When diplomacy is the step-child

Dominance can be an illusion.
Decades ago foreign policy was deliberately bipartisan or even nonpartisan, just as we assume the military is today. And the nation had a much more robust diplomatic thrust. But since the turn of the century the only significant U.S. foreign policy focus has been on war or threats of war.
Polarization is the stuff of the day. Now the nation is not totally united behind the president on this unbalanced war vs. diplomacy stance. And the Bush administration itself is not united, according to the British Financial Times. Their 10/2/06 story by Roula Khalef reports on internal dissension that could hamper Secretary Rice's current diplomatic efforts in the region. Quoting from the article,

Ms Rice’s regional tour, which started in Saudi Arabia on Monday, is partly intended to shore up moderate Arab allies while dealing with the shared perception of the extremist threat from Iran, Lebanon’s Hizbollah and Iraq’s sectarian chaos.
But because of severe ideological differences within the Bush administration, Ms Rice is not expected to unveil big initiatives.
. . . Ms Rice has apparently scored some success by persuading hardliners in the Bush administration that the US has to engage on the Palestinian-Israeli front. But Arab diplomats say the administration has indicated a peace initiative would only be unveiled after the US midterm elections in November.

Iraq's on the ballot - It is 2006 and we are in our midterm election campaign, and the Bush administration's foreign policy will, unfortunately, be an issue that will drive some voters' decisions. I wish that our foreign policy had been skillful enough that it was not something upon which voters would have to have to exercise control. Because the current administration has not had a truly bipartisan war policy, voters will be getting involved. A recent New York Times article explored what the Congressional Quarterly Board of Advisors thinks about what will be the Iraq war's impact on voters.

Given the high level of voter awareness about the war in Iraq, can either party — with just more than five weeks to go before the Nov. 7 elections — substantially move public opinion to its side on the war issue?
Can President Bush, after a long series of highly publicized speeches defending his Iraq policy, persuade any large number of voters whom he has not already persuaded?
Can Democrats take advantage of events last week — including the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stating that the Iraq war has accelerated development of terrorism around the world and Bob Woodward’s new book criticizing the administration’s handling of the war — to shift voters more strongly against the president?
Today, seven professional political analysts — Lawrence Jacobs, Dotty Lynch, David P. Rebovich, Rhodes Cook, Susan A. MacManus, Aubrey Jewett and Bruce E. Cain — provide their views on these questions. . .

Neglect diminishes effectiveness - The United States has not been a good example of diplomacy to the world. We have not taught others how to do it well. Iraq's Prime Minister Malichi is embarked upon yet another try at making peace among Baghdad's warring factions, the Financial Times reports in this 10/3/06 story about a new "plan to curb violence" . Quote:

With rival Sunni and Shia communities accusing each other of infiltrating the army and police, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has announced a plan to supervise the security forces.
The plan, announced late on Monday and called the "Ramadan Pact" after the Muslim holy month, seems intended to restore public confidence in state institutions, which many Iraqis say have been taken over by feuding factions and used as weapons of sectarian conflict.
It would establish commissions in every district of the capital, the scene of the most vicious sectarian violence in recent months. They will be made up of representatives from political parties, religious congregations, tribes, and the police and military, which would oversee their work in their areas and investigate complaints.

United Nations in transition - I am continually fascinated with diplomats. The next big diplomat to study is the new UN Secretary General, who is now expected to be a South Korean. He has U.S. Ambassador John Bolton's approval, by the way, though Mr. Bolton is himself in transition*. The Financial Times reporter Mark Turner writes in a 10/2/06 story that it is likely to be Ban Ki-moon, the South Korean Foreign minister. To quote,

Mr Ban’s campaign, which began eight months ago, is likely to be studied closely by future aspirants for the post. His speeches focused on the need for UN reform, but studiously avoided any controversy – winning him few admirers in the media, or even amongst diplomats.
Until around a month ago, there had been a sense that another candidate would emerge and win, but Mr Ban surprised everyone by garnering widespread support in two undifferentiated straw polls.
When asked if the Korean represented a lowest common denominator outcome, Wang Guangya, China’s ambassador to the UN, called him “low key but very firm. He’s decisive. Sometimes Asians show their quality in a different way.”

Frist a diplomat? The Washington Note blog's author Steve Clemons weighed in again recently, with a very insightful post about Bill Frist's thoughts on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Some are critiquing Senator Bill Frist's comments that "people who call themselves Taliban" should be brought into the Afghan government.
If Frist actually made these comments, the rationale is exactly the same that many have argued about Hamas and Hezbollah. So, on some level, Frist articulating the need for "political" solutions to some of the more vexing standoffs in the region can be considered progress.
The problem, however, is that the Taliban are not Hamas or Hezbollah and that these latter two political entities have not become popular in their states by terrorizing their own people. Hamas and Hezbollah's legiitimacy has several prongs -- helping to enhance the quality of life of their constituents, delivering various public services, rallying against Israel and perceived grievances about occupied lands and displaced Muslims, and an Islamist religious ethic.

*UN a US step-child - Clemons has, coincidentally, been instrumental in the possible defeat of Bolton's nomination to the U.N. The current administration's foreign policy might have been much more successful from the beginning if the neocons had not been so intent on a diminished UN role in the world.

Diplomatic pouch not full - Secretary of State Rice is due in Jerusalem today for talks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am currently listening on C-SPAN to Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the U.S., calling for much more assertiveness of U.S. diplomacy in solving the Israel-Palestine conflict. The 10/3/06 Financial Times story by Harvey Morrison does not hold high hopes for Rice's success. To quote,

Ms Rice was due in Jerusalem on Wednesday for separate talks with an Israeli government politically weakened by the war in Lebanon, and with officials of a Palestinian administration that risks disintegrating in an upsurge of factional violence.
In the face of political stagnation on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, US officials played down the prospect that she would bring any new initiative to restart the peace process. But western diplomats said she was expected to try to revive a moribund agreement on easing the movement of Palestinian goods and people. Ms Rice brokered the agreement last November, eventually overcoming Israeli objections in an extended round of frequently abrasive talks. But 11 months on, most elements of the deal have yet to be implemented.
In the intervening period, and particularly since Hamas won Palestinian elections in January, movement to and from the Gaza Strip has actually been more restricted than before Israel withdrew from the territory more than a year ago.

When diplomacy is the stepchild of a nation it gets disrespected, neglected, shunted aside, made to stand at the end of the line for support. It has suffered from not having standing within the main power group. We - and the entire world - have paid dearly for the early dominance of neocon thinking and values in the Bush administration.

Tags: bush iraq islam republicans terrorism war news politics foreign policy Rice