|
Diplomat
Peter Galbraith’s conversation about dividing Iraq http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/iraq_10-24.html LA Times’ Doyle McManus Pliable ‘Benchmarks’
Set for Iraq: “Rumsfeld says there is no plan
to curb militias, and that it’s up to Maliki” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-benchmarks27oct27,0,5826160.story?coll=la-home-world former NSA Zbig Brzenzenski’s analysis that the US was moving towards a “Blame and Run” policy, not a “cut and
run” policy for exiting Iraq. He also said Bush’s speech this week showed hope
of the “beginning of the end of the state of denial.” This
conversation included Walter Russell Mead, who largely concurred. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/iraq_10-25.html WaPost Thomas Ricks Bush’s Proposed
Benchmarks Sound Familiar: “The
text of President Bush's news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words,
but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say. The
president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq,
using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi
government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was
"hypothetical." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html Besides what you would expect from politicians during ‘campaign season’,
critical remarks from “formers”
Pres. Carter, Sec of State Baker, UN Ambassador Holbrooke, retired generals and
others (and even some inside the White House policy shop) the consensus is that
the ‘Tough Love’ of not talking to badly behaving nations hasn’t worked. Even
though Sec. Rice has defended the no talk policy with N Korea as ‘sharing the
burden of power’ with China and S. Korea, the administration’s unilateral diplomacy
has few friends and a proven track record of failure. We are not training puppies to be good dogs here, but diehard authoritarians
have inflexible thinking parameters that limits them. As the European diplomat in Washington said, “They’ve isolated Cuba for 40 years, and
you see how well that’s worked.” Dissent Grows Over
Silent Treatment of Axis of Evil Nations By Helene Cooper, International Herald Tribune (NYT) October 26, 2006 Ever since
President George W. Bush first
proclaimed there to be an "axis of evil" in 2002, pundits, diplomats
and politicians have urged him to talk to its members. But in the last few
weeks, with Iraq experiencing a further surge in violence, North Korea testing
a nuclear bomb and Iran continuing to defy a Security Council demand to stop
enriching uranium, the cries for dialogue have grown louder.
James Baker III, the Republican former secretary
of state, said this month that he believed "in talking to your
enemies." After North Korea tested its nuclear device earlier this month,
former President Jimmy Carter said
that "the stupidest thing that a government can do that has a real problem
with someone is to refuse to talk to them."
Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, said last
weekend that even at the peak of the cold war, "when there were nuclear
missiles pointing at every major U.S. city, there was a direct line between the
White House and the Kremlin."
The question arises:
Is any of this cutting ice with the administration?
Officially, the
administration is sticking to form. Bush said as much during a news conference
on Wednesday, when he was asked, again, whether he would be willing to work
with Iran and Syria if it was determined that they could help bring stability
to Iraq, their neighbor.
His reply did not
veer from the script, which basically withholds American dialogue with
"axis of evil" members until they change their ways. "Iran and
Syria understand full well that the world expects them to help Iraq," Bush
said.
He said that if the
Iranians stopped enriching uranium, American diplomats would talk to them. He also had a to-do list for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get into America's good
graces: "Do not undermine the Siniora government in Lebanon; help Israel
get back the prisoner that was captured by Hamas; don't allow Hamas and
Hezbollah to plot attacks against democracies in the Middle East; help inside
of Iraq."
But within the
administration, things are a little more nuanced, Bush officials said. One
administration official distilled the internal deliberations this way, "On
Syria, there's a very healthy debate about whether we should talk to them; on
Iran, there is no debate internally."
The American
officials who agreed to speak about the internal discussions are all involved
in that debate, with some opposed to any discussions with Iran, Syria and North
Korea, and others saying that such talks should be considered.
Among those inside
the administration who are urging more engagement with Damascus, most come from
the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau, including Assistant
Secretary C. David Welch, the
officials said.
But, surprisingly,
in recent months, the usually hawkish deputy national security adviser, J. D. Crouch, has been pushing for the
administration to talk directly to Syria, officials say. "His style with
the Syrians is that we need to be very strict with them," one senior administration official said.
"It's not a friendly 'Let's go for coffee.' More like, 'Let's directly
deliver a very strong message to them.' "
The administration
officials would not speak on the record because they did not want to be
identified when discussing internal deliberations.
The original "axis
of evil," as defined by Bush, comprises Iraq, North Korea and Iran. But
after the United States-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq was
replaced by Syria, given the 2005 assassination in Lebanon of Rafik Hariri, a
former Lebanese prime minister. American officials and some at the United
Nations have said Syria had a hand in the Hariri assassination. The Bush
administration and Israel have also accused Syria of supporting Hezbollah in
its raid into Israel this summer, an attack that set off a monthlong war.
Officially, the
United States has diplomatic relations with Damascus, where there is an
American embassy. But it is manned by a chargé d'affaires and not an
ambassador; Bush recalled the ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, after the Hariri assassination.
There is less
debate within the administration when it comes to Iran. Rice is believed to have pushed the White
House as far toward dialogue with Iran as it would go when she prodded Bush in
May to offer to join European talks with Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Rice herself has
offered to sit at the table with the Iranians, but she includes the usual
caveat: Iran must first verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program.
As for North Korea,
American officials continue to espouse the view that the United States, by
insisting on talking to North Korea only within the confines of a regional
group, can better share the burden of power.
Rice offered
reporters the diplomatic version of that argument last week. "There's this myth out there that we haven't been willing to talk to
the North Koreans," she said. "What we've been unwilling to do is to
negotiate bilaterally with the North Koreans, another agreement that they are
going to be free to disregard because it will only be with the United States
and not with states that frankly have more leverage than the United States,
like China and South Korea."
But the
administration will continue to take hits over not talking to its enemies until
it can demonstrably show that this strategy has had results, diplomats said.
Said one European diplomat in Washington: "They've isolated Cuba for 40 years, and
you see how well that's worked. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/world/27diplo.html |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
