank in Washington, DC at which Bolton is a scholar, describes the book:

“With no-holds-barred candor, the straight-talking former ambassador to the United Nations takes readers behind the scenes at the U.N. and the U.S. State Department and reveals why his efforts to defend American interests and reform the U.N. resulted in controversy. A veteran of three Republican administrations and a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, Bolton shows how the U.S. can lead the way to a more realistic global security arrangement for the twenty-first century and identifies the next generation of threats to America.”

Bolton discusses the book, and answers questions about his criticism for the Bush administration in an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel this past December.
A blogger on Global Poltician posted an excerpt of the book in which Bolton comments on his colleagues at the State Department:

“…Anyone who has ever engaged in an internal turf struggles with State [Department] bureaucrats knows the true meaning of street fighting. Instead of fighting with ourselves, however, in a circular firing squad, we should be directing our energies against our foreign adversaries, which we are certainly not now doing adequately. This cultural problem is solvable, although we need to understand that, because it developed over decades, it will take decades to cure…”

It should be noted that Bolton is widely known for his combative personality, which could shed some light into how his time at the Department was spent fighting. I doubt many of his colleagues would liken their internal relations to street fighting. But that certainly doesn’t mean that internal struggles do not exist at the Department.

In the following passage Bolton rationalizes why he was one of the more undiplomatic diplomats to join the Foreign Service:

“Diplomacy should come to mean advocacy. Advocacy for American interests must be the priority, not compromise and conciliation for their own sake. Disagreement with foreign friends or adversaries is not itself distasteful, nor simply an unpleasantness to be overcome as rapidly and quietly as possible without regard to substantive outcomes. Disagreement reveals underlying issues that should be resolved consistently with our own interests… Argument, which lawyers do all the time, but which diplomats shy away from, I neither unpleasant nor disagreeable, but actually critical to making the case for the interests we are advancing…(pages 454-455).”

These two passages shed some light on his time at the Department, though I can’t say I am dropping everything to read the rest of the book. Let’s hope it isn’t as bad as the political blog Wonkette paints it: “If his interview with Spiegel is any sort of harbinger for things to come, then the tome is sure to be the must-not-read of the century.”

UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations held a conference yesterday discussing US foreign policy and rogue states. Reviewing the list of accomplished conference speakers, I, and I’m sure my co-blogger would agree, wished the event was held in DC (yes, I see no need to hide my east coast bias). One of the speakers, Dan Drezner blogged while listening to keynote speaker, Bill Richardson. Richardson’s address focused on developing personal relationships with leaders and his experience dealing with rogue regimes. Check it out…

The current issue of American Interest has a fascinating article lauding China’s “smart policy” compared to the United States. The author, Kishore Mahbubani, is dean of the National University of Singapore. Mahbubani’s article predominantly deals with China, however I have teased out several indictments on US actions, as interpreted by a foreign observer.

Concerning the policy discourse within the United States, Mahbubani states, “no country can match America’s conceptual output in volume. The story is different when it comes to quality, however…The typical time horizon in Washington hovers somewhere between the daily spin for the evening talk shows and the next elections cycle. In Beijing the clear focus is on where China wants to be in fifty years in order to avoid a repetition of the two centuries emerging as a modern power.”

Mahbubani’s right to point that the media’s drive for 24 hour news cycles has an infected the public’s perspective when considering long-term subjects. However, I doubt policymaker are factoring in the evening talks shows. It is job of the communication officials to maintain talking points, and that should not be confused with political appointee’s and cabinet members who largely engage in the policy process.

It is not surprising that a nation on the rise and likely to become a superpower would be more likely to engage in policy discourse in long-term strategic terms. Likewise, the United States is the current superpower and must consider the benefits and costs of their short-term actions as much as their long-term strategic interests.

The Association of Southeast Asian Neighbors (ASEAN), created by the Untied States with the intention to contain the Soviet Union’s influence, is now neglected by the U.S. to their detriment, in the eyes of Mahbubani:

“Yet, when ASEAN held a summit to celebrate its fortieth anniversary in November 2007, it was China that sent its Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, to attend the celebrations. Neither George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, nor Condoleezza Rice turned up. Indeed, two months earlier, Bush had suddenly canceled a U.S.-ASEASN Summit set for September 2007 so that he could make another secret stopover in Baghdad. Similarly, Rice had failed to turn up at the regular ASEAN Ministerial Meetings in 2005 and 2007. (Her predecessor wisely never missed one.)”

The State Department should send high-level representatives in addition to Condoleezza Rice to ASEAN summits. The United States should take advantage of these opportunities to listen to the concerns of Asian nations, as well as explain policy initiatives.

Mahbubani then compares the warm relationship between China and other Asian states to that of the U.S. and its Latin America neighbors. “Today, public opinion surveys show strong anti-Americanism in Latin American states, Brazil and Argentina, have swung leftward and now keep a politically useful distance from the United States.” While states in South America may occasionally publicly chide the United States, none would argue the United States does not continue to wield considerable influence in the region. Additionally, the United States is looking to include more Latin American countries in trade agreements.

“New cultural and political perspectives are entering the complex chessboard, most Western commentators expected (with good reason) that the Western powers would continue to be the shrewdest and most adept geopolitical actors. Instead, they have floundered; the Europeans because they are introspective to a fault, and the Americans arguably because they are not introspective enough. Western incompetence has provided significant opportunities that China has been able to exploit without paying any serious political price.”

The balancing act of remaining introspective to assess one’s capabilities, in order to complement the understanding of one’s rival’s intentions and capabilities is an issue often raised by Madeline Albright, and interestingly reminiscent of Sun Tzu’s words. This is fair criticism. Again, it is likely that China and other significant powers will act in such a manner. While it can be viewed in negative terms, and should be, it also infers that the United States remains the strongest actor, or else the soft-balancing would cease.

Unfortunately, the online edition of American Interest requires a subscription, but I highly recommend purchasing the latest issue. For further information on U.S.-China relations, particularly trade issues, check out our colleague’s blog.

A new report from the Washington, DC-based think tanks the Center for International Policy, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) examines the gradual shift of foreign policy decision-making away from the State Department toward the Defense Department. Cleverly titled “Ready, Aim, Foreign Policy,” it can be downloaded here.

Here’s a snippet:

“…A disturbing transformation of U.S. foreign policy decision-making is quietly underway. The Defense Department’s leadership of foreign military aid and training programs is increasing. The State Department, which once had sole authority to direct and monitor such programs, is ceding control. Moreover, changes to the U.S. military’s geographic command structure could grant the military a greater role in shaping, and becoming the face of, U.S. foreign policy where it counts—on the ground.”

While the authors explain that the Defense Department has been gradually seeping into activities usually reserved for the State Department for the last two decades, three recent examples demonstrate that this trend has been accelarting in recent years:

• “First, the Bush Administration endeavored to expand a pilot program, known as “Section 1206,” into a permanent, large-scale, global Defense Department military aid fund with few strings attached.
• Second, the State Department, rather than contesting this challenge to its authority, called for a restructuring of foreign aid that would happily cede its management of military aid programs to the Defense Department and reduce congressional oversight.
• Third, the U.S. military offered plans to restructure geographic commands to give them a greater role in coordinating U.S. civilian agencies’ activities.” [An example of this restructuring, the Defense Department’s new central command for all of Africa, or AFRICOM, was discussed in an earlier post on this blog].

The report’s authors underscore why it matters that the Defense Department increasingly controls military aid programs: “[These changes] diminish Congressional, public and even diplomatic control over a substantial lever and symbol of foreign policy. They will undercut human rights values in our relations with the rest of the world, and increase the trend toward a projection of U.S. global power based primarily on military might.” The authors go on to cite several examples from their region of expertise, Latin America, but maintain that the changes effect U.S. foreign policy in all regions of the world.

Veteran IPS correspondent Jim Lobe reported summarized the findings of the report and added some inside-the-beltway perspective:

“While the Pentagon, like Gates, clearly understands that Washington faces regional challenges that are not susceptible to military solutions, according to the report, its sheer size compared to the civilian agencies give it an increasingly dominant role in relations with other countries, greater even than that of the resident ambassador who traditionally has been the main coordinator of U.S. policy and representative of the U.S. government in foreign states.

The risk is that the security dimensions of the bilateral relationship are given greater weight, often at the expense of other key considerations, such as human rights, equitable development, and the rule of law, according to the report. In addition, a greater emphasis on sustaining and building up local militaries, which may be repressive and corrupt, may actually prove counter-productive.”

He added that this report is just the latest in a series of studies warning of the increasing militarisation of U.S. foreign policy. This is an extremly important, timely, report. It is essential reading for the next administration for sure, if not all of you interested in foreign policy issues.

Public Radio International’s The World show also broadcast a segment about the report, and interviewed Washington PostSenior Diplomatic Correspondent Karen DeYoung about the significance of this shift.

The report was released the same day that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had breakfast with the members of the House Foreign Relations Committee (HFAC) hearing to discuss what was called “the persistent imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy.”

While no transcript of Gates’ remarks is available, Gates has made several public statements about the need for better funding for more “soft power,” civilian activities. In January, at an event at the Center for International Security Studies, Gates said that the challenges posed by the global war on terrorism “cannot be overcome by military means alone and they extend well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or department. They require our government to operate with unity, agility, and creativity, and will require devoting considerably more resources to non-military instruments of national power.”

At the hearing, HFAC Acting Chairman Howard Berman observed “Berman observed that “in his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush affirmed that diplomacy and development are just as important as defense. They will not be funded equally, but we should strive to strike a better balance than we have now. The budget for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development together is anemic next to that of the Defense Department.”

Berman also expressed his concern for the problem: “This committee is examining the issue closely to guard against Defense Department over-reaching into areas traditionally under the authority of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We’re concerned that an overly expansive military role in support of short-term security interests could work to the detriment of long-term foreign policy goals, which would be dangerous and destabilizing. The face of America abroad needs to be, first and foremost, its diplomats. Secretary Gates’ breakfast with us is a welcome first step in making sure this happens.”

This is a good first step. But the following statement Berman made at the breakfast might reveal that in this tug of war of resources between the two Departments, he might be biased toward Defense: ”The gap in civilian capacity has over-burdened the military, which has assumed tasks best performed by civilian experts.”

This is true, but ut seems a little backwards to look at an underfunded State Department and focus on how its deficiencies burden the Defense Department, rather than the practice of diplomacy itself.

Nuclear proliferation was the subject of some important meetings across the globe this week.

In New York City: The UN Security Council met to slap Iran with new sanctions for its nuclear program. Reuters reported:

“The U.N. Security Council on Monday imposed a third round of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, even though some members acknowledged that more penalties were unlikely to change Tehran’s mind… The sponsors of the resolution, the five permanent council members the US, Russia, China, Britain and France) plus Germany, said they were trying to provide Iran with a choice between isolation and engagement, and that the new sanctions were intended to demonstrate that the council was serious.”

The BBC published an international round-up of news commentary on the Security Council’s move. Most authors express skepticism that this round of sanctions would prove effective.

The sentiment of the journalists and pundits reflected that of some US diplomats currently negotiating the sanctions. Bill Leurs, former Ambassador and current President of the United Nations Association (UNA-USA), Thomas Pickering, former US Ambassador and co-chairman of UNA-USA, and James Walsh, a research associate at MIT, authored an article in the International Herald Tribune titled “How to end the U.S.-Iran standoff.”

Their stance on the new sanctions is this: “Continuing to try to sanction Iran has made life difficult for some Iranians but will not coerce Iran to change its commitment to a nuclear program. Nor will sanctions result in regime change. U.S. diplomacy has proven that there is world opposition to Iran having nuclear weapons, but it has not prevented Iran from continuing to build large numbers of centrifuges to enable them to enrich uranium.”

They boiled down the standoff to this: “Face-to-face U.S.-Iran talks on the nuclear program are blocked because Washington will not agree to talk until Iran suspends nuclear enrichment. Iran says it will never suspend. The U.S. insistence on zero enrichment on Iranian soil grows less viable with every newly constructed Iranian centrifuge.”

Their recipe for success is contained in this article published in the New York Times Review of Books.

In Oslo, ambassadors gathered to attend an international conference on nuclear disarmament titled “Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.” At the conference the International Atomic Energy Chief Mohammed ElBaradei put pressure, refreshingly, on Russia and the US to reduce their nuclear arsenals.

In Washington, DC the non-partisan, quasi-governmental think tank the US Institute for Peace held an event titled “A World Without Nuclear Weapons: The International Dimension.” You can listen to part one of the event by clikcing here here, and part two here here.

The titles of both conference in Oslo and DC borrow from an important Wall Street Journal op-edauthored in January 2007 by a group of former US statesmen calling for nothing less than the abolition of nuclear weapons. The authors, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, George Shultz and William Perry, were key players at the conference this week in Oslo, attempting to move forward their ambisious agenda. National Public Radio broadcast a segment about their efforts in Oslo.

Side note: If you’re like me and you have a hard time keeping up with the complexities of the nuclear “standoff” between Iran and the international community–not to mention the scientific complexities of producing nuclear energy/weapons– a glance at the Carnegie Endowment’s ”Iran Compliance Timeline“ probably won’t make you feel any better. While an eye trained in diplomatic negotiations might find it immensely illuminating, to me it looks like about as clear as the London Tube map.

Nuclear non-proliferation is an extremely complicated and important campaign that requires diligence, enormous effort, diplomatic elan, a lot of patience and apparently some good map-reading skills. My hats off to all the diplomats–past and present–invovled in the negotiations and summits in New York, Osloand Washington, and beyond.

This week there is a lot of action going on at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The UN Security Council is meeting about imposing new sanctions on Iran. The Commission on the Status of Women is in its second week of meetings.

To add to the action, now comes reports of controversy surrounding UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbor. Reuters reported last week that Arbour was expected to step down from the position in June, two years before her term ends.

On Monday the Associated Press reported from Geneva, where the High Commissioner’s office is based: “UN chief wants council to lay off human rights commissioner.” By the title the AP means lay off, as in “ease up,” not lay off, as in “fire,” which is actually what the Council was hoping Secretary General Ban Ki Moon would do.

The AP reported that Ki Moon warned the 47 members states of the UN Human Rights Council, set up two years ago by the UN General Assembly, about meddling with the UN human rights staff:

“He was clearly referring to attempts by African countries in the council to rein in the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, and any of her successors. Diplomats said the countries had tried put the high commissioner’s office under control of the council, which is heavily dominated by developing countries that are often in conflict with Arbour and Western nations over rights issues.”

Reuters explains that the High Commissioner’s has controversy built in to the job description: “The High Commissioner’s job, created in 1994, is central to the U.N.’s credibility as a protector of international human rights. Its holder has more or less free rein to comment on situations affecting rights around the globe. “

But apparently Arbour has ruffled the feathers of representatives in the developed world as well. Colum Lynch of the Washington Post reported that she has “also been a lightning rod for American conservatives, including the former U.S. envoy to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, who scolded her in 2005 for using Human Rights Day to criticize U.S. anti-terrorism tactics instead of highlighting rights abuses by countries such as Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Even supporters say she has trod lightly over abuses by some of the most powerful U.N. members, including China and Russia, leaving the United Nations increasingly silent on some of the world’s most pressing human rights issues.”

Indeed the Heritage foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, DC, called Arbour’s rumored departure a “mixed blessing.” “Arbour has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment and an alarming willingness to cater to the world’s more repressive regimes, but there is no guarantee that her successor will be any better.

Lynch addedthat Arbour “took issue with congressional critics, particularly Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who implied that Arbour is responsible for the council’s failing and in a statement Thursday said [Arbour] has a record of “condemning democracies and defending tyrants.”

Despite the critics, Lynch describedthat Arbour does have a fan base among human rights advocates: “Human rights advocates largely praised Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, as a tough, principled lawyer who has offered the United Nations’ most forceful critique of the United States’ use of harsh interrogation techniques and the transfer of suspects to countries where they stand a chance of being tortured. They note that she has done more to expand the presence of U.N. rights monitors around the world, making reports on abuses from Baghdad to Katmandu routine.”

Secretary Condoleezza Rice travels to Israel this week to help restart peace talks.  Rocket attacks followed by Israeli raids escalated towards the end of last week, erupting into a Gaza incursion on Saturday.   Abu Mazen suspended negotiations with Israel, due to the escalation in violence.

We have cited on this blog before the dual track Israel has pursued: bolster support of Abu Mazen through negotiations, while isolating and increasing pressure on Hamas.  Last week’s events show that these tracks are interconnected, placing an ominous feeling over the peace-process.    

If the Annapolis Conference is looking more like just a photo opportunity, it is because the United States has not played an active role in negotiations.  Now that negotiations appear to be falling apart, Secretary Rice has no choice but to get involved. 

What’s most disconcerting is that if Secretary Rice fails to resurrect peace talks, Israel will more than likely go ahead with a large invasion of Gaza.  McClatchy journalist Dion Nissenbaum recently pointed out that a tipping point is afoot.  A large scale invasion into Gaza would spell disaster for peace negotiations, leaving Fatah and Abu Mazen with few options.   One such option would be to resume armed struggle against Israel, and perhaps a third intifada.  Zvi Bar’el writing in Haaretz notes, “the Gazan civilian population, hundreds of thousands of whose representative grabbed hold of the lifeline that was momentarily available to them when Hamas breached the wall closing them in, is the dynamite on which the first and second intifadas were built.”

Now’s the time for Secretary Rice to step up to the challenge and bring US influence to bear on this dire circumstance.