Bush Isolated by Failure to Learn Father's Lesson
By Richard Beeston
Times UK
Wednesday 5 March 2003
A DECADE ago the first Bush Administration assembled the most
powerful military coalition in history, with 34 nations prepared to
contribute soldiers, funds and political muscle in the war to oust
President Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
Yesterday that formidable alliance seemed a distant memory as America,
after a series of spectacular bungles, struggled to keep its handful of
allies on board for the next war on Iraq.
The starkest difference between the preparations for the two
conflicts is the use of diplomacy, a key tool in ensuring ultimate
victory on the battlefield. Admittedly, the case for war against Iraq
was much stronger in 1991, Saddam having ordered his troops to invade
neighbouring Kuwait, but the elder President Bush had spent years
cultivating other world leaders. Through his personal diplomacy, and a
series of painstaking shuttle missions by members of his Administration,
countries as disparate as Argentina, the Soviet Union and most of the
Arab world signed up with Nato for a war that was won in a 100-hour
ground offensive.
By contrast, his son’s Administration finds itself isolated at the
head of what one Washington pundit described as the “coalition of the
unwilling”.
In the most recent setback, a memorandum by the US National
Security Agency, leaked to The Observer, revealed that American spies
were ordered to eavesdrop on the conversations of the six undecided
countries on the United Nations Security Council. The embarrassing
disclosure may come as no surprise to the nations concerned, but it is
unlikely to help America to win its argument or make any new friends.
The most striking failure of US diplomacy has been the debacle in
Turkey. For decades a staunch US ally, Turkey’s parliament on Saturday
rejected by three votes a motion to allow American forces to transit the
country and open a second front against Baghdad from northern Iraq.
It was a stunning reverse. The US had offered Turkey huge
financial inducements and a generous role in shaping a future Iraq.
Turkey needs US support for International Monetary Fund loans and
European Union membership. But Turkish deputies rejected America’s
advances in large part because of Washington’s overbearing attitude.
Much of the blame for the fiasco has focused on hawks in the
Administration, such as Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, Donald
Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy. They
are accused of needlessly antagonising potential allies, taking key
partners for granted and undermining their own case against Iraq.
After a visit to Ankara in December, Mr Wolfowitz claimed that
“Turkish support is assured” and the Administration assumed that it was
only a matter of time before the Turks gave their consent.
Richard Murphy, a former US diplomat in charge of Middle East
policy and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that signing up
Turkey should have been a relatively simple mission, which was bungled
by arrogance: “When we are right, people will follow. That encapsulates
the Rumsfeld policy. The conviction of the rightwingers is pretty
galling to the rest of the world.
“I would like to believe that they will learn from their mistakes,
but if they have they are hiding it beautifully.”
Even moderates such as Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, have
come under criticism for failing to make Washington’s case abroad. James
Baker, the Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration, made 39
visits in five big missions abroad to sign up allies and to make the
case for war. General Powell has made a handful of short foreign trips,
none recently to key capitals in Europe or the Middle East.
“The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible
at diplomacy,” Thomas Friedman, a columnist in The New York Times,
wrote. “Going to someone else’s country is a sign you respect his
opinion. This Bush team has done no such hands-on spade work. Its
members think diplomacy is a phone call.”
According to Whitehall sources, part of the problem is the
division within the Administration, particularly between the Pentagon
and the State Department, which makes clear foreign policy impossible to
achieve. “Powell is very able, but he does not dare leave Washington
because he fears what Rumsfeld and others might do in his absence,” one
source said.
The other hurdle is the lack of convincing US envoys capable of
making Washington’s case abroad. By default its public face often
appears to be Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and ultra-hawk.
The present Administration has very experienced foreign policy
veterans. But most are skilled in making policy and fighting their
battles inside Washington’s Beltway, rather than implementing it overseas.
One example was Mr Bush’s announcement last year that America was
adopting a policy of pre-emptive action, a radical departure in security
policy with implications around the globe. The strategy was announced
without warning and took Washington’s friends and foes alike by surprise.
One factor that could change attitudes in the White House is the
influence of George Bush Sr on his son. The former President is very
discreet about what advice he gives, but some of his former aides, such
as Brent Scowcroft, his former National Security Adviser, have spoken
out against the Administration’s approach to foreign policy.
What others are saying:
"I think that the French position, that there cannot be a
superpower that regiments the world's affairs without discussions with
the (UN), is understood around the world."
- Nicolas Sarkozy, French Interior Minister
"I did tell the President that we need a lot of Colin Powell and
very little of Rumsfeld."
- José María Aznar, Spanish Prime Minister
"The relationship is spoiled. The Americans dictated to us. It
became a business negotiation, not something between friends. It
disgusted me."
- Murat Mercan, Turkish ruling party MP, on US-Turkish diplomacy
before the recent vote
"The concern I have is that our single-minded and, unfortunately,
rather demagogic fixation on Iraq is undermining the credibility as well
as the legitimacy of US leadership."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to President Carter
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)
© Copyright 2002 by TruthOut.org
-- “There is no hope of finding the sources of free action in the lofty realms of the mind or in the depths of the brain. The idealist approach of the phenomenologists is as hopeless as the positive approach of the naturalists. To discover the sources of free action it is necessary to go outside the limits of the organism, not into the intimate sphere of the mind, but into the objective forms of social life; it is necessary to seek the sources of human consciousness and freedom in the social history of humanity. To find the soul it is necessary to lose it". A.R LuriaNate vygotsky@charter.net http://webpages.charter.net/schmolze1/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST