Tribune 6 July
Ian Williams
If John Bolton attacked Satan, it would certainly boost the Prince of Darkness's credibility with most of the rational world. So it is no bad thing that the blowhard reactionary, who has moved from being the unconfirmed US Ambassador at the UN to being the confirmed and plentifully paid pundit of choice for Fox News, has attacked Gordon Brown's appointment of Mark Malloch Brown as a foreign office minister.
Rupert's other mouthpiece, the Times, has been at it too, broadcasting Bolton's frothings against both Browns without reminding its readers that the ex-envoy is simultaneously attacking Condoleezza Rice and the Bush administration for their alleged reluctance to invade Iran immediately. The Times darkly warns of Bush administration angst at the "mixed signals" that the Prime Minister is sending with his appointments. Of course, anything more complex than nailing a white flag to the pole counts as a mixed signal in the Murdoch-Bolton alternate universe.
In fact, Bolton's attack on both Browns and the State Department raises hope that sanity is contagious and may be spreading to both sides of the Atlantic – it's almost enough to revive hopes for the "special relationship."
With Bush's popularity dropping lower and lower, in both the US and the UK, it is of course very astute of the Prime Minister to put down the markers he has. His appointments of Malloch Brown, John Denham, and David Milliband all radiate strong signals of foreign policy rationality from No 10.
None of these people could remotely be construed as anti-American, but they have certainly disagreed with some aspects of recent American foreign policy. But then, so do most Americans. Malloch Brown in particular came into the UN as an archetypal champion of genuine values of the kind that some in the West are trying to trademark, but he was firm in not surrendering them under the current administration's pressure.
Even so, both Browns, and the rest of the cabinet still have to cope with relations with the USA. Anyone with an historical eye can, of course, see the end of the American Empire, the far-flung battle lines, the sinking fires on the dunes and headlands and all that. In fact, when Kipling foresaw the end of Empire, London was still the world's creditor. In contrast Washington is currently the world's biggest debtor.
But from decline to fall still implies long historical presence. It will be a long time before the Chinese Seventh Fleet steams up the Channel to challenge us directly, while the USA will loom large in the foreign policy of both Europe and the UK for as long as anyone currently in the cabinet is around.
Albeit with less urgency since the end of the Cold War, any British government still has good reasons to maintain friendly relations with Washington, and historically Labour ones even more so. But the purpose of that is to have some leverage on policy, as Tony Blair totally failed to do, and indeed, according to those close at hand, did not even try to do.
It is not a new dilemma. Harold Wilson's tightrope walking to keep the UK in with Washington but out of Vietnam was a virtuoso performance for which the former Prime Minister has not had sufficient credit from his leftist detractors, who, I regret, included myself at the time. Wilson's refusal to capitulate to the very heavy pressure from President Johnson for even the most token British participation in the war demonstrates the residual power that Britain had, and may even still have. LBJ wanted it as a token of international respectability.
In the even more isolated position that George W. Bush's White House found itself in, it is reasonable to doubt whether the disastrous invasion of Iraq could have gone ahead if Tony had imposed conditions.
Similarly, while failing to exercise influence in the White House, recent British behaviour has contributed to the failure of an independent European foreign policy. To be honest, EU foreign policy failed at its first challenge in the Balkans. For a long time, the best argument against a UN Security Council seat for the EU was that it would post a permanent abstention in the face of indecision. But for a time, when most of Europe was social-democratic in outlook there were the beginnings of a common outlook, not totally disrupted by New Labour's love affair with Clinton.
When fickle Albion's affections went to Bush, the British government soon lived down to the reputation that Charles de Gaulle gave it of being an American Trojan Horse in Europe, an even bigger argument against a European Security Council seat was that it would vote perpetually with Washington. Despite the snub to our European partners implied by over-attention to the US, Britain does indeed have influence there. Blair was instrumental in switching a consensus towards uncritical acceptance of the Bush-Cheney eschatological visions of the so-called "War on Terror."
A constructive engagement with EU countries need not reduce leverage in Washington – rather it redoubles it. Similarly, if a UK policy returns to a commitment to development and multilateralism unmitigated by pandering to NeoCons, its influence in the rest of the world will increase, and be reflected in its voice in the USA.
Doormats have uses, but do not have much in the way of influence. The new cabinet seems to reflect that insight.
Showing posts with label Bolton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bolton. Show all posts
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Monday, July 02, 2007
Love Americans Loathe America - full text
Love Americans, loathe America
Join the somewhat immoderate debate in Comment-is-Free
John Bolton's attack on the US state department, the same week as the Pew poll on global attitudes, raises questions about American diplomacy: is it an oxymoron?
Ian Williams
July 1, 2007 5:00 PM
This week former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton lamented to the Jerusalem Post
that the Bush administration's foreign policy today was "not the same" because of what he complained was the state department's overwhelming dominance.
"The state department has adopted the European view and other voices have been sidelined," he moaned, complaining that the US is not currently pushing the military option against Iran. Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy," presumably discounting his chances of another recess appointment in American diplomacy.
Former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali once noted that neither the Roman Empire nor the US had any patience for diplomacy, which is "perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and a sign of weakness." However, as the Parthians, Goths, Huns and Vandals, were to show, not paying attention to the lesser breeds without the law can have penalties.
"American diplomacy" has often seemed liked an oxymoron, and no more so than when conducted by Bolton. Despite the professionalism of the state department (apart from occasional understandable lapses like when political appointees there rewarded Slovenia instead of Slovakia for joining the "coalition of the willing," in Iraq, American foreign policy is too often contrived by lobbyists and interest groups. Who would guess from watching Fox News or listening to GOP legislators that even after several years of swift-boating Kofi Annan, more Americans (48%) have a positive view of the UN (39%) than oppose it. Incidentally, that makes the UN more popular with Americans than George W. Bush - and, by extension, than John Bolton.
There are signs that the global public can be quite sophisticated. The Pew Poll this week showed that people across the world in 47 countries can distinguish between Americans and their country's foreign policy. It reported that "favorable ratings of America are lower in 26 of 33 countries for which trends are available."
But the pollsters report that while only 30% of Germans have a positive view of the US, 63% have a favorable opinion of its citizens. And while only slim majorities in Canada and Great Britain express a favorable opinion of the US, views of Americans as individuals are overwhelmingly positive. In the Middle East for obvious reasons, the US is widely distrusted and even while the locals support US calls for democracy, most people surveyed across the world assume that the US only supports democracy when it is expedient for its national interests.
Part of an effective diplomacy is "see ourselves as others see us," and that is something missing from how American foreign policy is formulated. In fact, looking at how badly and parochially US broadcast media covers foreign affairs, it's remarkable that the public is as sophisticated as it is. (One of the bemusing results is that while 42% of Israelis say that America is too supportive of their country, only 27% of Americans see their country's foreign policy biased toward Israel.)
For politicians in congress, foreign policy is like academic politics, the stakes are so low that anyone can play, with no significant penalty. As long as they do not cross any of the significant lobbies, whether Israel or Cuba, they can sign on for silly resolutions, sign up for boycotts and sanctions, confident that most of the public do not know what they are up to.
Almost as bad is the White House, and the Pentagon which it has stacked with conservative clones who share the same faith-based view of the world. The world's public, including Americans but presumably excluding the cheering Albanians, have a perceptively negative view of Bush's foreign policy.
That leaves the state department, whose professionals, when left to their own devices, often try to temper the excesses of Capitol Hill and the White House. If Bolton is right, it is a heartening change for the US and the world - and not just about Iran. Shame it is too late for Iraq.
Join the somewhat immoderate debate in Comment-is-Free
John Bolton's attack on the US state department, the same week as the Pew poll on global attitudes, raises questions about American diplomacy: is it an oxymoron?
Ian Williams
July 1, 2007 5:00 PM
This week former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton lamented to the Jerusalem Post
that the Bush administration's foreign policy today was "not the same" because of what he complained was the state department's overwhelming dominance.
"The state department has adopted the European view and other voices have been sidelined," he moaned, complaining that the US is not currently pushing the military option against Iran. Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy," presumably discounting his chances of another recess appointment in American diplomacy.
Former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali once noted that neither the Roman Empire nor the US had any patience for diplomacy, which is "perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and a sign of weakness." However, as the Parthians, Goths, Huns and Vandals, were to show, not paying attention to the lesser breeds without the law can have penalties.
"American diplomacy" has often seemed liked an oxymoron, and no more so than when conducted by Bolton. Despite the professionalism of the state department (apart from occasional understandable lapses like when political appointees there rewarded Slovenia instead of Slovakia for joining the "coalition of the willing," in Iraq, American foreign policy is too often contrived by lobbyists and interest groups. Who would guess from watching Fox News or listening to GOP legislators that even after several years of swift-boating Kofi Annan, more Americans (48%) have a positive view of the UN (39%) than oppose it. Incidentally, that makes the UN more popular with Americans than George W. Bush - and, by extension, than John Bolton.
There are signs that the global public can be quite sophisticated. The Pew Poll this week showed that people across the world in 47 countries can distinguish between Americans and their country's foreign policy. It reported that "favorable ratings of America are lower in 26 of 33 countries for which trends are available."
But the pollsters report that while only 30% of Germans have a positive view of the US, 63% have a favorable opinion of its citizens. And while only slim majorities in Canada and Great Britain express a favorable opinion of the US, views of Americans as individuals are overwhelmingly positive. In the Middle East for obvious reasons, the US is widely distrusted and even while the locals support US calls for democracy, most people surveyed across the world assume that the US only supports democracy when it is expedient for its national interests.
Part of an effective diplomacy is "see ourselves as others see us," and that is something missing from how American foreign policy is formulated. In fact, looking at how badly and parochially US broadcast media covers foreign affairs, it's remarkable that the public is as sophisticated as it is. (One of the bemusing results is that while 42% of Israelis say that America is too supportive of their country, only 27% of Americans see their country's foreign policy biased toward Israel.)
For politicians in congress, foreign policy is like academic politics, the stakes are so low that anyone can play, with no significant penalty. As long as they do not cross any of the significant lobbies, whether Israel or Cuba, they can sign on for silly resolutions, sign up for boycotts and sanctions, confident that most of the public do not know what they are up to.
Almost as bad is the White House, and the Pentagon which it has stacked with conservative clones who share the same faith-based view of the world. The world's public, including Americans but presumably excluding the cheering Albanians, have a perceptively negative view of Bush's foreign policy.
That leaves the state department, whose professionals, when left to their own devices, often try to temper the excesses of Capitol Hill and the White House. If Bolton is right, it is a heartening change for the US and the world - and not just about Iran. Shame it is too late for Iraq.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sphinxes - Korean and Egyptian sub-species.
Many people at the UN have a feeling of deja vue since Ban Ki-Moon came to town. They see a resemblance to the early days of Boutros Boutros Ghali. There are indeed similarities: the most notable being that both came from outside the house with little visible concern for how things were done in the past.
One major difference is that Boutros Ghali assumed that the UN was a simulacrum of the Egyptian foreign ministry – and that this was a bad thing, to be dealt with by "stealth and sudden violence." Not only did he not bring many Egyptians with him, those already in the house were soon disappointed with his lack of attention to them.
In Ban's case, the opposite is true. He appreciated the ROK so much that he seems to have brought a lot of it with him, and put them in positions of influence in the organization. Readers of Catch 22 may remember that it was Ex Private First Class Wintergreen in the office who actually made the decisions on the Western Front in World War II, not the titular commanding officers. UN insiders get the distinct impression that behind every successfully appointed dignitary stands an influential Korean.
This is not necessarily a totally bad thing to begin with. The ROK's foreign policy has been, under the country's precarious circumstances, not a bad one. However, there are perils in running a ship without listening to the experienced members of the crew.
When reinventing wheels it is always best if you can avoid previously mapped potholes.
Only last week at a staff meeting, one impertinent member innocently asked Chef de Cabinet Vijay Nambiar if the new proposals to split Peacekeeping had been run by the Special Representatives who actually have to run Peacekeeping Operations on the Ground. They had not – even if Nambiar smartly accepted it as a good idea.
As we have said before, the new administration does not seem to have developed a rapport with anyone outside their own inner circle. I do not know if Korea has a form of Sumo wrestling, where the two proponents strain and grunt locked immobile to each other until one suddenly gives way. But that is what watching the new team on the 38th floor is like. You know there is a conflict: you know the proponents. But there is no progress until suddenly a proposal pops out the ring into the public view.
But it also seems certain that what we are seeing is the wreckage of pay-off to the Americans. In return for appointing B. Lynn Pascoe (the "urton" is seemingly silent) to head the Department of Political Affairs, the not so invisible hand of NAM has ensured that peacekeeping did not go under the American's direct grip – and the promise to dismember the Department of Disarmament affairs – which has John Bolton's bloody fingerprints all over it- may be transmuted into something that is indeed more effective. After all, he and the US have been the biggest obstacle to enhancing multilateral non-proliferation instruments for some years now.
The proposal to split peacekeeping into a political and logistics side is not the end of the world, and it is even true, as Ban now says, that making a High Representative for Disarmament could give a higher profile to the issue than keeping it as a Department.
It is even true that some of the concern of some of the Non Aligned Envoys is less for the efficiency of the organization than for the potential employment prospects when they retire from their own national diplomatic circles.
But if, as we hope, Ban is wrestling with the Bush administration behind the scenes, it can't be a bad thing if the Nonaligned, and maybe even the Europeans, Russians and Chinese begin to put their shoulders in. As a former union negotiator, I can assure Ban, the best position to be in is to cite popular pressure behind his resistance to overweening Washington.
But if he wants some supportive popular pressure, then he had better begin ensuring that the populace, the staff, the General Assembly, the press and public are more aware of what he wants, and why. At present, those sent out to do the explaining, do not seem have had explanations themselves.
Boutros Ghali learned quite quickly. Let's hope Ban does too.
One major difference is that Boutros Ghali assumed that the UN was a simulacrum of the Egyptian foreign ministry – and that this was a bad thing, to be dealt with by "stealth and sudden violence." Not only did he not bring many Egyptians with him, those already in the house were soon disappointed with his lack of attention to them.
In Ban's case, the opposite is true. He appreciated the ROK so much that he seems to have brought a lot of it with him, and put them in positions of influence in the organization. Readers of Catch 22 may remember that it was Ex Private First Class Wintergreen in the office who actually made the decisions on the Western Front in World War II, not the titular commanding officers. UN insiders get the distinct impression that behind every successfully appointed dignitary stands an influential Korean.
This is not necessarily a totally bad thing to begin with. The ROK's foreign policy has been, under the country's precarious circumstances, not a bad one. However, there are perils in running a ship without listening to the experienced members of the crew.
When reinventing wheels it is always best if you can avoid previously mapped potholes.
Only last week at a staff meeting, one impertinent member innocently asked Chef de Cabinet Vijay Nambiar if the new proposals to split Peacekeeping had been run by the Special Representatives who actually have to run Peacekeeping Operations on the Ground. They had not – even if Nambiar smartly accepted it as a good idea.
As we have said before, the new administration does not seem to have developed a rapport with anyone outside their own inner circle. I do not know if Korea has a form of Sumo wrestling, where the two proponents strain and grunt locked immobile to each other until one suddenly gives way. But that is what watching the new team on the 38th floor is like. You know there is a conflict: you know the proponents. But there is no progress until suddenly a proposal pops out the ring into the public view.
But it also seems certain that what we are seeing is the wreckage of pay-off to the Americans. In return for appointing B. Lynn Pascoe (the "urton" is seemingly silent) to head the Department of Political Affairs, the not so invisible hand of NAM has ensured that peacekeeping did not go under the American's direct grip – and the promise to dismember the Department of Disarmament affairs – which has John Bolton's bloody fingerprints all over it- may be transmuted into something that is indeed more effective. After all, he and the US have been the biggest obstacle to enhancing multilateral non-proliferation instruments for some years now.
The proposal to split peacekeeping into a political and logistics side is not the end of the world, and it is even true, as Ban now says, that making a High Representative for Disarmament could give a higher profile to the issue than keeping it as a Department.
It is even true that some of the concern of some of the Non Aligned Envoys is less for the efficiency of the organization than for the potential employment prospects when they retire from their own national diplomatic circles.
But if, as we hope, Ban is wrestling with the Bush administration behind the scenes, it can't be a bad thing if the Nonaligned, and maybe even the Europeans, Russians and Chinese begin to put their shoulders in. As a former union negotiator, I can assure Ban, the best position to be in is to cite popular pressure behind his resistance to overweening Washington.
But if he wants some supportive popular pressure, then he had better begin ensuring that the populace, the staff, the General Assembly, the press and public are more aware of what he wants, and why. At present, those sent out to do the explaining, do not seem have had explanations themselves.
Boutros Ghali learned quite quickly. Let's hope Ban does too.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
An old Asia hand to the UN
By Ian Williams
Some of the article covers material that I've already posted. Click for the full article, or just read below for the update.
Asia Times
NEW YORK - Seemingly substantial rumors are sweeping Washington and the UN that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, at President George W Bush's suggestion, is about to appoint Burton Lynn Pascoe, currently US ambassador to Indonesia, as head of the UN's Department of Political Affairs.
At least it won't be former ambassador John Bolton, and at least Pascoe is a foreign service professional deeply aware of the rest of the world. A three-year spell in Taiwan and a knowledge of Mandarin, time in Central Asia and China and you begin to see why Ban could feel he could appoint such a nominee.
Indeed, one cannot help speculating how much toing and froing there was before the White House came up with a candidate so unusually experienced and knowledgeable by this administration's (or indeed others') standards and whose Asian experience would make him acceptable to Ban.
Even so, it does not augur well for the United Nations or the United States to have any American identified with the current White House (or for that matter any previous administration's) heading such a crucial department, especially as one of the leading neo-cons, ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, has been nominated to replace Bolton.
………
Pascoe is too sophisticated to thank Bush publicly for his appointment, as did Christopher Burnham, the previous under secretary general for management. But one cannot help thinking that he will keep his fingers crossed when he takes the international civil servant's oath.
……..
However, it is still early days. Ban's "mis-speaking" on the UN's attitude to the death penalty over Saddam Hussein's execution was a rite of passage in which he had not yet shed his mental position as South Korea's representative. However, he has a considerably better chance of transitioning into a genuine international civil servant than Pascoe.
By Ian Williams
Some of the article covers material that I've already posted. Click for the full article, or just read below for the update.
Asia Times
NEW YORK - Seemingly substantial rumors are sweeping Washington and the UN that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, at President George W Bush's suggestion, is about to appoint Burton Lynn Pascoe, currently US ambassador to Indonesia, as head of the UN's Department of Political Affairs.
At least it won't be former ambassador John Bolton, and at least Pascoe is a foreign service professional deeply aware of the rest of the world. A three-year spell in Taiwan and a knowledge of Mandarin, time in Central Asia and China and you begin to see why Ban could feel he could appoint such a nominee.
Indeed, one cannot help speculating how much toing and froing there was before the White House came up with a candidate so unusually experienced and knowledgeable by this administration's (or indeed others') standards and whose Asian experience would make him acceptable to Ban.
Even so, it does not augur well for the United Nations or the United States to have any American identified with the current White House (or for that matter any previous administration's) heading such a crucial department, especially as one of the leading neo-cons, ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, has been nominated to replace Bolton.
………
Pascoe is too sophisticated to thank Bush publicly for his appointment, as did Christopher Burnham, the previous under secretary general for management. But one cannot help thinking that he will keep his fingers crossed when he takes the international civil servant's oath.
……..
However, it is still early days. Ban's "mis-speaking" on the UN's attitude to the death penalty over Saddam Hussein's execution was a rite of passage in which he had not yet shed his mental position as South Korea's representative. However, he has a considerably better chance of transitioning into a genuine international civil servant than Pascoe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)