U.S. Diplomacy

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…

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.

(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.”

This week, Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Rice combined efforts on improving the dampening European support for NATO troops in Afghanistan. Gates warned the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others who are not.” He continued, “it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps get even worse.” Following his testimony, Gates traveled to Lithuania, where he’s presently meeting with NATO defense ministers, looking to pressure European allies on the troop support issue.

Perhaps the impetus for the worrisome tone was Germany’s rejection of a U.S. request for more troops. Compounding the problem, Canada issued an ultimatum that it would withdraw troops if they did not receive reinforcement from NATO allies.

While ally support is fading from Germany, France is looked at to pick up the slack. “A reversal of France’s refusal to deploy combat units to the southern front-lines would ease tensions within NATO…France is to meet a Canadian delegation Friday [today] on Ottawa’s appeal for 1,000 extra troops to support its beleaguered force in volatile Kandahar province.”

Secretary Rice made a surprise visit to Afghanistan yesterday. While Gates is meeting with defense ministers in Lithuania, Rice also publicly urged NATO members to increase troop support. Additionally, she met with President Karzai to discuss a special envoy who could represent the numerous countries involved in the effort. “There are a lot of cooks in the kitchen. I can understand why there could be confusion, and we owe it to President Karzai to have an effective international coordinator.”

Analysis on this subject can be tricky. Are alliances with our European friends fracturing for the long-term, or are they simply growing weary of the Afghanistan counterinsurgency? Certainly, we must be mindful of the political context in each country. It may be helpful to remind NATO members that the stabilization of Afghanistan is imperative for each country and cite specific reasons. Maintaining an alliance can be a juggling act. However, the United States should not feel daunted, reminding allies about the nature of the threat and persuading them to stay in the fight is a necessary process in a multilateral war. We should be grateful we have the opportunity to fall back on other resources, unlike in Iraq.

Monday’s State of the Union Address was heavy on the economy and ideological posturing. However, foreign policy issues were addressed, and this blog would like to touch upon what was said.

Stepping back and taking a macro-viewpoint of the speech, Bush did not provide new policy initiatives, which we had wondered about on this blog with regards to North Korea. The President reviewed his administration’s goal of advancing freedom, and he cited elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia and Ukraine as well as “demanding independence” in Lebanon. Notably left out was Palestine. While the administration may not have been pleased with the outcome, strong support was pushed onto the Palestinians for having a free and fair election. They did so, but the outcome of Hamas leading the Palestinian Authority soured the administration, thus it should be of no surprise that the administration does not include that election as a success in the advancement of liberty.

Let us now dive into the minutia of his speech.

Iraq

Bush noted our surge and went on to describe the Sunni Awakening as the Iraqi surge. “In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda’s brutality and started a popular uprising called ‘The Anbar Awakening.’ Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.”

While successes can be drawn on the security front, political reconciliation remains a lofty goal. As an example of progress in reconciliation, President Bush mentioned the recently passed de-Ba’athification law. However, most analysts are unsure whether the law will truly serve its intended purpose. Looking at political reconciliation on the whole, the Center for American Progress concludes we have reached only 3 of the 18 benchmarks.

Israeli-Palestinian relations

President Bush reaffirmed his position that Palestine will have a state by the end of this year: “This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year.”

As we have discussed on this blog before, President Bush’s influence can make the most difference on final-status issues. Optimism is crucial when dealing with tough negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and Bush should remain engaged on this front.

The Americas

Bush urged Congress to approve trade agreements for Columbia and Panama (in addition to South Korea). He noted that failure to pass the bill in Columbia would “embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere.” A clear shot at Hugo Chavez.

Afghanistan

Bush spoke of the 3,200 Marines sent to Afghanistan, in order to provide training for their police and army, along with fighting the Taliban. The U.S. Defense blog first mentioned this increase.

For the sake of keeping this post somewhat concise my partner will tackle Iran.

US President George W. Bush famously characterized a nation’s position on the war on terror either “with us or against us.” But happens when those who are “with us” are not necessarily “against” those who are “against us?” Such is the case in Pakistan, where with the help of some polling and John Stewart, we see that the Pakistan-US relationship is a bit more complex.

The US-Pakistan Relationship

Although the American and Pakistani governments have shared tight alliances in the past, the Bush administration and Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf have developed a particularly close relationship throughout the past 7 years. The relationship centers around Musharraf’s pledge to be “with us” in the war on terror, that is, to hunt down US arch enemy Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists reported to be operating out of Pakistan.

The US has recognized these efforts, formally so in 2002 when the House passed a concurrent resolution “Commending President Pervez Musharraf Of Pakistan For His Leadership And Friendship And Welcoming Him To The United States” (full text here). Musharraf’s counter-terrorism efforts have been amply funded by the US, having received more than $10 billion in mostly military aid since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

While the General’s efforts were initially praised, more recently his commitment to fighting terrorism has been questioned, especially his effectiveness in combating a resurgence of Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists along the Pakistan-Afghan border. In January of last year the House passed (see section 2042) an appropriations bill that called for greater accountability for aid to Pakistan, though it failed to pass the Senate.

Meanwhile, Musharraf instists that he is committed to fighting terrorism within Pakistan not for the sake of the US-Pakistan alliance, but rather for the sake of his own nation’s national security.

He’s so committed to rooting out Islamic extremists, the AP reported two days ago, that he has made that his number one priority—not so much finding bin Laden, as the US wishes.

Enter Public Opinion

Whether or not you believe General Musharraf is sincere in his efforts to hunt down bin Laden, a recent poll shows the Pakistani public doesn’t seem all too concerned about the hunt for bin Laden, and anyway thinks the US poses a bigger threat to Pakistan’s national security.

Veteran Inter Press Service Washington correspondent Jim Lobe reports:“Amid reports that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is considering aggressive covert actions against armed Islamist forces in western Pakistan, a new survey released here Monday suggested that such an effort would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis themselves.

The survey, which was funded by the quasi-governmental U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and designed by the University of Maryland’s Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), also found that a strong majority of Pakistanis consider the U.S. military presence in Asia and neighbouring Afghanistan a much more critical threat to their country than al Qaeda or Pakistan’s own Taliban movement in the tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan.”

The poll also shows that most urban Pakistanis do not necessarily believe Bin Laden is currently operating in Pakistan, and even so they have mixed views of the Al Qaeda leader:

“Q25. For each of the following people, would you say your feelings are very positive, somewhat positive, mixed, somewhat negative, or very negative? a. Osama bin Laden

Very positive………………………………………………………………………13%

Somewhat positive……………………………………………………………….18 Mixed…………………………………………………………………………………19

Somewhat negative………………………………………………………………..8

Very negative………………………………………………………………………..8

Refused/Don’t know…………………………………………………………….35”

In short, the Pakistani public has what their government considers “ally” and “enemy” reversed.

Enter John Stewart

Pop culture provides us a further example of how the “with us or against us” approach to the war on terror does not accurately fit the complexities of the modern US-Pakistan relationship. In September of 2006 General Musharraf appeared on Jon Stewart’s popular satirical news show in the United States—in fact the first foreign President ever to do so. Stewart popped the question of whether President George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden would win the popular vote in a presidential election in Pakistan. Musharraf chuckled “I think they’ll both lose miserably.”

At least we know that Al Qaeda doesn’t see Musharraf as “with them” in their war against the US.

Progress

Despite the US President’s unfailing support for Musharraf as an ally in the war on terror, US lawmakers are becoming more critical, no doubt thanks to several compelling testimonies (notably Lawrence Korb and Ashley Tellis) before Congressional committees of late.

“It has become all too clear that U.S. policies and assistance toward Pakistan since Sept. 11 — while not without some successes — have failed to neutralize anti-Western militants or reduce religious extremism,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on aid to Pakistan this month.

Last week the Agence France Presse reported that Representative Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, “said that the reliance by President George W. Bush’s administration on “war on terror” ally Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to restore democracy while fighting against extremism had not worked.“

The IHT reports that in a recent hearing Ackerman urged [US Deputy Secretary of State] Negroponte to “get some phone numbers of some other generals.”

Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was one of the few to identify the public as one layer of Pakistani society that the US should be seeking to ally: “The United States must shift from the “transactional” approach of “aid for services to a normal, functioning relationship… The United States should seek a “relationship based on the Pakistani government and its people, not just Musharraf,” Biden said.

Who’s “With” Who?

Now Bush’s mantra has come full circle: US lawmakers are beginning to turn “against” those who are supposed to be “with us” in the war on terror. This evolution in the US-Pakistan relationship over the past seven years shows that neither the US nor Pakistan—their leaders nor their publics—fit squarely into the “with us or against us” approach to the war on terror.