Iraq and the Crisis of American Diplomacy Posted by Suzanne Nossel

During her confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condi Rice said "the time for diplomacy is now."   The sad thing is, it isn't working.  A dizzying schedule of trips abroad and a new tone coming from Foggy Bottom have not pulled American diplomacy out of crisis. 

The strains in our relationships, our diminished influence and our inability to bear down and get things done is affecting issues small and big, immediate and long-term.  Its setting back the future of global trade, undercutting our ability to quarantine dangerous weapons and rogue nations, and further narrowing our our options in Iraq.  What began as ham-handedness on the part of the Bush Administration has morphed into a kind of poisonous touch, where everything they finger seems to leave others recoiling. 

The latest evidence is hard to ignore since - in each case - the Bush Administration likely did all it possibly could to pull off a success which might divert attention from Iraq or, at the very least, avert an outcome that the press and critics could call failure:

• This past week's Inter-American Summit in Argentina was rancorous and fruitless.  Bush's efforts to advance an Americas free trade zone went nowhere and the Summit didn't even manage to produce a routine communique.  Perhaps distressed by mass street protests, Bush left early. 
• Also this week, a US-led Summit on Mideast democracy and development essentially fell apart.  While two pre-arranged funding initiatives were announced, efforts to achieve a joint statement failed, and Egypt walked out over an impasse concerning the role of NGOs.
• The Doha world trade round, launched in 2001 to dismantle trade barriers globally, is precariously close to collapse. 
• A much heralded breakthrough on North Korea now looks just as iffy as it did weeks ago when cracks in the seams emerged just as soon as the deal was announced.
• An October trip by Rice to Moscow failed to dent Russian opposition to referring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council.
• The Israel-Palestinian peace process has stalled, the window created by Israel's withdrawal from Gaza closing without any major US diplomatic push to implement the road map (maybe this is about to change, which would be great, but I doubt it).

(one recent exception I've acknowledged is US diplomacy at the UN on Hariri).

Now the Bush Administration is not to blame for all these outcomes.  These are tough issues involving stubborn interlocutors.   But when Rice spoke of the importance of diplomacy, this is what she set out to tackle, and her efforts just don't seem to be working.

The major culprit behind this unfortunate track record is not the Administration's arrogance, nor its disdain of traditional diplomatic tools like treaties and the UN.  With limited exceptions like Chavez’ role at the Inter-American Summit, anti-Americanism isn’t the problem either.  The real issue is Iraq.   The disastrous Iraq mission is making it impossible for Rice and others to rehabilitate US diplomacy, and the crisis is unlikely to be resolved before the war is.  How does Iraq undercut US diplomacy?

- Others are rightly convinced that the US is so preoccupied with Iraq that we can't or won't exert heavy leverage on other issues – this dynamic is at work when the Russians resist us on Iraq, when the Egyptians resist the US's push on democratization, and when the EU judges that push won’t come to shove on Doha;

- On the flip side, given its difficulties in Iraq, the Bush Administration is now perceived as more ready to compromise in other areas.  Examples include Iran's nuclear program, the shaky bargain on N. Korea, and even the deferral of possible Syrian sanctions over Hariri.  Some name this Bush's "half a loaf" diplomacy.

- Our single-minded focus on Iraq and the war on terror has meant perceived inattention to the priorities of others.  Our Latin American neighbors gave up long ago on hopes that Bush would address concerns on trade and migration.  His neglect during the first term ceded ground to Chavez, who has built stronger relationships with allies that we have alienated. 

The disturbing thing is, its hard to see how we regain our diplomatic leverage and efficacy as long as the war goes on.  Leaving Iraq may not help much either.  It will signal the demise of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy aspirations, and his successor will face the challenge of trying to restore trust and credibility the world over.

Why does this matter?  For one thing, it’s a tangible, hefty and remarkably far-reaching cost of the Iraq war effort, one that ought to be taken into account as the public evaluates where the President has led us.   The Iraq fiasco is systematically undercutting most other aspects of US foreign policy.

Second, while people like John Edwards, Mort and others are right to continue calling for the internationalization of Iraq, the chances of that happening are at this point nil.  I don’t think anyone in the Administration has the foggiest notion of how to even ask for help at this stage.  They wouldn’t know how to bring up the topic, much less close the deal.

Third is that the damage will be hard to undo.  These missed opportunities and failed Summits do not happen in a vacuum.  They both mark and precipitate shifting alignments, new initiatives, and changed priorities all of which are moving in the direction of less US influence and control globally.  It will take years to reverse the damage and, even once we do, the world we confront will be far different than the one that rallied around us right after September 11.

Comments

[Cal]

There's no question Iraq has hurt us, but I wonder how much of our diplomatic troubles is due to other causes as well -- particularly in South America and Israel.

Our position in Latin America has been eroding for some time. After the disaster in Argentina and the spectacular failure of the Washington consenus, it was probably inevitable that there would be a reaction against free trade, and even some anti-Americanism.

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, after the failure of Oslo, neither party is willing to spend the political capital necessary to get a deal (assuming one is possible). When Dean suggested that we should play a more "even-handed role" and "not point fingers" at who is to blame, Kerry and the House Dems attacked him for not being a friend of Israel.

None of the Dems complained when Bush took the side of Israel and agreed that the major settlements should stay. (Even if you agree with Bush, acknowledging this severely weakens the bargaining position of the Palestinians.)

These are problems our political elites -- for whatever reason -- don't want to deal with.

[Craig]

Actually Bush's arrogance does play a factor. Sometimes other countries (Russia, China and possibly Iran are three recent examples) push back at Bush with a measured dose of arrogant rhetoric. There's a simple diplomatic point to these occassional outbursts: we can match your hot air with our hot air and we all know it doesn't mean anything; and we too can play to domestic politics.

It's also worrisome that we have a president who still, to this day, believes he can massage his problems with a better public relations campaign, even as a greater number of people note his inability to close the divide between his words and the simple facts. And unfortunately, until the last ten months, he's had more success with his p.r. campaigns than he deserves. But that time has now passed. Even before the 2004 election, Bush's p.r. campaigns, ideology and political posturing finally cost us our international credibility, not just in terms of diplomacy but in terms of American competence as well.

If Bush is serious about diplomacy, he already knows what he has to do. He has to clean house. This means dumping Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton and half the White House. It also means admitting at least a few of his mistakes. I see no signs that Bush is a big enough man to take such steps, hence the continuation of his failed presidency for another three years. This will weaken America's foreign policy for some time to come and makes it nearly impossible for a number of years for our government to deal with a number of longterm problems that are going to start impacting more noticeably on the United States.

But there's the American government and the American people and the world even up to now still makes a distinction. There is a lot in the next three years that can be done outside the Bush Administration. We saw a small slice of what can be done on 60 Minutes when they showed a segment on thirteen New York City paramedics working the earthquake zone in Pakistan. There are deeds and words that can cut down the damage to our foreign policy when the next president, Republican or Democrat, takes office.

[Demosophist]

The latest evidence is hard to ignore since - in each case - the Bush Administration likely did all it possibly could to pull off a success which might divert attention from Iraq or, at the very least, avert an outcome that the press and critics could call failure:

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to imagine any outcome they wouldn't have called a failure, which undermines your argument in ways you don't even realize. And up until this current conflict nearly all terrorist insurgencies were nearly impossible to stop, so simply holding our own (and we're actually doing much better than that, even in a place like Mosul) would have been a qualified success. The real failure is the press, which simmply is unable to report the relevant condition of battle, either because it's bias blinds it (Mapes still thinks her problem was those "right-wing bloggers") or ,more likely, the fact that it's organized to cover the BIG GOTCHA, and has no idea how to cover a war in a way that yields constructive and accurate insight.

So, when you rest your analysis on the impression created by the press coverage you're leaning on the termite-infested load-bearing beam in the building. Were history just a snapshot I suppose that would be sufficient.

Truth is, I'm kind of amazed we're doing as well as we are. Clearly the "insurgents" are desperate, compelled to commit acts that finally turned the Arab Street against them, just to keep their face in the news. Meanwhile two successful elections at the balance point of the Arab Middle East, a growing Iraqi-manned counter-insurgency that is inspired by their associations with our "citizen soldiers," who have been (and were always expected to be) our most potent secret weapon.

Oh sorry, what were you saying?

[John Penta]

I'm amused that this hasn't been noticed here.

Lately, one of our biggest boosters in the cause of making a better world has been an agency nobody'd think of...

...The SEC.

[wow gold]

I like to earn the World of Warcraft Gold very much, I want to have a lot of warcraft gold in the game, i do not satisfy the old equipment and so i have to buy wow gold to buy the new equipment to make me strong. If i am very strong in the game i can get some cheap wow gold as the rewards in the game. So i like the game very much.

[rf gold]

I hope i can get rf online gold in low price.
i buy rf money for you.
rf cp is present for you.
Do you like cheap rf gold?

[LOTRO Gold]

I likeLOTRO Gold, I like the ending,Lord Of The Rings Gold will be better.

[age of conan gold]

I hope i can get aoc gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought conan gold for my friend.

[wonderland online Gold]

I like the wonderland Gold, my brother usually
wonderland online Gold for me. I appriciate him.

[conan gold]

Once I played AOC, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have aoc gold.He gave me some conan gold.

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[Gucci handbags]

Have fun with it. .. I believe the new members can contribute new ideas too to this project.