U.S. Diplomacy

According to Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler, the release of intelligence on the Syrian nuclear site at al-Kibar, has had adverse effects on the negotiations with North Korea. Unfortunately, this development came at time when significant progress was being made.

Blake Hounshell of FP Passport rightly points out evidence of North Korea actively aiding Syria while negotiating agreements with the United States, will provide ample evidence for lawmakers seeking a tougher stance with North Korea.
Back to Wright and Kessler’s article. Regarding the diplomatic track with Syria an unnamed administration official said,”‘You need to comply with your international obligations, stop aiding foreign fighters going into Iraq, stop disrupting the situation in Lebanon, stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, stop repressing your own people, and stop this nuclear activity.’ And telling them we would look at military options but we wanted to take the diplomatic track first. But all of our political discussions became moot when Israel acted.”

Let’s say Israel did not destroy the facility at al-Kibar, do actions in the above statement sound diplomatic? It seems to me that this administration official has diplomacy confused with demands. Successful diplomatic initiatives like the talks with North Korea involve a key element, concessions. Apparently, that is a point missed with the unnamed official. Apologies for the rant.

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.

The Financial Times reports the United States has reached a compromise with North Korea over declaration of its nuclear activities.  The United States has agreed Pyongyang does not need to publicly state a complete declaration of its nuclear activities.  The compromise would allow for a “secret side-agreement” in which North Korea would acknowledge concerns over proliferation and uranium enrichment, but a public document would include a complete declaration of its plutonium program.

Further details still need to be worked out before its granted the President’s approval.  Also, “US officials are preparing to return to Pyongyang… to assess claims that North Korea only harvested 30kg of plutonium. Japan is also insisting North Korea account for Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korea over several decades.”

Check out the article.

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.

(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.

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 

Jay Lefkowitz, the US Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights, spoke at AEI last week of a renewed debate within the administration over its restrained diplomacy track with North Korea. Indeed, he offered three concrete steps for future engagement:

“1. We should now shift our focus from a short to a longer time frame. It is increasingly likely that North Korea will have the same nuclear status one year from now that it has today.

2. Policy should rest on assumptions that correlate with recent facts and events. It is evident that South Korea and China will not exert significant pressure on North Korea if they think it might lead to its collapse.

3. All negotiations with North Korea should firmly link human rights, economic support, and security issues.”

State Dept. spokesman Sean McCormack was quick to distance the administration from Lefkowitz’s comments. “He [Lefkowitz] is not, however, somebody who speaks authoritatively about the six-party talks. His comments certainly don’t represent the views of the administration.” However, North Korea policy likely falls along the usual fault lines within the Administration. The Vice President’s office arguing for a tougher stance, whereas the State Department maintains diplomatic tenets, working with the most recent agreement made during six-party talks.

Another possibility is at play here, and seems to be consistent with our policy and rhetoric towards Iran. Sending out ripples of a tougher stance towards North Korea might be a useful diplomatic tool. Articulating stronger costs for not acting, could push North Korea to meet future deadlines, which they have already shown a penchant to delay or miss.

Perhaps sensing the debate brewing at the White House, John Bolton penned an op-ed arguing for the United States to abandon the agreement reached last year. Bolton has long held animosity towards any deal with North Korea lacking tough measures for failure to comply.

Bolton sees a window of opportunity for President Bush. “Given the recent South Korean presidential election results, Mr. Bush will soon have a willing ally in Lee Myung-bak, who will be inaugurated on Feb. 25. After 10 years, a realist will once again occupy Seoul’s Blue House, one who will support a tougher American line rather than oppose it.”

As Timothy Savage of North Korea zone notes, a shift in the diplomatic track with North Korea could be announced during the upcoming state of the union address. We will certainly be listening here and report back any significant changes, if they’re mentioned.

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.