U.S. Diplomacy

President Bush began a five-country European tour on Monday, his last trip to Europe as President. The pre-take-off remarks he made to the Washington press corps on what he hopes to acheive there can be read here and watched here.

Bush kicked off the trip with an annual European Council summit in Slovenia. While the subject of the talks ranged from human rights, to climate change to European affairs, but Bush’s aim was squarely focused on pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program.  A summary of the declaration passed at the summit can be read here.

The trip comes at a point where Europeans’ opinion of Bush are lower than that of Americans–despite efforts on the part of the President to reachout to European leaders. Many of these leaders already see Bush as a “lame duck,” and hope that the next President will usher in a new phase in transatlantic relations. 

But a recent International Herald Tribune article reminds:

“The one-day meeting will also show that many areas of friction will remain, no matter who is elected to the White House. “It will be easier to work with a new administration,” said one EU official who deals with trans-Atlantic relations speaking on condition of anonymity, “but the best way not to lose your illusions is not to have too many to start with.”

European newspaper editors told PRI’s The World radio program yesterday what issues they consider most desreving of Bush’s attention, and what they think Mr. Bush’s legacy will be.

Former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering tells the Independent the United States and Iran have been holding back channel talks over its nuclear program for several years.

Last month Pickering, along with William Leurs and James Walsh, authored an editorial in the International Herald Tribune regarding stagnation in the United States’ policy towards Iran. They note a “growing number of American leaders calling for direct talks with Iran.” However, the authors acknowledge “not one has yet made a concrete proposal on what to say to the Iranians other than to tell them to stop enrichment.”

In the absence of public officials discussing and working through such a proposal, Pickering and a number of other American “former diplomats and experts” are fleshing through details on “wide ranging issues” that could lead to an agreement between the two nations. The Iranian group includes “academics and policy advisors.” Two institutions have aided the group in its organization, the UN Association of the USA and the International Peace Research Institute.

It’s difficult to judge if the group’s work has any influence in discussions within the administration concerning a policy alternative. Pickering did mention, “the Bush administration ‘did not discourage us.’”

Despite this recent development, the United States raised its level of rhetoric against Iran. Regarding its influence in Iraq, Iranian analyst Nader Uskowi viewed General Patreaus’ comments during his Congressional testimony last week as evidence of the United States drawing a line, with potential consequences:

“Any assertion of tactical command role played by Iran in armed clashes, like what happened in Basra last week, could have immense consequences on US relations with Iran. It would renew concern that such assertions could be precursor to a military attack on Iran, even though the mathematics involving the availability of US troops to open a new front against Iran is highly questionable.”

Meanwhile, Iran recently installed 3,000 new centrifuges in Natanz.

FPA’s Public Diplomacy blog published today a post about an author who was quite critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign policy. Fred Kaplan gave the next US president advice on how to “undo the damage” done by the Bush administration.

This post reviews another article critical of President Bush’s diplomatic practices. Timothy Garton Ash, a British professor and a regular columnist for the Guardian newspaper penned an article this week titled “Europe owes a huge thank you to skilful, patient President George Bush.”

Ash states: “Future historians will record that Europe owes much to George Bush. With patient, accomplished statecraft, they will note, he played midwife to a historic unification of eastern and western Europe. His handling of Russia was little short of masterly. At the same time, he built an impressive international coalition to defeat Saddam Hussein.”

Once we get the image of the President dressed up as a midwife out of our heads we can deal with Ash’s argument. OK. Unification of Europe? Impressive coalition? “Masterly” diplomacy with Russia? One might ask what planet is Ash on?

But wait-he’s talking about Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. In fact Ash’s article dishes out a scathing review of Bush Jr.’s diplomatic engagement with Europe, beginning with this remark: “It is painful to reflect how much the father did for Europe in four years and how little (to put it mildly) the son will have achieved in eight.”

(Ash depicted by the New York Review of Books).

He goes on to remark “In short, the W in George W stands for weak. For all the macho Texan swagger - “your man [Blair] has cojones” and so on - this Bush has been, on the things that really matter to the world, a weak president. Whereas the outwardly mild and preppy George Bush Sr was, on things that really mattered to the world, a strong president - that is, an effective practitioner of international statecraft.”

Ash spoke nostalgically of Bush Sr.’s success at unifying Germany in the 1990’s, and his “soft-talking” of Mikail Gorbachev into accepting that Germany should belong to NATO. Today Bush Jr. faces resistance from Germany and France over his proposal to fold Ukraine into NATO. Ash comments:

“Had Bush Jr taken a leaf out of his father’s book, or at least read Condi’s [book about Bush Sr.’s negotiations with Gorbachev]; had he done the intensive, private diplomacy with allies and with Moscow as well as the public diplomacy in Ukraine; called in yesterday’s favours; chosen his moment; worried less about form than about content; then the US could, over a number of years, have achieved the desired result in partnership with its European allies. Instead, he’s making yet another unilateral cod’s ear.”

It’s no wonder Ash is nostalgic for Bush senior when you consider how he predicts the world will be like under a Democratic President’s watch. Two years ago Ash played Nostradamus for his Guardian readers, writing a fake news story titled “The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton’s bombing of Iran in 2009: In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York.”

In this doomsday scenario set in 2009 the US goes to war with Iran (with the help of the British military of course) after failing to even consider any diplomatic options. It may come as no surprise that Ash—albeit indirectly—attributes the resort to war in 2009 to lack and failure of diplomatic engagement by Bush Jr., along with France, Germany and Britain, respectively:

“With hindsight, it appears that the turning point [in the West’s relations with Iran] may have come in the spring of 2006. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, having proclaimed his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, announced that his country had already successfully enriched uranium and hinted that it had the superior P-2 centrifuge technology. Whether true or not, these claims effectively destroyed the last hopes of achieving a diplomatic solution through negotiations led by the so-called E3 - France, Germany and Britain.”

Luckily in the real world diplomatic options for engaging Iran are still open—although each US Presidential candidate, Clinton included, says that the military option for getting Iran to halt a nuclear weapons program remains “on the table.” [Here is an interesting analysis of the three candidates’ positions on engaging Iran]. But apparently, at least as Ash sees it, the next President’s approach to Iran and the war on terror won’t matter much, since Bush Jr. has already set the path for diplomatic failure.

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.”

(Associated Press photo)

Secretary Rice gave her last testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

The hearing began with a moment of silence in memory of the recently-deceased California Democrat and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Tom Lantos. Howard L. Berman, another California Democrat, was appointed as the Committee’s Acting Chairman.

He began his chairmanship by welcoming the increase in spending for the State Department’s budget: “Madame Secretary, I strongly support the Administration’s overall international affairs budget request for Fiscal Year 2009. It surpasses current spending by nearly three billion dollars, a welcome turn of events.”

Congressman Berman continued: “The new budget request starts to address the reality that we have been far too slow to face: Our civilian agencies are woefully unprepared to handle the unprecedented global security challenges confronting the United States today.

Here’s just one example of that: A study just released by the RAND Corporation shows that despite the common notion that civil capabilities and military power are equally important to counterinsurgency operations overseas, the meager and infrequent bump-ups in the State Department’s budget have been “dwarfed” by massive increases in Pentagon spending. The report goes on to note, and I’m quoting here: “If Islamic insurgency is the gravest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces.” It goes on to say that we “must invest to correct (these) deficiencies and imbalances.”

Acting Chairman Berman’s full remarks can be viewed here.

The Committee’s minority leader, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also lamented Lantos’ death and then went on to express her concerns about a long list of challenges for US foreign policy, including: nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and others. You may access the full text of her remarks here.

Next Secretary Rice made her opening remarks, a transcript of which can be viewed here (as delivered). (A video of Secretary Rice’s testimony can be viewed by clicking here, and a video of the entire hearing can be viewed here).

Contrary to the hearing’s title “International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2009,” the remarks of both the lawmakers and the witness focused only briefly on the budget request, and more so on a variety of hot button conflicts in the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli/Palestinian issue, US troop commitment in Iraq, the Lebanon/Syria relationship—the Pakistani election and relations with China. The bulk of Secretary Rice’s discussion about the budget is contained in her prepared remarks, which were provided to the Committee in advance.

Congressman Ackerman used this opportunity to press Secretary Rice on whether her administration intends to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. The issue caused controversy earlier this month when President Bush left the option open–in opposition to Congress’ wishes, while members of his administration spoke otherwise. In the hearing Secretary Rice confirmed that it is “not our intention to seek permanent military bases in Iraq.”

It appears that foreign audiences were also eagerly watching Rise’s testimony. The Armenian online news site Defacto reported on Congressman Brad Sherman’s proposed budget for Armenia. The Russian online news outlet Kommersant reviewed the testimony with particular attention to the Secretary’s and lawmaker’s remarks toward Russia.

The fourth round of talks between Iran and the United States concerning security issues in Iraq have been postponed, at the behest of Iran.

“It had originally been slated for December 18 with Iraqi authorities touting it as a ‘technical meeting’ at experts level rather than a meeting of ambassadors.

However it was postponed, again at the request of Iran. Late January, Iranian officials said they had ’some concerns’ about the next round of discussions but did not elaborate.

The technical committee is made up of security and military experts as well as diplomats. It focuses on security rather than political issues.

Iran and the United States held three rounds of talks over Iraq last year amid mutual distrust.”

Sean McCormack, Spokesman for the State Department,  elaborated briefly during a press conference yesterday:

“At the moment, I don’t think there’s agreement on the date. The Iranians recently came back to us via the Iraqis, or came back to the Iraqis and saying that the tentative agreement on a date for getting together to talk about security issues in Iraq didn’t work for them. Okay. I can’t tell you the reasons behind that or what their, you know, why they decided to cancel the tentative meeting that was put together. You know, quite clearly, they thought their people had better things to do, I suppose.

We are prepared to continue to use this particular channel for a constructive exchange on issues related to Iraq and Iraq security. But you’ll have to ask the Iranian Government why it is that they decided not to participate in the meeting at this time.”

We all remember these famous words from President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address:

“States like these [Iran, North Korea and Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” 

But here are excerpts from two other State of the Union addresses given by President George W. Bush. Can you tell which one was given in 2006 and in 2008? 

Excerpt One: 

“[Iran is] a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon — and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.”  

Excerpt Two:

“We’re also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran. Iran’s rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas’ efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.  

Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iranis also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.” 

If you guessed that the first excerpt was part of the 2006 SOU address, and the second was part of the 2008, congratulations you are correct! 

Whether or not you think Bush’s speech writers have run out of ideas, one thing is for certain: The Iranian government didn’t like Bush’s message to Iran any better the second time around.

From the Associated Press: “Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called U.S. President George W. Bush’s accusations against Iran in his State of the Union address as redundant and insignificant, state television here reported.The TV quoted ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini as saying the American leader’s annual speech offered “repeated and stereotype (statements) … which lacked any new point and issue.”  The government spokesman had his own message for the US government:  “We advise the U.S. president to put the real concerns of American people on his agenda: economic recession, violations of human values and the severe psychological crisis of the its military people, dismayed over occupation of Iraq,” Hosseini said. 

[Side note: Because the US and Iran cut diplomatic ties between the two after the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, the US-Iranian public conversation is relegated to more symbolic modes of communication. On the same day as the President’s address the US Ambassador to the UN struck the wrong chord with the Bush administration for his choice of seat next to the Iranian foreign minister at the World Economic Forum meetings in Davos, Switzerland.]   Yet the point is not that the President’s speech writers, in their seven long years of wordsmithing, have run out of ideas. Rather, comparing the two addresses reveals that not much has changed in terms of Iranian-US relations over the past two years. And considering how tensions have grown between the two nations, perhaps that’s not such a bad thing. 

The 2008 address does distinguish itself from the 2006 by a growth in and refinement of the list of grievances the President gives for the Iranian regime: Oppression of the Iranian people, funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, backing Hamas’ efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land, developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, as well as its increasing capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon. 

However there has been a major change between 2006 and 2008 in regards to the nuclear grievances. In December of 2007 US intelligence services published a National Intelligence Estimate detailing Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The report found, contrary to the administration’s accusations, that Iran stopped working on a suspected nuclear weapons program more than four years ago.  The NIE had the effect of soothing escalating tensions between the two nations in the short term, but Bush’s determination to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program has not been deterred.  Michele Keleman of NPR offers an analysis of President Bush’s rationale for repeating a strong warning against Iran’s nuclear intentions:  

“U.S. diplomats are in the midst of negotiations on a U.N. sanctions resolution aimed at building up pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. News that the U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 has made the sanctions debate more complicated, according to diplomats involved. So the president has been repeating, often, all of his concerns about Iran’s behavior, to remind U.S. partners why they need to act.”

IPS’s reporting offers a reason why Bush’s remarks on US foreign policy in general sound so familiar: “With just less than one year left in his presidency, George W. Bush remains as focused as ever on the Middle East and Iraq and appears reluctant to take on any major new foreign policy challenges in the time that he remains in power.” 

Out of the hour-long address Bush’s remarks aimed at Iran were not the most widely-reported by the US media. Aside from the Iranian press’ publication of Tehran’s reaction, one Israeli online news outlet thought Bush’s message for Iran deserved a headline, pointing out that Bush said he would be willing to “confront those who threaten our troops” and defend its allies and interests in the Gulf.

One final note: The Council on Foreign Relations made available a video of a meeting on “U.S.-Iran Relations: Past, Present, and Future” The distinguished panelists (Trita Parsi and Barbara Slavin) discuss relations between the United States and Iran, including Iran’s role in Iraq, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, and prospects for an improved U.S.-Iran relationship in the future. 

Download link 

On Friday the State Department announced that Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary for Political Affairs, will be retiring from the number 3 post in the Department. Burns said he was leaving because it is “time for me to meet my obligations to my wife and three daughters, and it’s time to pursue other ventures outside the government.”

Click below to watch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s farewell remarks.

Burns’ departure also brought kind words from President Bush and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (also scheduled to retire at the end of his term). After 27 years of service, Burns is the highest ranking career diplomat in the foreign service.

The State Department announced Burns’ replacement–William Burns Ambassador to Russia up until today when the President recalled him from the Moscow embassy (Nicholas and William are of no relation).

An editorial in the Middle East Times calls Burns’ departure a “big loss” for the Bush administration, “coming at a time when the president hopes to shift the Middle East peace talks into high gear…

“Burns’ departure will deprive the administration of an experienced diplomat, one who understood the Middle East better than his bosses. In fact, Burns, who speaks Arabic, began his career in North Africa and the Middle East, first as an intern at the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, then vice consul and staff assistant to the ambassador in Cairo, (1983-1985), and then political officer at the American Consulate General in Jerusalem from 1985 to 1987. In this position, he coordinated U.S. economic assistance to the Palestinian population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem…”

The editorial continues: “…In selecting William Burns to replace Nicolas Burns, Bush and his secretary of State demonstrated the president’s commitment in trying to extract a peaceful solution in the Middle East before he leaves office exactly a year from this Monday.”

While some are hopeful about William’s appointment for the prospects of peace in the Middle East, others are weary that Nicholas’ departure will short circuit on ongoing nuclear negotiations with India. The Associated Press reports in an article titled “Diplomat’s Departure Muddles Nuke Deal:”

“…The departure of the State Department’s No. 3 official adds uncertainty to a U.S. nuclear deal with India that is already in deep trouble.

…The deal would allow the United States to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which has been cut off from international atomic markets because of its refusal to sign nonproliferation accords or accept their inspection regimes and its testing of nuclear weapons.

Although most major opposition in Congress has been countered, the deal still faces tough questions in India. The government has set up a committee to examine the pact, which Indian critics say could cap the country’s nuclear weapons program and would allow the United States to dictate Indian foreign policy…”

Yet the Times of India reports that President Bush expects Nicholas Burns will “continue to serve in an advisory capacity as the United States continues to make progress on the historic civilian nuclear agreement with India.”

Burns will be no slouch up until he leaves his post in March. The Agence France Presse reports that Burns will accompany Secretary Rice for key talks next week with her counterparts from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany in Berlin to discuss the new sanctions on Iran.

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.