Negroponte: Benched, or Deep Relief? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I was waiting for The Washington Note to weigh in on what to think about John Negroponte stepping down as Director of National Intelligence to go be Rice's deputy at State.  But Steve Clemons seems to be trapped at some garden spot without a hard drive -- so let's think for ourselves:

Two-word comment:  Systemic Failure.  There's some amusing gossip/inside baseball/Kremlinology on this move, some of which I note below.  But fundamentally, the idea that a holder of the intelligence position could even consider leaving it for a lower-ranking government job suggests to me that the effort to reform how we manage intelligence has, ummm, not yet succeeded.  Something is very wrong if our senior intelligence job is less attractive than being the waterboy for ANY Secretary of State.

Three word comment:  Staying the Course:  Last May, Steve seemed to see Negroponte in his intel position as a key opponent of then-Secretary Rumsfeld.  Interesting that Rumsfeld's departure didn't make Negroponte want to stay/able to stay.  One should conclude, as if there wasn't enough evidence pouring in from other quarters, that this Administration is not planning to change in any fundamental way.   

Gossipy question: Jumped or Pushed?  That's how NPR framed it this morning. Negroponte told C-SPAN just last month that he was in it through this Administration.  I thought I heard someone on NPR say that Negroponte had also clashed with Rice in the past, but perhaps I hallucinated that in a pre-caffeine haze. 

I'll even leave you with a Thursday morning conspiracy theory:  what if this were a preliminary move because Rice is planning to leave State?  I don't expect that myself, but one could see Negroponte, a career foreign service officer, hoping to do a Lawrence Eagleburger and become Secretary briefly at the end of this Administration.   

More on Condi's Instability Fetish Posted by Shadi Hamid

Condoleezza Rice apparently likes her foreign policy “shaken, not stirred” – an excellent way of putting it courtesy of Michael’s last post. Similarly, some had credited (or attacked) Condi last year for her purported belief in “constructive instability” – the idea that the Middle East had become so stagnant over the decades that only external “shocks” could save the region from further stagnation. In other words, desperate times call for desperate measures. One imagines that this notion  – and not the fact that leaving Saddam in power in 1991 led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqis – is what keeps Brent Scrowcroft from sleeping soundly in his latter days. To be honest, this is kind of why I like Condi/Dr. Rice, because unlike some others in the Bush administration, she actually seems to genuinely believe in this fascinating (if somewhat destructive) view of international relations.

It is not surprising then that Stephen Krasner is her point person at the Department of Policy Planning. Krasner, a renowned academic who like Rice taught at Stanford, is often thought of as a realist. I haven’t read that much of Krasner’s work, but I do remember one article of his in particular ("Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics" in Comparative Politics, Jan. 1984) which caught my attention. In it, he notes the lack of a compelling theory of institutional change and puts forward the notion of “punctuated equilibrium,” borrowed from the biological sciences. The idea is that once institutional statis sets in (as it almost inevitably does), it becomes hard to change course. As Krasner notes, “once a particular fork is chosen, it is very difficult to get back on a rejected path.” However, it is possible to “punctuate” the equilibrium. He quotes Steven Jay Gould who argues that change is “accomplished rapidly when a stable structure is stressed beyond its buffering capacity to resist and absorb.”

This appears to be an approximation of Condi’s approach to the Middle East. The region has been beset for decades by a profound socio-economic, cultural, and political stagnation. Change will not come on its own, because existing structures have developed their own momentum over time, while creating and strengthening safeguards that ensure a continuation of the status quo. What, then, does one do? Well, you “puncture” the equilibrium. You overwhelm a system with excess inputs and demands, with the expectation that it will give way under sustained pressure. In such a scenario, it remains unclear what kind of change will come about, but at least there will be change. And, to be sure, the Middle East has changed quite a bit over the last few years. Out of chaos will come a new dawn. Or "the birth pangs of the new Middle East"…so on and so forth. This is, of course, all very scary, particularly for people who are not used to such “excitement” (or for the people who must pay for such designs with their lives). However, it is unclear whether the problem is in the idea or the execution. I suspect it’s more the latter.

Karen Hughes is at Summer Camp Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Shadi asks such a good question -- Where is Karen Hughes -- that I thought I'd try to answer it.  And indeed, it wasn't hard.  Just last week, she sat down for an interview with the Dallas News which included this gem of a public diplomacy priority:

summer camps to teach English.

Now, it would actually be a cheap shot to contrast that proposal with the depth of disaster that is our Middle East policy. 

But I can't resist it.  Let's see -- maybe one in Ramallah; one in the Lebanese mountains -- so beautiful; and one each for Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites!

Seriously, in places like Indonesia, Turkey, parts of Africa, I think that might be a reasonable idea.  But what it does highlight is the long-term, slow-moving nature of public diplomacy -- and the utter foolishness, or cynicism, of presenting Ms. Hughes' work as the solution to the problem of our terrible image in large parts of the world.

It's like your mama used to tell you about your reputation -- takes a long time to build it up but only a short time to lose it.

(Another reason Ms. Hughes might want to disappear -- release of this study showing that attitudes toward the US actually worsened among Arab students who took in the two US-funded networks, Radio Sawa and Alhurra tv.) 

Karen Hughes is Missing Posted by Shadi Hamid

Is somebody going to file a missing person report on Karen Hughes? If any Democracy Arsenal readers know of her whereabouts, please email me immediately. This, I wish to tell you, is of the greatest importance.

It is unfortunate, tragic even, but Ms Hughes has been missing in action since July 13. But now of all times, you ask in frustration? 

Well, the State Department’s got to get its act together. Actually, never mind that. It’s too late. There is nothing quite left to salvage. Condoleezza Rice appears intent on saying the most bizarrely inappropriate things to already skeptical international audiences. As Arianna Huffington observed, it’s not exactly the best idea to compare war to labor contractions. Stop talking about the “new Middle East” for God’s sake! If this is the “new” Middle East, then I think I’ll have to take the “old” one, thank you. Condi is doing what no brave soul before her had ever been able to do – make Brent Scrowcroft look like a genius. This is problematic because Scrowcroft is not a genius. “Constructive instability” or “fifty years of perpetual peace”? This is what we’ve been reduced to. Republicans seem capable of only two responses to foreign policy debacles: rummy, bluster and butt-kicking and…ummm…the dank grayness of realpolitik. Yuggh….well, we – the brave purveyors of democracy’s arsenal – reject both.

If this nonsense is going to continue, then one has to wonder what the point of having an Office of Public Diplomacy (drastically underfunded anyway) is in the first place.

I can’t remember the last time I heard an Egyptian say something good about America (praise for George Clooney doesn’t count). This gets tiresome after awhile. So, I’ve downgraded my expectations and now I shoot for more realistic objectives. Now, during heated discussions in the dusty, sprawling metropolis we call Cairo, I consider it a success when I convince the other person that America is not evil. Usually I do this by repeating the name Bill Clinton over and over again, no less than twenty times. It also helps to mention that we saved Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims from genocide and that, contrary to popular belief, Kosovo does not have any oil. Well, I may not be a public diplomacy machine, but I do what I can. One small step at a time. But odes to Clinton, however appropriate, do not exactly bear the makings of a successful, long-term public diplomacy campaign. In any case, that (Clinton) was then, this (Bush) is now.

Scorn the Past, Repeat it Twice as Hard Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Condoleezza Rice should be muttering two words to herself:  Madeleine Albright, Madeleine Albright.

When you're a celebrity Secretary of State, you get strange fan mail, and while I worked for her Albright received a letter from the husband of a woman who, late in pregnancy, had been working a crossword puzzle with the clue "first woman Secretary of State."  She couldn't recall the name.  But something about going into labor later in the day tripped her memory, and she was wheeled into the hospital shouting "Madeleine Albright, Madeleine Albright."

Touching, no?  Rice has never given birth, of course, but with all the calls for her to head to the Middle East this week she ought to recognize the feeling.

Albright has publicly and privately been giving Rice, and before her Colin Powell, advice she learned the hard way:  you think, as Secretary of State, you can avoid getting sucked into painful Middle East shuttle diplomacy.  But you can't.

And if that isn't enough, today we have Newt Gingrich offering a comparison to another of Albright's unlovely second-term assignments:  "Is the next stage for Condi to go dancing with Kim Jong Il?"  I wish I were skilled enough in computer graphics to create a photomontage of that. 

Newt does have a way with a phrase, and he puts his finger on a nasty little reality here:  the next stage is for Rice to talk to Kim Jong Il's representatives; and, however long they postpone it in (misguided) hopes that Israel's military strategy can produce something other than the pro-Hezbollah alignment that it already seems to be ratifying, Rice will eventually have to go lead a press for a cease-fire.  Why?  Because we've let years go by without helping Israelis, Palestinians and their other neighbors build machinery that could do it without us.  Because we can't afford to have Iraqi Shiite extremists taking actions in support of Hezbollah.  Because we ought to care about the fate of Lebanese democracy, as this Arab blogger wisely points out.

The Bush Administration is about to learn, considerably later than its predecessor, that "creative chaos" is best kept inside the Administration.  The rest of its tenure will be spent trying to tamp down the fires that they either allowed to spring up (North Korea, which figured out a "good" way to get our attention after this Administrration determined to ignore it in 2001-2) or deliberately unleashed (an Arab power vacuum which Hezbollah is hoping, by new feats of ugly attacks on civilians, to spring). 

So stock up on support stockings for the plane ride, take a cushion for the hard chairs outside the Syrian president's office... and think of it as prep for dealing with all those NFL owners when Rice becomes commissioner.

Scrowcroft’s Ghost Continues to Haunt the Hallways of the State Department Posted by Shadi Hamid

I remember the last time I was in Cairo in May 2005. There was, then, a sense that things were finally moving forward. Hope – that most rare of luxuries – was making a comeback (albeit a modest one). Today, the level of repression is getting pretty bad, as I wrote on Tuesday. And, of course, the State Department can be counted on for making things even worse.

No one in the press seemed to care much about the congressional debate on US aid to Egypt which took place earlier this month, so, for posterity’s sake, let me bring to your attention a few things which capture, quite convincingly I think, the veritable death of the Bush administration’s efforts to democratize the Middle East. If you really care about democracy, I suggest you take a deep breath before you read how our venerable officials at the State Department - perhaps under the spell of the Scrowcroftian spirit which continues to haunt the writhing hallways of the Harry S. Truman Building (and especially the 7^th floor) – made a mockery of our country's founding ideals. What the heck is Condoleezza doing?

On June 9th, Congress debated Egypt’s aid package. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), an amendment which would have reduced US aid to Egypt by $100 million was defeated in a close 225-198 vote. Well, I'm sure you're wondering where the Bush administration stood? This, according to a rather interesting article in al-Ahram Weekly, before congress voted: “The Bush administration has called on Congress to keep annual aid to Egypt of nearly $2 billion dollars intact for the next fiscal year, arguing that America's strategic interests will be harmed if aid to the Egyptian government is cut.”

Then you had one mess of a May 17th congressional hearing on the question of US aid to Egypt. Here, the position of the State Department representatives couldn't have been more clear. You had stalwart realists like Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, who never for one second cared about Bush’s “vision” for “ending tyranny,” insisting, impassionedly it seems from the transcript, for the maintenance of the status quo:

Our strategic partnership with Egypt is a cornerstone of US policy in the region. We share a vision of a Middle East that is at peace and free of terror.

Who cares about ideals when you’ve got interests? (I guess he forgot that nothing causes terrorism like tyranny). Then, Michael Coulter, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, pointed out that military aid to the Egyptian regime helps guarantee “a defense force capable of supporting US security.” I guess Coulter forgot to mention that Egypt also plays a valuable role in torturing the terrorism suspects that we ship over to them, as part of our extraordinary renditions program. Well, priorities are priorities.

Public Diplomacy: It's About Governing, Not Campaigning Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Since we've kept up quite a little Karen Hughes watch here at DemocracyArsenal, I want to give props to Steve Clemons' excellent post on public diplomacy this week, keying off this US News & World Report piece.

The gist:  Ms. Hughes is very adept at running campaigns, and she has instituted rapid-response and quick-hit initiatives which are well-run.  But public diplomacy is not primarily about short-term hits -- especially in societies which haven't yet been overtaken by our 24-hour quick-hit media culture.  It's about patient, long-term building of relationships, exchanges of ideas, sharing of information and opening of minds. 

My old boss Mort Abramowitz likes to say that our modern democratic culture is inimical to successful, thoughtful foreign policy.  I've never wanted to go that far.  But running foreign policy as an extension of campaign culture is certainly inimical to success.

And if you need further evidence of that, go look at the bad news in this year's Pew Global Attitude Survey.  America's image slid in most of the 15 countries surveyed; so much for that vaunted second-term charm offensive.

Why Bono Should be our Next Secretary of State Posted by Shadi Hamid

Yes, this post may strike some as random, but it must be said, and I cannot help but say it. U2's Bono should be our next Secretary of State, under, of course, a Democratic administration in 2008. I came to this “conclusion,” when buried in my MP3 collection, I was struck once again by Bono’s remarkable skills as a communicator. In a live version of the classic “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” he breaks off into one of his impassioned mini-speeches:

Let me tell you something…I’ve had enough of Irish Americans who haven’t been back to their country in twenty or thirty years, come up to me and talk about the resistance, the revolution back home. And the glory of the revolution and the glory of dying for the revolution…Fuck the revolution! They don’t talk about the glory of killing for the revolution. What’s the glory in taking a man from his bed and gunning him down in front of his wife and his children? Where’s the glory in that? Where’s the glory in bombing a Remembrance Day parade of old-age pensioners their medals taken out and polished up for the day? Where’s the glory in that? To leave them dying or crippled for life or dead under the rubble of a revolution that the majority of people in my country don’t want…say no more, no more, no more, no more….”

The crowd, tens of thousands strong, screams back in unison. It is one of those rare, cathartic moments in music. Bono’s message here and elsewhere is affecting, powerful, and totally in keeping with America’s founding ideals. A keen regard not only for the dignity of the oppressed but for those who will no doubt be made to suffer in the sullied name of redemption. Joe Klein, to his credit, keeps on talking about the chokehold political consultants have on the Democratic Party and that we need genuine politicians who actually believe in something, who are alive with feeling, emotion, and (within bounds) righteous anger. Ok, then, let’s do this. Why Bono? Here are 7 reasons:

1. He actually does have substantive foreign policy experience, having met with and discussed the intricacies of Western aid to Africa with heads of state and senior-level officials from around the world. Moreover, he has been on the front lines of setting a new Africa agenda for development organizations, including USAID, the World Bank and the IMF.

Using Long Knives on Rice? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

She's had a long honeymoon.  She has websites begging her to run for President.  She has Democrats praying for her health and the New York Times fawning over her chamber playing.  And let's not forget the NFL.

But the hard right has had about enough of Secretary Rice and her diplomacy.

What's my evidence?  Last week, Robert Novak of Valerie Plame fame published a column entitled "Who Runs Our State Department?"

Nominally, the piece is an attack on Under Secretary Nicholas Burns for displaying insufficient hostility to the new UN Human Rights Council.  But it's really much more.  Novak notes that Nick, a well-regarded career foreign service officer, also had senior posts under President Clinton (when both Derek and I worked with him) and says that, if John Kerry were President, "Burns would have the job he has now and would be promoting the same policies."

OK, you think, just typical right-wing disdain for the folks who actually make government run.  But then comes this (emphasis mine):

News accounts did not even mention Burns. He flies below the radar in controlling State Department policy on many issues beyond human rights. Inside the Bush administration, Burns is seen as guiding the nation's course on Iran and Korea. His influence on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is so surprising that critics use the word Svengali.

On its face, this is just silly -- especially the same week that the American Prospect publishes Bob Dreyfuss' dissection of Dick Cheney's national security staff.  Either Dick Cheney controls everything or some career diplomat controls everything... what would you believe?  And does anybody seriously think that Secretary Rice, after four years running the Bush NSC, requires a Svengali?

No.  But somebody -- the same somebodies who talk to Bob Novak about subjects like Valerie Plame, or their unindicted co-conspirator friends -- thinks that things are looking too moderate at the State Department.  So this looks like a first effort at swiping at Rice second-hand -- particularly alarming if seen in the context of the debate over Iran.   

Karen Hughes Visits Airport, Discovers Palestine Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last week, Karen Hughes gave an interview on National Public Radio's Morning Edition in which she described two "discoveries:" one, that much negative foreign opinion is driven by perceptions of the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and two, that Americans and foreigners must stand in separate lines in airport immigration, and that the process as a whole is not very "welcoming."

I guess I should be pleased that she is open-minded enough to learn on the job... not everyone is.

Memo to Karen Hughes: New Public Diplomacy Recruits Posted by Suzanne Nossel

So here's an idea.  Karen Hughes and team are criss-crossing the globe trying to rebuild America's image with speeches, student outreach, and corporate programs.  Its a hard job made much tougher by near-daily revelations of mistreatment at Abu Ghraib, unauthorized wiretapping, the Dubai ports fracas and other policy debacles that undo the positive portrait Hughes is trying to paint.

While hers is nearly mission impossible right now one way to strengthen US public diplomacy efforts in future would be to mobilize former foreign ambassadors who have served in the US, turning the tables so that they represent the US as goodwill ambassadors to their home countries. 

Let's face it, no matter how hard she tries, Karen Hughes is a heavily accented Texan trying to forge instant, personal connections with skeptics in far-flung regions.   US diplomats face a similar problem:  they tend to be as apple-pie American as they come, and are discouraged from "going native" in ways that might help transcend cultural divides (will be interesting to see whether Khalilzad's example reshapes the ambassadorial model at all).

Former foreign ambassadors who have served in the US might help build what can often be a bridge too far for Americans working on their own.  Having worked with many ambassadors at the UN and some in Washington one thing stands out:  after a few years here, sometimes despite themselves and their governments, these people tend to get sucked into a long-term love affair with America. 

They start summering in the Hamptons, shopping at Whole Foods, scheduling around the Sopranos and - before they know it - they develop an abiding fondness for virtually all things American but for, in many cases, our policies.   The feelings are often strongest among those from poor countries where the quality of life contrasts are starkest.  I've never seen numbers collected, but a large number of these emissaries seem to send their kids to American colleges and graduate schools, often soldering permanent ties to grandchildren who are American. 

Both Washington and the UN in New York tend to be the very top posts available in foreign diplomatic services.  So unless an ambassador goes on to become foreign minister, the next step is often retirement from the diplomatic corps.   While some former envoys may squire lucrative private sector offers, most don't.  Accustomed to life as dignitaries, many have got to be bored with the adjunct teaching, lecturing and other opportunities open to them.  Why not put them on the U.S. government payroll instead?

Is the State Department Ready for the Job? Posted by Gordon Adams

Given the Iraq experience and the recent strategy review (QDR), DOD has made it clear that it will want a lot more interagency cooperation the next time we decide to occupy, stabilize, and reconstruct another country. It is not clear who the candidate countries are, though Iran, Nigeria, Indonesia, Syria come to mind. (That just means it will probably be a country we have not thought of.)

The interagency partner, however, is clear: the Department of State (along with USAID and other financial assistance agencies). Iraq demonstrated that America’s diplomats and assistance agencies were totally unprepared for the challenge. The question is, what lessons has State learned and what investments is Foggy Bottom planning that would correct this deficiency and give DOD the partner it seeks?

Secretary Rice knows State is in the bulls’ eye on stabilization, governance and reconstruction. She gave two speeches last week advertising “transformed diplomacy” at State and “transformed economic assistance” affecting all the aid programs in the international affairs arena.

So, the obvious question is: Has the rubber hit the road in the new budget and will State and AID be ready for the job when the next call comes? We can get some clues from the new budget for International Affairs the administration has just sent up to the Hill this week. And the answer is: not yet, so the trumpet had better not sound soon.

Dr. Rice and the Other State of the Union Posted by Jeffrey Stacey

While all eyes were on the President casting his critics as isolationists in internationalist clothing, the U.S. foreign policy "state of the union" has been promoted over the last two weeks by Condoleezza Rice.  With all the zeal of full-fledged converts, Dr. Rice and her boss have come a long way from being quasi-isolationists in 2000 to adopting what they refer to as a "revolutionary" grand strategy.  In fact, the Administration has pulled off something of a double revolution even before our Secretary of State took up her new post.

Secretary Rice defines the strategy as the pursuit of democratic peace, premised on the notion that democracy is the global panacea to everything from terrorism to bad governance.  Indeed, though she is loathe to mention Woodrow Wilson she is unabashed about describing the strategy as "idealistic" and "optimistic" (and she is quoting Acheson and Truman left and right).  Her transformation from badmouthing nation building and bashing Democrats for not taking rivalries with an emerging China and resurgent Russia seriously is complete.

However, not only is this grand strategy incomplete and a bit naive, but in case you missed it we have now witnessed three different grand strategies from the Bush-Rice tandem.  They began pursuing a strategy in 2000 of--if not quasi-isolationism then--selective engagement, based on balance of power politics and only using the U.S. military if core national interests were at stake.  Post 9-11 the tandem did not adopt a democratic peace strategy; in fact, what became known as the Bush Doctrine rested entirely on the notion that states no longer must wait to act in self-defense but can engage in unilateral pre-emptive attacks if threatened.

Re-Stating Things Posted by Michael Signer

News today in WaPo that Secretary Rice is re-tasking the professional diplomats at the Department of State to hot problem areas like China, Lebanon, and Pakistan, rather than the ticking time bomb being watched over by the FSO's assigned to Berlin (relax, this is meant to be dryly put).

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that she will shift hundreds of Foreign Service positions from Europe and Washington to difficult assignments in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere as part of a broad restructuring of the diplomatic corps that she has dubbed "transformational diplomacy."

Lip Service, Public Service and the General Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Latest gossip in DC wonkdom is that Major General (USA ret.)  William Nash is going to be the next head of the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction (S-CRS) .  This is the vital-but budget-starved creation of Senate legislation proposed by Sens.  Lugar and Biden two years ago.  General Nash will supposedly replace Carlos Pascual, who is leaving government for the Brookings Institution after valiantly representing the new office during its start up phase.  He doubtless shares our collective disappointment over Congress' stunning unwillingness to fund the office, made even more gob-stopping by all the lip-service on Capitol Hill about the need to relieve our armed forces and/or develop an exit strategy for Iraq.

The mission of S-CRS  is to lead, coordinate, and institutionalize U.S. Government civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict or civil strife so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy and a market economy.     This office is small in government terms --but is symbolically huge.  It represents the nexus between Cold War security priorities (military dominance) and post 9/11 security imperatives (prevention and persuasion).  Indeed, its task is to make prevention operational.  This will require a compelling story and the intellectual jujitsu to be able to take the post-conflict experiences of Iraq and translate them into a far thinking strategy of prevention--our only real chance to win the terrorism fight in the long run.

Enter General Nash.

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.

Karen Hughes, Stateswoman (Gulp) Posted by Michael Signer

On Karen Hughes' recent ascension from Texas-based media hack to an actual stateswoman, I find myself holding onto the tabletop to try and keep this dizzy event in some perspective.

After all, it's long been apparent that the Bush Administration pursues political victories with such single-minded ruthlessness that spin has become not a means to an end, but the game itself.  The consequence of this is severe; it means that governance becomes about spinning and winning -- not about achieving objective goals.  Which is why Karl Rove is running the government.  (Recently reported:  "Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort." )

But, still.  Karen Hughes as an Undersecretary of State?

OK, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.  Our own Heather, after all, has suggested that we take her role seriously, and give her advice -- which implies (I think reasonably) that Hughes' new job promoting a better American face to the world (particularly the Middle East) is too important to dismiss out of hand.

But then we find out what she's actually saying, now that she's in the job.  WaPo reports today a couple of wince-worthy moments from Hughes' recent visits overseas:

Explaining U.S. goals for Palestinians, Hughes said it was "to have the experience of having children and families."

In Egypt, another clunker:

[I]n Ankara, the Turkish capital, she gushed: "I love all kids. And I understand that is something I have in common with the Turkish people -- that they love children."

I don't mind so much that our own President's bias for touchy-feely, inept diplomacy (remember how he swooned over our Russian proto-tyrant's soul?) has translated into Hughes' own sillinesses.  What does bother me is my concern that Hughes utterly lacks the depth of local knowledge, and the intellectual seriousness, that makes diplomats stateswomen. 

When she complained thusly about Palestinians:

Hughes told reporters traveling with her that she was surprised Bush didn't get more credit in the region for calling for a Palestinian state.

I worried that she just, really and truly, will have no idea what she's doing over there.

I mean, you think we'd get used to it -- but, really, you never do.

Not to Praise Arms Control, But to Bury It Posted by Heather Hurlburt

It's August, so all the best news is quietly released on Fridays, while most of us are plotting our weekend escapes.  For last week, kudos to Sam Nunn and his band of hell-raisers over at the Nuclear Threat Initiative for highlighting the State Department's proposal to consolidate/abolish most of its arms control offices.

NTI's story notes some of the complexities involved.  Yes, the world has changed, as Dr. Rice said back in March.  NTI even gets John Isaacs of Council for a Livable World to say that

I don’t know that it makes that much difference. Whether the administration is good or bad on arms control or proliferation doesn’t depend on how they organize the State Department but how the top leaders are thinking and what they plan to do.

But much as I agree that some radical thinking is due on arms control, I'm with Darryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association when he says that "form does affect substance."

It's not that I think that the soon-to-be-eliminated Special Negotiator for Chemical and Biological Weapons was going to change President Bush's mind about the merits of inspections to search for bioweapons in the next three years, for example.

But, if there's no path for smart people to make careers thinking about arms control, where are new ideas going to come from?  And the next time we need regional arms control to end, diffuse or prevent a conflict, where's the reservoir of expertise going to be?

You don't need a huge arms control bureaucracy for this.  But you do need to see arms control as more than an anti-terror tactic, which is the mindset these changes convey to me.   

And how bizarre/cynical is it to to combine the office that promotes missile defense (here, buy/borrow/host our anti-missile missiles) with the office in charge of preventing the dissemination of missile technology?

Senator Lugar says that this reorganization will result in more funds for Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs.  But c'mon, these programs keep 40,000 weapons scientists fed, working and less likely to sell their expertise to the highest bidder.  They verifiably dismantle weapons and safeguard vulnerable materials.  AND they get 1-for-1 matching funds from our G-8 partners.  And State has to hold an arms control fire sale to fund them? 

I'm with Rep. Allan Mollohan, who agreed that our arms control establishment had problems, but said of the proposed changes that "the prescription amounted to killing one of the patients."

Now back to our regularly-scheduled August daze.  But watch to see whether Nunn-Lugar funding really rises, or just flatlines.  And when the weather cools down, and we need arms control regimes on the Korean Peninsula post-agreement, or after a Kosovo-Serbia final status agreement, or maybe one day around Kashmir; or we decide that maybe the 104 countries that have accepted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are on to something; or decide that maybe inspecting for bioweapons is a good idea after all, don't go ask State for help.

That's so 20th-century.

Memo to Karen Hughes Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I have been spending quite a bit of time looking at the state of US public diplomacy for various projects over the past couple of months.  And, in the helpful spirit of bipartisanship that we try to promote here at Democracy Arsenal, I have compiled a short memo of proposals for Ms. Hughes.  Most of them are easy enough that she should be able to get them going from Texas, or from the cell phone on the way to drop her son off at college.

5.  Start a youthquake.  I'm glad the State Department still has cultural ambassadors -- longterm, it's the idea of America, or the ideas of America, that are going to tilt hearts our way.  But given that the world median age is 26, according to the UN -- younger in the Islamic and developing worlds -- shouldn't we have some cultural ambassadors younger than Bernie Williams, b. 1968? (And no, I'm not picking on Bernie because I'm a BoSox fan; the next youngest appears to be Denyce Graves, who is coy about her age but graduated from Washington's Duke Ellington HS in 1981.)

4.  While you're at it, maybe some of those cultural ambassadors ought to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage?

3.  Put the Public back in Public Diplomacy.  Earlier this spring, the GAO put out a report calling on the Whit House to "fully implement the role mandated" for its Office of Global Communications.  Trouble was, the White House had quietly closed the office down shortly before.

2.  Keep the Free in Free Press.  Ex-Voice of America Director Sanford Ungar alleges in the new Foreign Affairs that the Administration is leaning heavily on VOA journalists to report the news the way they want it.  He can't resist, and neither can I, the comparison to Lyndon Johnson, who tried to get what he called "my own radio" to broadcast the news the way he wanted it.  We all know how that ended.

1.  Of course, all of these projects are deck chairs on the Titanic if we aren't sending out the right signals about what we stand for -- as opposed to what we say we stand for.  and to that end, the "Give that fan a contract" prize goes to Keith Reinhard, President of Business for Diplomatic Action, who said:

"As you know, the image of our country is a montage of our foreign policy, the brands we market, and the entertainment we export.  It could be referred to as a cocktail of "Rummy" and Coke with Madonna on the side."

 

Good for Bush Posted by Derek Chollet

It isn’t often that we at DA heap praise on the President, but today he deserves some.  Last night at an event hosted by the International Republican Institute, he gave a pretty good speech on the importance of democracy and freedom.  But most interesting, he spoke at length about the importance of an issue that his administration once derided, nation-building, and how we have to build our civilian capacity to help war-torn states get back on their feet.  He described a new office the State Department created last summer to be the locus of forward planning and preparation for post-conflict situations (remember, the State Department was cut-out or largely ignored in the planning for Iraq), and described in detail an important new initiative: to create a new corps of civilian post-conflict “first responders,” called an Active Response Corps.

It is worth quoting in full:

“We must also improve the responsiveness of our government to help nations emerging from tyranny and war. Democratic change can arrive suddenly -- and that means our government must be able to move quickly to provide needed assistance. So last summer, my administration established a new Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization in the State Department, led by Ambassador Carlos Pascual. This new office is charged with coordinating our government's civilian efforts to meet an essential mission: helping the world's newest democracies make the transition to peace and freedom and a market economy.

You know, one of the lessons we learned from our experience in Iraq is that, while military personnel can be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world, the same is not true of U.S. government civilians. Many fine civilian workers from almost every department of our government volunteered to serve in Iraq. When they got there they did an amazing job under extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances -- and America appreciates their service and sacrifice. But the process of recruiting and staffing the Coalition Provisional Authority was lengthy and it was difficult. That's why one of the first projects of the new Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization is to create a new Active Response Corps, made up of foreign and civil service officers who can deploy quickly to crisis situations as civilian "first responders." This new Corps will be on call -- ready to get programs running on the ground in days and weeks, instead of months and years. The 2006 budget requests $24 million for this office, and $100 million for a new Conflict Response Fund. If a crisis emerges, and assistance is needed, the United States of America will be ready. (Applause.)

This office will also work to expand our use of civilian volunteers from outside our government, who have the right skills and are willing to serve in these missions. After the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans from all walks of life stepped forward to help these newly liberated nations recover. Last summer a Lancaster, Ohio police officer named Brian Fisher volunteered to spend a year in Baghdad training Iraqi police. Brian says, "The Iraqi people have been under a dictatorship and now they are moving toward democracy, and I want to do something to help." What a fantastic spirit that Brian showed. But he's not alone. Last May, a Notre Dame Law School professor named Jimmy Gurul helped train 39 Iraqi judges, some of whom will conduct the trials of Saddam Hussein and other senior members of his regime. Because of efforts of people like him and Brian, these trials will be fair and transparent.

These are ordinary Americans who are making unbelievable contributions to freedom's cause. And the spirit of the citizenship of this country is remarkable, and we're going to put that spirit to work to advance the cause of liberty and to build a safer world. (Applause.)”

For years, many in the think-tank world as well as Democratic and Republican members of Congress have been talking about such ideas, and we can justifiably criticize the Administration for being slow on the uptake.  And remembering this Administration’s penchant for making bold promises and then letting them go unfulfilled (think global HIV/AIDS assistance), we need to ensure that actions match rhetoric.  But last night’s statement is an important start.

Dana Rohrabacher Got It Right Posted by Heather Hurlburt

You won't catch me typing that very often.  But continuing Suzanne's effort to find common ground with our conservative friends, I want to note that Rohrabacher called it right on Uzbekistan -- and did it while the Administration was still summoning the courage to be "deeply disturbed" about Karimov's use of force.

I caught him regaling NPR listeners about his trip to Uzbekistan just last month, and how he had told President Karimov that he could "leave as a statesman" by allowing a free election for someone else to succeed him, or "leave feet first." 

This time, Rohrabacher understands something too many of our friends in the blogosphere do not -- that there are plenty of options between supporting authoritarian stooges and abandoning a country to extremist rule. 

Or, when it first became obvious a decade ago that Karimov was nobody's idea of a great ruler, there were options.  There were also considerably fewer radical Islamists.  Now there is a powerful, shadowy and highly radical Islamist organization, along with poverty, resentment, heightened ethnic tensions -- all in all, just the place for the US to be building big military installations.

Karimov has squeezed out civil society, peaceful Islam, and other avenues for protest -- and the US military presence makes a mockery of the well-meant efforts of State Department human rights officials to insist that the US really does want change. 

Last July, for example, the US determined that Uzbekistan was not making progress on human rights concerns and cut $18 million in aid.  Just a month later, though, Human Rights Watch says, the Defense Department ponied up an additional $21 million.  If you were Karimov, what would you think?

This is a great opportunity for progressives to stress what we would do differently with respect to two of Suzanne's questions from Drezner readers:  are you for democracy promotion, or not, and what about hypocrisy?

As I have written before, the US will deal with nasty governments in order to preserve our national interests, no matter who is in power.  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," Emerson says.  But smart policymakers -- a category that doesn't have to be limited to progressives -- will limit their hypocrisies by being able to ask themselves hard questions.  Such as:

how many of our eggs do we really want in this sleazeball's basket?

given the discouraging Soviet and British precedents, do we really want a long-term heavy-footprint presence in Central Asia?

are we diminishing our long-term prospects by getting ourselves identified too closely with this lousy government in the near term?

And, now that this violence has happened, and Karimov appears to be unrepentantly following up by ordering large-scale arrests:

are we stuck?  if so, what levers do we have, beyond expressing "deep concern," to put the situation on a better track and communicate to Uzbeks who aren't (yet) committed to Islamist revolution that there is another way?

Progressives on democracy promotion:  you promote democracy by increasing, in big ways or small ways, the ability of people to make decisions that affect their own lives.  You don't promote democracy by lecturing about it -- how much did conservatives like being lectured by Europeans about our elections?  You don't promote democracy by installing it by force, as I argued (with some nice company, like Wes Clark) in this month's Washington Monthly.   

Supporting State Posted by Michael Signer

The rash of violence in Iraq continues, with two Iraqi officials assassinated and 18 more dead yesterday -- an insurgency driven at least in part by local resentment driven by a lack of trust in the occupying forces.  The same dynamic's in place in Afghanistan, too, where there was a massive anti-American riot yesterday. 

Local understanding, based on patient, long-term knowledge of local politics and culture, and long-range thinking about trends and attitudes toward America -- does this sound like a job for (a) the military?  Or (b) professional diplomats at the State Department?

If you answered (b), you win the prize.

Last night, I was at a dinner with Lorelei, several Hill staffers, and an Army officer who has been involved in the reconstruction of Iraq.  The conversation -- over middling but cheerfully served Greek food right near Capitol Hill -- circled around several topics, but most consistently returned to a single glaring focal point:  America lacks a professionalized diplomatic corps to put in place long-term planning and strategy for the world's hot spots.  And our politicians too often lack the will to sell diplomacy to their constituents.

Help State Help the Army Posted by Lorelei Kelly

This past week, the House and -Senate agreed to the FY 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL CONFERENCE REPORT.

The final bill provides nearly $76 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding for the State Department's new office for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization ended up a disappointing $7.7 million, down from an initial request of $17 million. The final bill also funds international peacekeeping activities at $680 million, $100 million less than the President's request of $780 million. See a final summary on the appropriations website.

From these numbers, its obvious that most Members of Congress don't see foreign policy and defense as integrated concepts yet, despite all of our post Cold War experiences illustrating that they are. The need for a reconfigured division of labor in our national security apparatus should be obvious to any elected leader who is paying attention to the news for the past three years or even talking to a few returned soldiers back home in the district.

Creating a fully coordinated capacity for reconstruction and stabilization is perhaps the single most important step our government could take to lessen the load of our beleagured armed forces. In order to do this collaboration, we need parallel structures in Defense and State –which we don't have. Yet Congress allocates chump change to that end when it comes to setting priorities in the budgeting process. 

The under funding of capacity for civilian stabilization and reconstruction presents one of those moments when we all need to remind ourselves that there is no such thing as the word "should" on on Capitol Hill.  How could this have happened?

1. The Administration didn't really go to bat for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. The White House could have rounded up the full funding with one or two phone calls to the Hill.

2. Which leads me to suspect that recent proclamations in support of democracy as a sort of new Grand Strategy is passive, not active. In other words, nobody actively disagrees, but there is no active nor identifiable political constituency to push it through.  Congress follows the path of least resistance and without strong support from the Executive Branch, it gets triaged out.

3. The people with the best stories to tell about the vastly changed needs on the ground. i.e. the Army and Marine Corps. are not political advocates.  They also don't have relationships with the progressive members of Congress who would take up this cause and fight for it.  Until recently, there has been no real concerted education effort to bring Congress--much less the progressives-- up to speed and to help them be effective on content and message.

4. Congress (Members and staff) are skeptical of new offices/bureaucracies in general, nothing personal against S/CRS. Most Members and staff know very little about post conflict reconstruction and many are generally anti-participation. (Yes, despite the fact that our Army is doing it anyway!)

5. There is resistance within State to S/CRS, and that resistance is known to Congress, thus inhibiting support.  This is partly territorial, partly resource protection, partly skepticism that S/CRS can do anything worthwhile.

There are some pieces of legislation floating around Congress right now that address the problem of civilian capacity. Senators Lugar and Biden have reintroduced their bill.  In the House, David Dreier (CA) (formerly only lukewarm on the issue) has introduced another. Here is a list of all the initiatives ongoing. My favorite comprehensive package is  Lynn Woolsey's (CA), bill called SMART  security.

One key challenge at the moment is to build a much broader citizen-based political constituency for conflict resolution in foreign policy.  This must happen before Congress will truly respond to the pressing need for change. Maybe the first step would be to make yellow ribbonbumper stickers that say "we support our troops AND our diplomats."

Tomorrow's Headlines Today Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Three topics I'd be very interested in if I were a magazine assignments editor, a corporate strategist, or the head of State's Policy Planning shop*:

1.  A small-c conservative shift in Europe is larger than most engaged Americans realize, with implications that we haven't much thought through.

Exhibit A is how the selection of Pope Benedict XVI stunned many American observers, even though in retrospect he was doing some pretty good campaigning for himself in the Italian media.  More specifically, how his election has been attributed to the church's concern with the decline in European catholicism.  (Remember that Europe is still vastly over-represented in the College of Cardinals.)  And what issue did he take on first?  A gay marriage law in Spain.  I'd never argue that the church's European cardinals are exactly in tune with the continental zeitgeist... but yet...

Exhibit B is the upcoming referenda on the EU constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands.  The treaty is in trouble in France and a concern in the Netherlands, both traditional bastions of pro-EU sentiment.  In neither country is the vote really about the 400-page accretion of specificities and compromises that make up Giscard d'Estaing's treaty; in both the anti-treaty sentiment is tinged with anti-Muslim sentiment that has seized on the prospect of Turkish admission to the EU as one of its rallying points (an  opposition it shares with Pope Benedict, by the way.)

If a major EU country votes down the treaty, that will provoke a near-crisis.  Even if France and the others pull a "oui" out of the fire, the going for the Euro-phile project, and for the tolerant multiculturalism that many Americans, rightly or wrongly, associate with "Europe" is going to be tough for a few years. 

Might that have implications for how much energy and vision Europe can devote to challenges beyond its borders?  Are the "non" campaigners and the cardinals tapping into some very real discomforts with what the 21st century looks like, discomforts not unlike those that make Americans go running to George W. bush for another four years of safety from terrorism?  You bet.

2.  A diffuse, unsteady but very real "third wave" of democratization and "people power" is crashing around the world right now.  If I were a Bush Administration speechwriter, I'd be bragging about it at every opportunity.  Why aren't they? 

A theory:  we all spend a great deal of time worrying about democracy producing results we don't like in places like Iraq, citing the example of fundamentalists elected in Algeria 14 years ago, and so on.  But interestingly, the results most inimical to Washington's order of things right now are coming from Latin America.  Chavez is still in power, and still tweaking Washington; Ecuador can't seem to keep a government in power; and voters in Uruguay and elsewhere have acted n their dissatisfaction with how little growth has trickled down to bring in a "pink tide" of leftist governments in recent years.

And then there are the plucky democracy campaigners we can't (or won't) do much of anything to help -- Zimbabwe, Togo.

So narrowly, this wave of democratization was not made in Washington.  But it is changing the face of some critical regions -- the former Soviet Union, South America, parts of Africa -- in ways that are good for core US values in the long run, but perhaps challenging for Bush Administration interests in the short run. 

3.  An amen, brother to Derek's thoughts on building a strategic reserve of people who actually know something about the Arab and Muslim worlds to help make policy on them, with one addition; in my experience, we are also pretty short on Asia experts.  The broad issue corresponding to terrorism here is strategy for how the US positions itself politically and economically in a world where Asia is on the rise -- and then the ability to carry out such a strategy.  I find the Asianist shortage to get more severe the higher-up one goes; there are still too many of us reformed Sovietologists around.  Many of the Bush Administration's miscalculations, to my mind, can be explained by the paucity of policymakers whose minds were formed anywhere other than in the US-Soviet cauldron.

*Funny note:  I wanted to link to Policy Planning on State's website.  When I searched for it, this is what I got.  I had to pull up the org chart to reassure myself that the Policy Planning staff (of which I am an alum) was still there.

Chollet on Rice in Today's Washington Post Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Great piece this morning by Democracy Arsenal's very own Derek Chollet looking at Condi Rice's potential.  Stay tuned to Democracy Arsenal to find out whether she fulfils the promise.

Rice Aims to Put Foggy Bottom Back on the Map

By Derek Chollet

Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page B01

In trying to explain the role of a secretary of state, George Shultz likens it to the more mundane occupation of gardening. Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan's top diplomat, says the job entails working every day to keep our alliances healthy, pulling the weeds before they rage out of control, and combating the dangerous pests that want to steal or destroy the fruit. The gardening analogy captures much of what U.S. foreign policy actually is -- the pursuit of America's interests abroad through the constant nurturing of a complex array of actors, interests and goals. Every secretary of state in memory, in his or her own way, has tried to stick to it.

Shultz's former Stanford University colleague and pupil, current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, wants to try something different. What's striking about her first three months in office is that she has articulated a role for herself and her department that goes far beyond the mere maintenance of diplomacy. She wants State to lead the reshaping of America's role in the world. She describes this as "transformational diplomacy," not just accepting the world as it is, but trying to change it. Rice's ambition is not just to be a gardener -- she wants to be a landscape architect.

Judged by her first months in office, Rice just might succeed. She has received a surprisingly warm welcome from the State Department professionals who were sad to see Colin Powell go and were fearful about what might come next. She has surrounded herself with a team of skilled bureaucratic players, including one of President Bush's closest advisers, Karen Hughes. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have praised her choices for key diplomatic posts. Inside the bureaucracy, excitement has shifted away from the White House and Defense Department and toward the State Department; after four years of beleaguered isolation, State's now a place where people want to go because that's where they believe the action is. And on Rice's recent whirlwind trips through Europe and Asia, she got rave reviews for her diplomatic skill -- as well as her fashion sense -- from some very tough audiences.

Part of her early success can be attributed to the usual honeymoon that every secretary of state enjoys -- especially those who had some degree of celebrity before moving to Foggy Bottom. Powell also rode into office on a tremendous wave of attention, excitement and glowing press. But as soon as he tried to assert himself, he proved out of step with his president and ineffective at fighting internal struggles. By this point four years ago, Powell's honeymoon had been shattered, as he found himself in public disagreement with Bush about whether the United States should engage North Korea in talks. (He favored doing so; Bush did not.) In many ways, he never recovered, leaving a legacy of dashed expectations.

Can the "Dream Team" Reform its UN Mascot? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Well, it sure isn't a foreign policy team that looks like America... but you're right, Derek, that's a fine bunch of diplomats who've proved their chops under Republicans and Democrats, good policies and bad.

I had a lot of respect for Colin Powell, Richard Armitage and Marc Grossman too, though, which brings up a point -- this ain't about personalities.  That's why I wonder whether the John-Bolton-has-three-heads strategy is really the right one.

From outside the Beltway, it looks like more politics-as-usual and personal attacks.  And it seems overwhelmingly likely to fail.  Progressives could have used the hearings as an occasion to get together around four or five big principles of how the US ought to be acting in the world -- ones that resonate with regular folks -- and then seek Bolton's pledge that he would act in accordance with them.

Those principles -- respect other nations' priorities if we want them to support ours; follow through on promises we make; live by the same rules we ask others to live by; etc. -- are ones that everybody gets, whether or not they are able to name all the members of the Security Council.  They are a critical tool in explaining why Bolton's views and actions are a hindrance to US foreign policy.  But they are bigger than he, or any nominee.  If the Administration doesn't yet understand that this is how things get done -- and stay done -- no dream team of senior staff is going to be able to help.  But if the Administration really did change its tune on the UN, Bolton's presence wouldn't be a problem... at least not for very long.   

When a Kennan Falls in the Forest Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I have been waiting in vain since the weekend for someone to explain why folks who are neither Sovietologists nor Cold War historians nor American diplomats should care about the passing of George Kennan. Looks like I’m going to have to do it myself.

Kennan represents two vanishing strands in US public service: a class of people who believed in, or aspired to, the noblesse oblige, allegedly disinterested service of the upper classes; and a political culture where individuals with ideas could – and did -- change the substance of US policy and the frame in which it was presented to the country.

Go back and look at Kennan’s "Long Telegram" and "X article"; they are profoundly intellectual documents, spelling out his assessment of a foreign culture, its abilities and aspirations, and how the US might respond. They are devoid of domestic political calculation; they are not written to appeal to this wing or that of an Administration. Kennan was to be greatly frustrated later, when he became head of the Policy Planning staff, that he could not cut through the politics that surrounded the Secretary and dominated his calculations.

‘Twas ever thus.

Yet Kennan’s observations were hugely influential not just at the moment they were made, but later, when the framework he put forward ultimately withstood the assaults of John Foster Dulles and his proposals to replace Kennan’s “containment” with “rollback.” One article published in Foreign Affairs actually set both the framing and content of US policy toward our primary adversary for decades to come. No polling, no message-testing, no national listening tours to build support.

Much as we all pant to publish in Foreign Affairs, when’s the last time something published there enjoyed this kind of influence? Remember when Francis Fukuyama tried to pull something like it off at the Cold War’s end?

It’s not merely that Kennan was both brilliant in his thinking and lucky in his timing. Any one person’s ability to bestride the foreign affairs establishment is gone because that tiny, narrow elite establishment has been replaced, for better and worse, by … well, by us.

The old-style culture of public service, particularly in foreign policy, as the proper preserve of the wealthy and educated, filtered through just a few universities, banks and law firms, did spit up some tremendous minds, Kennan among them. But it disdained the minds of women, ethnic and religious minorities, state university graduates, and those of limited means. It encouraged America’s diplomats to think that their calling was higher than mere politics, though it involved understanding and manipulating the politics of others. And it encouraged American citizens to pay only the broadest attention to what their leaders did abroad in their name.

In the years after Vietnam, the diversification of elite education, the women's movement, and ethnic consciousness-raising caught up with those assumptions and the foreign policy elite that had encouraged them.

But the collapse of trust in public service, heightened partisanship over foreign policy, and the overwhelming flow of data we live with now also conspire to drown out a single voice speaking truth. If there is a George Kennan for militant Islam, say, could we remember the broader national interest long enough to listen?

How much has our culture, and the kinds of messages we expect from our leaders, changed since 1947? Look at the conclusion of the “X article.” Would any Secretary of State, or even any political figure, dare tell us this now?

The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

Surely, there was never a fairer test of national quality than this. In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will find no cause for complaint in the Kremlin's challenge to American society. He will rather experience a certain gratitude to a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.

Deja vu, or Vuja De? Posted by Derek Chollet

A good reminder, Heather.  We agree that a key question is how Rice will handle the inevitable end of the romance and that rather than Deja Vu we experience -- to borrow a line from the profound movie "Top Secret!"-- Vuja De, the sense that this has never happened before.  You are also right that she has to stand for something -- which is what many both inside and outside the State Department believed that, for all his talents, Powell never did.   

I guess what makes her so interesting to me is that unlike most other Secretaries of State (including one you mention), she starts out not just with hoopla about who she is and what she symbolizes but with a very close relationship with the President, and she has many people around her (namely Karen Hughes, but there are others) who have same sort of credibility and influence over at the White House and even across the river.  This is an obvious point to make (but often easy to forget), and it does not help to answer the most important question: how she will use her unique position to shape policy.      

Honeymoon Rice: Deja vu all over again Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Derek, re your Rice post, I know you remember 1997 at the State Department.  As I watch Rice, though, I keep wondering whether she and her handlers remember not just 1997, but 1998, 1999 and 2000.

In 1997, of course, Madeleine Albright became Secretary of State.  The first woman secretary... the American dream come true for a little immigrant girl, whose own story exemplified the triumph of freedom over tyranny... who worked the media, wooed the Europeans and wowed the Washington political dinner-theater circuit.

Bumperstickers proclaiming "Albright for President" -- even circulated, though not specifying whether of the US or the Czech Republic.  (She's ineligible here until the Arnold Schwarzenegger Amendment passes.  When it does, Albright-Granholm would be a heckuva primary... but I digress.)

Fan mail, adoring crowds, Annie Liebowitz photoshoots in Vogue...

Sound familiar?  Hey, whaddya know, you can be a diplomat and have a personality.  Interesting how this sort of trajectory never seems to happen to, say, the Secretary of Agriculture.

It couldn't last, of course.  The staff thought we knew that.  But when you get to thinking that your boss deserves the good press, before you know it, you're unprepared for the bad.  And Albright took a drubbing that was as unreasonable as her initial honeymoon was idealized. 

It will be interesting to see whether Rice's people are better prepared for this, and whether she herself is thick-skinned enough to handle the idols-with-feet-of-clay stories that are inevitable.  I have my doubts, but hey, prove me wrong.

Derek, your larger question can be boiled down to, does she have an agenda and if so, what is it?  It seems a safe bet to say that she is where she is because of her fealty to Bush's second-term agenda.  Jim Hoagland laid this out last weekend about as well as anything I have seen.  Can she turn the corners of this unilateralist-in-all-but-name agenda into a circle that maintains America's strongest asset, its leadership of great alliances and institutions for great purposes?  Can she, working with Karen Hughes but starting from what she herself says and does, use not just image but also policy to arrest the slide of America's standing in the world?  And, by the way, can she reassert State's policy prerogatives to complement the work Albright and Powell did resuscitating its funding?

I suppose we had better wish her luck.