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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

From April 11^th to April 17th, 1971 a group of Americans were invited to play ping pong in China. Dubbed ping pong diplomacy, it helped improve U.S.-China relations. In fact, on April 14^th of that year the United States announced it would end it’s trade embargo with China. One year later Nixon made his infamous trip to China. In another attempt to utilize American soft power, the New York Philharmonic orchestra arrived in Pyongyang yesterday. The orchestra played on Tuesday night (which due to the time difference has already ended) and was broadcasted on North Korea’s state-run TV and radio.

Playing a concert may seem ho-hum here, however in North Korea one can be thrown in jail for listening to a foreign broadcast. What’s more, North Koreans are now more likely to hear foreign broadcasts as a result of trade with China:

“Activists working to improve human rights in North Korea largely agree that there is a unique window of opportunity at this time.

One reason is the growing availability of radios. The short-wave radios sold in North Korea are relatively expensive, come fixed to state-run stations, and must be registered with the authorities. However, thanks to a growing cross-border trade with China, much of it unofficial, cheap AM radios are proliferating in North Korea — along with used videotape players that Chinese seek to sell when they upgrade to DVD players.

There’s anecdotal evidence that one-third or more of the population has access to AM radios that can be freely tuned to nongovernment stations, according to Mr. Lefkowitz, an estimate confirmed by other North Korea watchers. The Chinese radios are also small, which means that they are easier to hide.”

While it is too soon to infer what influence the New York Philharmonic orchestra had, Musical Director Lorin Maazel can point to it’s influence in the past. “It [the New York Philharmonic orchestra] showed Soviet citizens that they could have relations with foreign organizations and these organizations could come in the country freely,’ he said. ‘But what the Soviets didn’t realize was, this was a two-edged sword.’

‘By allowing interactions between people from outside the country with people inside, eventually the people found themselves out of power.”

In an op-ed, Maazel wrote, “I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there. If we are gradually to improve U.S.-Korean relations, such events have the potential to nudge open a door that has been closed too long.”

The New York Philharmonic orchestra may be just the first round of a new musical diplomacy. Indeed, the Guardian is reporting today that Eric Clapton has been invited to play in North Korea. As a great classic rock band once wrote, “Whoa, we got to let the music play.”

When Henry Crumpton speaks, the US Diplomacy blog listens. Henry, also know as “Hank” during his time at the CIA, played a pivotal role in overthrowing the Taliban months after Sept 11^th. He is currently the Ambassador-at-Large for counterterrorism at the State Department. Crumpton understands the intricacies of the tribal nature in Afghanistan. He recognizes that our structures are not built for the local fight. Additionally, he is a superb strategic thinker and demonstrates this from a recent talk he gave at CSIS. For some weekend viewing, enjoy.

Breaking news: U.S. Embassy broke into and set afire by Serbian protestors. Here’s the brief from International Herald Tribune,”Serb rioters broke into the U.S. Embassy Thursday and set fire to an office after a massive protest against Kosovo’s independence that drew an estimated 150,000 people.

Masked attackers broke into the building, which has been closed this week, and tried to throw furniture from an office. A blaze broke out inside one of the offices and parts of the facade also caught fire.

Authorities drove armored jeeps down the street and fired tear gas to clear the crowd. The protesters dispersed into side streets where they continued clashing with authorities.

The neighboring Croatian Embassy also was attacked by the same group of protesters.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack strongly urged the Serbian government to protect the U.S. Embassy. He said the U.S. ambassador was at his home and was in contact with U.S. officials.”

This is an open thread for anyone who would like to comment on the volatile situation.

Three months ago, President Bush announced a lofty goal: Peace will be achieved and a two state solution will be at hand by the end of his term. This blog has urged President Bush and Secretary Rice to remain deeply engaged with negotiations. Three months later and it is clear that has not happened. More worrisome, is the judgment not to push for final-status issues, particularly Jerusalem.

Olmert and Abbas met Tuesday in another round of talks. Palestinian chief negotiator Sa’eb Eerkat said the meeting did not include final-status issues. “Instead, he expected the talks to focus on day-to-day areas of concern, such as Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.” Frankly, this sounds like a stall tactic.

First, Prime Minister Olmert previously declared that any construction in the West Bank must go through his office. The Israeli delegation is aware that further construction undermines Abbas and provides a false sticking point (effectively blocking more pertinent issues). Second, the barrage of rockets from Gaza are launched by Hamas, who are not part of negotiations. Fatah, whose forces fled Gaza in the summer (and based on this report aren’t exactly happy with their leadership), have no control over the rockets. Of course, Israel knows that both of these issues undermine Fatah, therefore it begs the question, what are their intentions?

To be fair, the rockets raining down on Sderot are a grave issue that must be addressed. One might expect an IDF offensive into Gaza to stem the problem. This morning, Defense Minister Barak signaled plans of an offensive against Hamas in Gaza. What, if anything, can Fatah agree to with regards to rockets coming from Gaza? Again, it seems like a stall tactic.

The United States is the key to a breakthrough. Israel and the PA both have hardened positions, which need be pushed along by President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. It is very unlikely that concessions will come about without their help. Unfortunately, the United States is doing just the opposite.

“A senior Jerusalem source said Monday that Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had agreed to defer talks on Jerusalem to the final stage of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

The source said Olmert and Rice had talked on the telephone about a week and a half ago, and that Rice accepted Olmert’s position that discussing Jerusalem at the very beginning could jam the negotiations and obstruct them.”

These signs do not bode well for the President’s goal. If deference on final-status issues continue, do not expect peace to be at hand anytime soon.