Newsflash: Wolfowitz to Listen Posted by Arsenal Guard

The Drudge Report has a headline reporting on a statement by Wolfowitz  who says he will "do a lot of listening" as he readies to assume the helm of the World Bank.   That is laudable on Wolfowitz's part; he is borrowing a page from Hillary Clinton who pioneered the "listening tour" in the early stage of her campaign for Senate in New York.   But in featuring what should be the blandest of all headlines, Drudge acknowledges what we all know - that its truly novel for a Bush Administration official to pledge to listen to the rest of the world.   In fact, the FT article is full of conciliatory remarks by Wolfowitz.  He says: "This is not about changing the agenda of the World Bank. The agenda of the World Bank is about poverty reduction, about helping billions of people lift themselves up out of misery. It's a unifying mission that brings people together, and I look forward to that opportunity."   Either the conservative message machine has finally figured out how to spin the rest of the world as well as they do the U.S. public,  or Wolfowitz is genuinely buoyed by the prospect of an agenda that draws in rather than repels others.

Emotional Intelligence of Nations Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Remember Emotional Intelligence? Ten years ago, Dan Goleman's bestseller shifted our thinking about effective leadership. His book declared that a high IQ is only part of the picture, and that understanding and relating well with others is often more important than run of the mill smarts because self-awareness and the ability to build lasting meaningful relationships are fundamental keys to success.

Apparently nobody in the Bush Administration read the book.  By nominating  John Bolton for Ambassador to the UN and Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, the administration has signaled round two of "talk to the hand" policy making.

Both men are indeed smart and understand the need for international cooperation. Bolton was behind the innovative Proliferation Security Initiative and Wolfowitz was by all accounts a knowledgeable and effective Ambassador to Indonesia.  But these attributes do not make up for the diplomatic failure--on the whole--of this administration. This is made evident by their tendency to view the world as one of Darwinian self-help. As a British friend put it to me  "America seems to see itself AS the scheme of things rather than IN the scheme of things."   A sure sign of low emotional intelligence.

International attitudes bear this out.  A 2003 Global Scan poll of 19 countries found that when asked if the US had a positive influence on the world, only 37% of respondents agreed. Distressingly, 55% disagreed.  Pre-emptive war, championed by Wolfowitz in Iraq and the regular dissing of the UN by Bolton have taken their toll on our prestige. Sure, only a small number of individuals beyond our borders have both the hatred and the sophistication to harm us, but it really doesn't help matters when nearly the entire population of Germany is repelled by our leadership.

The actual impact or "blowback" of these negative attitudes on the United States is difficult to measure.  But security in the age of globalization demands that we begin to appreciate the importance of such intangibles to our own well-being.  The United States, in its short history, has set the gold standard for problem-solving, cooperation and  mutually beneficial relationships.  It has taken only four years for that legacy to become frayed and fragile. We're slowly losing one of our most powerful tools of national interest: being exemplary.

It is unlikely that the rest of the world will forgive and forget easily. Collective amnesia aside, Bolton and Wolfowitz threaten to make our situation worse.

Bandar and Anwr Posted by Suzanne Nossel

In his Summer 2004 blockbuster, Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward reported on a deal between the Saudis and Bush to keep oil prices low around the November 2004 elections in order to boost Bush's prospects for staying in office.  This week we see an unexplained all-time spike in oil prices just as the Senate votes 51-49 to approve President Bush's proposal to start drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Oh but I almost forgot - - we're no longer collaborating with authoritarian Arab regimes.  In that case, must be pure coincidence.

One-two punch of Bolton and Wolfowitz – but one’s worse than the other Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A week after the administration nominated John Bolton to become ambassador to the UN, it has put forward Paul Wolfowitz for World Bank President. The signal heard around the world is that the Bush administration intends to continue to do what it pleases in global affairs. But that comes as no surprise: even apart from recent strides in the Middle East that have reinforced President Bush’s already healthy sense of rectitude, the Administration was never going to correct mistakes that it could not admit to having made. While cordial appearances with foreign dignitaries may help the medicine go down, Bush’s prescription for world affairs has not changed.

Wolfowitz II: A Pentagon Transformation? Posted by Derek Chollet

In the coming days, there will be a lot of rumbling both in Washington and around the world about Wolfowitz’s appointment as head of the World Bank. Hopefully the analysis will be more thoughtful (like the one below) than less, but given the passions the man elicits –especially abroad – I doubt it.

While they’ll be a lot of newsprint, airtime and cyberspace consumed by what Wolfowitz would mean for where he is going, it would be a huge mistake to overlook the impact this will have on the place he is leaving: the Pentagon.

No doubt there was some quiet cheering today inside the Pentagon’s rings, especially among the uniformed military. Although this was Wolfowitz’s third tour of duty at the Defense Department (he started as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Carter Administration and had the number three job there under Bush 41), he was never very popular inside the building. Few forget his colossal misjudgments about post-war Iraq, including his public repudiation of then-Army Chief of Staff Shinseki about the prolonged need for large numbers of American troops there.  Many now hope that Wolfowitz’s departure -- along the previously announced exit of the Pentagon’s number three civilian official, Douglas Feith – means that Rumsfeld’s retirement is not far off. Washington military circles have been buzzing for weeks with rumors that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who is much beloved inside the Pentagon, will be named as Rumsfeld’s replacement as early as this summer.

Wolfowitz’s departure will only intensify this anticipation, adding another empty seat for Washington’s favorite parlor game of who gets what. But more important, this move comes at a critical time for the Pentagon, and could have a lasting impact on the future of the U.S. military.

Right now military leaders and defense officials are in the middle of a massive exercise conducted every four years to review U.S. military strategy, policy and planning, known as the “Quadrennial Defense Review,” or QDR. This is the first QDR since 9-11 (the last one was completed only days before 9-11 and released after), and it will establish the goals for defense policy as well as guide future decisions about practically every aspect of military affairs: from the troops we need and the weapons we buy to the places and kinds of battles we should be ready to fight.

Wolfowitz has been a central player in this important effort (as has Feith), as part of a small circle of advisors around Rumsfeld. The QDR is due by October, so there is no chance that his (or Feith’s) replacement will have much of an impact on the outcome. In the days ahead, we need to pay more attention to the QDR and what this will mean for the future of America’s military forces. But at this point, we know that Wolfowitz’s departure means at least one thing: that Rumsfeld’s strong hand on the QDR has only become stronger.

The Right Summers-Bush Analogy Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Blogger David Bernstein suggests that the Harvard faculty's vote of no confidence against President Larry Summers was motivated by displaced frustration with Bush.  There is an analogy, but it works the other way around.  Summers' situation resembles that of ousted New York Times Editor-in-Chief Howell Raines.  Raines was roundly disliked at the paper because of his arrogance, high-handedness and disregard for the views of those weaker than him.  Likewise Summers.   

Both men were strong and sure-footed in leading high-profile institutions, so much so that despite how unpopular they were it was virtually inconceivable that either could be vulnerable to ouster.  In both instances, the men were responsible for a critical misstep (in Raines' case the failure of oversight that led to publication of numerous fabricated stories by disgraced former reporter Jayson Blair).  Once that happened, the groundswell of animosity surged to the point where their leadership came into question.   Few were willing to give the leaders the benefit of the doubt and, smelling blood, detractors pounced and did not let go until, in Raines' case, a few careers were destroyed.

There's reason to fear that the Bush Administration may be similarly vulnerable.  The rest of the world for the most part dislikes Bush; anti-Americanism is at an all time high.   Yet the U.S. is powerful enough and Bush has racked up sufficient accomplishments that he seems invulnerable.  The question is what happens if a bad mistake gets made - a more serious version of the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade or the shoot-out involving the Italian journalist and her bodyguard.    Would the U.S.'s detractors all pounce, with the result of an outsized blow to America's image and influence?  If there's any analogy to Summers and Raines, the signs are ominous.

Wolfowitz: Dreaming of Nixon to China Posted by Heather Hurlburt

A newspaper writer just asked what I think of Wolfowitz for the World Bank.  The sad thing is, in a different Bush Administration, he might have been an interesting Nixon-to-China type of appointment, instead of the lightning rod of anti-US sentiment that he’s going to turn out to be.  Here’s why:

He’s very, very smart.

He is – or at least used to be – genuinely intellectually open and thoughtful.  Sitting at a Washington NGO a few years back, I watched him make time again and again for a left-ish international figure whose insights on Asia he respected.  Not too many folks around town do that, Democrat or Republican.

He doesn’t lack courage or independence.  Remember, this is the American Jew whom the Bush Administration sent out to speak to fiercely pro-Israel demonstrators a couple years back – and who got booed for telling them that Palestinians suffer too?

He’s actually had some developing-world experience – as Ambassador to Indonesia– and is in a position to understand as well as anyone the complex but real links among indignity, poverty and insecurity.

Obviously, though, he’s not a captive of the development community, a plus for two reasons:  first, influence with this Administration.  Second, the Bank and the international financial institutions need a profound re-thinking and modernization.  Someday, someone is going to come along and lead a deep and difficult process of making them relevant to the global concerns of 2050, not 1950.  Many good people have exhausted huge effort on making piecemeal changes.  Some of it has worked, especially at the Bank; but everything from how the institutions raise money to whether they lend it or give it away needs another look.  The US needs to make sure we are in on the ground floor of this re-think with someone who can bring our government along behind.

But I’m dreaming.  Wolfowitz is not that person.  Apparently, his rapport with President Bush is not so good.  We can’t hope that he would be able to influence the President on matters such as meeting the pledges he’s made on funding for AIDS or supporting the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, much less on broader issues.

More important, of course, he has seemed perfectly pleased to be portrayed as the architect of the Iraq war, the episodic mayhem that has followed it, and all the larger posturings that have not yet followed  (Iran, Syria).  So it is fair enough that his name will be received with disdain and dismay by the countries that are the most reliable aid donors as well as many that are perennial recipients.  Quite understandable if our friends see this as one more “dis,” not as the effort to give Wolfowitz an honorable exit that it may well be.

Europeans say that Wolfowitz’s name was circulated informally a few weeks ago, and that their response was negative.  We shall see whether enough homework has been done to head off an ugly fight – or whether, again, these folks just don’t care.  That’s too bad for the future of the Bank; it’s too bad for the US image in the world; and at some level it’s even too bad for Wolfowitz.  Genuinely good minds -- even neo-con ones -- are too hard to come by to waste on this kind of wrangling.

Democracy confronts the superpower Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Yesterday Italy announced it was pulling its troops out of Iraq. The reason? While he did not put it this way, everyone knows that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is preoccupied with his prospects for reelection in 2006. While the country’s participation in the war has always been deeply unpopular, an incident two weeks ago in which U.S. soldiers at a checkpoint fired on and killed a bodyguard who was shepherding an Italian journalist who had been kidnapped to safety brought the matter to a political boiling point.

Many are making the point that these developments undercut the Administration’s claim of a broad coalition on Iraq. But they also underscore a point I made during the Summer of 2003 Dissent magazine in relation to the crisis in the UN Security Council over Iraq: that in a world that is increasingly comprised of democracies, the role of the U.S. as superpower may get more rather than less complex. The article contains many other examples of countries wherein local political forces overrode what the U.S. expected would be unflinching loyalty to American policy interests.

For a long time, the U.S. was fairly plain about the fact that it preferred friendly dictators to wily and uncontrollable democracies. But over time that principle became unsustainable as a matter of principle and, moreover, impractical in that said dictatorships tended to be less stable than they looked and – once they collapsed - - the U.S. bore part of the blame for the miseries suffered under them. The policy has now come full-circle with the last outpost of U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes – the Middle East– now beginning to undergo its own transformation. President Bush has declared that the era of U.S. support for anti-democratic Arab sheiks and monarchs is over, and that from now on Washington will be working to help democracy take root.

The question is whether the Bush Administration is nimble enough to ensure that as democracy becomes more widespread, we do not confront a growing number of enfranchised electorates that don’t like U.S. policies and don’t let their chosen leaders go along with us. With anti-Americanism at an all-time high and U.S. efforts to explain and promote our policies abroad an acknowledged failure, it is not surprising that public attitudes in democracies are not breaking our way.

But in a world in which we are surrounded by democracies, superpower fiat won’t work in the way it traditionally did. Winning the support of others will depend not just on holding economic and military sway, nor even on cordial relationships with leaders around the world. We will also have to ensure that U.S. policies enjoy sufficient popular support so that our allies will not have to turn their backs on their own publics in order to side with us. The Italian and Ukrainian pull-outs are only the latest examples demonstrating that where U.S. policies are pitted against local political prerogatives in a democracy, the latter will win the day.

Italy is not the only country where homegrown political pressures have stood in the way of continued cooperation with the U.S. on Iraq. Newly elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko announced earlier this week that that country would likewise be pulling out its small contingent of troops. Ukrainians have always opposed their country’s involvement in Iraq but under Yushchenko’s predecessor, strongman Leonid Kuchma did not much care. After all, he did not consider himself accountable to an electorate. But Yushchenko, though he owes his accession in no small part to democratic assistance efforts and political support from Washington, was quick to put local opinion above fealty to the superpower. A year ago Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero ran on an antiwar platform and, once elected, swiftly withdrew that country’s troops from Iraq.

For this and many other reasons, progressives should not be hanging their heads in despair because Bush has stolen all that’s best of our traditional policies (see Jeff Goldberg’s New Yorker piece this week). By trying to mix promotion of democracy with his ham-handed approach to diplomacy and talent for antagonizing others, there’s a risk that the widening of democracy won’t necessarily mean better cooperation with others, and more allies in support of U.S. positions and policies. Coupled with genuine willingness to listen to others and greater respect for democratic norms both at home and in our actions abroad, a policy focused on extending democracy should help strengthen the support for American policies around the world. In other words, the criticisms of Administration policies as unilateralist and tone-deaf are by no means cancelled out by this newfound emphasis and early successes in promoting democracy.

Bolton and his predecessors Posted by Suzanne Nossel

One question that I have not seen raised is what the choice of Bolton says about the other two people who have held the post of Ambassador to the UN during the Bush Administration.  The White House is now saying, in essence, we need someone as tough-minded (and even hostile) as they come to hold down the fort at the U.S. Mission to the UN, so we don't let this organization of rogues run roughshod over American interests.  But neither of Bolton's predecessors - Amb. John D. Negroponte and former Senator John Danforth were remotely in that mold.   Since the Administration can hardly argue that the challenges at the U.S. Mission have gotten any tougher than during the bitter split over military intervention in Iraq that unfolded in late 2002 and early 2003, its hard to see how the nomination of Bolton is not in some sense an indictment of the type of representation that Negroponte and Danforth provided.  If they did the job well why would it be so important to appoint someone with Bolton's hard-hearted attitude toward the world body?  If Bolton-style toughness is essential, the implication is that Negroponte and Danforth somehow fell short.  Yet although Danforth seems to be heading forth to retirement, Negroponte - who in fact presided over the Iraq impasse - has since been promoted twice to positions that could not be more important, and that require at least as much mettle and determination as the UN job.  He has served as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and was nominated last month to become the country's first Director of National Intelligence.  The upshot:  there was nothing fundamentally wrong with either Negroponte or Danforth's brands of diplomacy, and nor is there any reason why - as a matter of style or steeliness - that we need Bolton.  In fact, the Administration was so happy with the job Negroponte did that they've promoted him to literally the most sensitive jobs they have to fill (part of the reason is, of course, his confirmed confirmability, but they must also have confidence in him).  Bolton's nomination is in fact simply a sop to the right, not motivated by any reasoned analysis of how the U.S can be effective at the UN.